Dáil Éireann

Vol. 728 Tuesday, No. 6 29 March 2011

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Tuesday, 29 March 2011.

Ceisteanna—Questions Taoiseach ………………………………… 603 Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment Priority Questions …………………………… 614 Other Questions …………………………… 624 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 630 Leaders’ Questions ……………………………… 631 Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 32 ……………… 636 Order of Business ……………………………… 636 Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions: Motion ………………… 643 Moriarty Tribunal Report: Statements ……………………… 643 Private Members’ Business Universal Social Charge: Motion ………………………… 681 Adjournment Debate School Transport ……………………………… 702 Arts Funding ……………………………… 705 Care of the Elderly …………………………… 707 Hospital Services ……………………………… 709 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 711 DÁIL ÉIREANN

————

Dé Máirt, 29 Márta 2011. Tuesday, 29 March 2011.

————

Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m.

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Ceisteanna — Questions

————

European Council Meetings 1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation the Euro- pean Council meeting of 24/25 March 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5738/11]

2. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent EU Summit [5798/11]

3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his intended bilateral visits during 2011 [5814/11]

4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of discussions at the EU Summit of 24 and 25 March 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5912/11]

5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans to undertake during 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5913/11]

Taoiseach (Deputy Enda Kenny): I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together. Last week’s meeting of the European Council discussed two major international issues, Libya and Japan. On Libya, we endorsed UN Resolution 1973, which authorised actions to protect civilians. We reiterated our call on Colonel Gadaffi to step down immediately. The European Union has already moved swiftly to implement sanctions and we stand ready to adopt further measures to ensure that the Gadaffi regime does not benefit from oil and gas revenues. The humanitarian situation, both within Libya and on its borders, remains a source of serious concern. The European Union will continue to provide assistance to all those affected, working closely with the UN and NGOs. On Japan, we said again that the European Union will support Japan as it strives to overcome the immense challenges it faces after the earthquake and tsunami. We stand ready to provide further support at Japan’s request. There are lessons to be learned from what has happened, 603 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Enda Kenny.] including in the area of nuclear safety, and the Council has asked for the safety of nuclear plants to be reviewed through a full and transparent risk and safety assessment. The Council also decided a comprehensive package of economic measures. We agreed arrangements to improve the operation of the current financial stability facility, from which Ireland is receiving assistance, as well as the features of the permanent mechanism which will replace it in 2013. We also finalised agreement on the change to the treaties needed to place the mechanism on a firm and legal footing. We pressed forward with the implementation of the new European semester under which member states will submit programmes, covering budgetary plans and structural reforms, in April. We endorsed the agreement on the six legislative proposals on budgetary and macro-economic surveillance and look forward to their adop- tion in June. We concluded the Euro Plus Pact, as adopted by the Heads of the euro area on 11 March and welcomed a further six non-euro member states that decided to join it. Participating member states will present their commitments under the pact in their reform programmes next month. The Council underlined the importance of the European banking stress tests and agreed that member states will have ambitious strategies in place to deal with any consequences prior to publication of the results. We also heard from Prime Minister Socrates on recent developments in Portugal. With regard to issues of particular concern to Ireland, my European Council colleagues agreed with my view that it makes sense to come back to these when the results of our banking stress tests are known. I suggested that Ministers for Finance be asked to take this work forward and this approach was agreed. We want to move forward swiftly once the position is clear and will remain in close contact with European partners, both in capitals and institutions, as the work progresses. On bilateral or foreign visits, I have not yet finalised travel plans for the year ahead.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Bhí mé ag éisteacht leat, a Thaoisigh, agus ba chóir don Taoiseach seasamh suas ar son phobal na h-Éireann ag an gcruinniú sin. Dúirt sé sa chlár Rialtais gur lorg sé agus go bhfuair sé sain-ordú láidir margadh nua a dhéanamh. I am very disappointed that the Taoiseach did not take the opportunity at the summit to raise the crisis pressing down on the people of this State, that he agreed to that issue not being discussed and being taken off the agenda. He told the Dáil and the Irish people that this debt was “grossly unfair——

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sorry Deputy, but we cannot have statements during Question Time. Will you please put questions to the Taoiseach?

Deputy Gerry Adams: Maith go leor a Cheann Comhairle. Go raibh maith agat arís. Why did the Taoiseach not argue, as he did here, that it was grossly unfair to expect Ireland to fork out 100%?

Taoiseach (Deputy Enda Kenny): Tá mé buíoch don Teachta Adams as ucht an cheist a chur seo orm. Bhí mé ag seasamh suas ar son mhuintir na h-Éireann. I did not actually agree that the issue should be taken off the agenda. In fact, I proposed that it be taken off the agenda. I agreed that with President Van Rompuy the day before because I wanted to be clear that we would be in a much better position to do any negotiations about either an interest rate reduction or adjustments to the programme under the IMF and EU package once the extent of the banking stress tests is known here in Ireland. It was not a case of agreeing, but rather a case of proposing and achieving agreement. The decision of the Heads of Government was that as there will not be a full Council meeting again until June, it would not be appropriate 604 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions that the Ministers for Finance should take the next step until we were clear after next Thursday about the scale and extent of the stress tests.

Deputy Gerry Adams: There will be an interest rate reduction. I said that last week. The reality is that the Taoiseach has accepted the IMF-EU deal. He has also accepted the austerity measures that go with it. This includes the very oppressive universal social charge. He also agreed to a pact for the euro at the summit, but did not think to bring it back here to allow the people of this State to decide it in a referendum. Why not?

Taoiseach (Deputy Enda Kenny): The interest rate reduction was agreed at the eurozone meeting in Helsinki in respect of countries that are in the EFSF package. That interest rate reduction was extended to Greece, which is not in the EFSF package. The agreement reached in Helsinki by the eurozone leaders was that countries within the EFSF could have their interest rates reduced. Conditionalities for the interest rate reduction were applied to Ireland, but I was not prepared to accept them. The euro pact is outside the treaties and our political discussions about how to strengthen the euro dealt with qualifications across, competitiveness, dealing with pension problems and so on. From that point of view, there was a general consensus about the “euro plus pact” and countries outside the eurozone were invited to join it on a voluntary basis. Some of them did so. I already mentioned this on the report before the European Council meeting. We will continue with the tradition that applied heretofore of reporting to the House on the consequences and the aftermath of each European Council meeting. The Deputy will appreciate that I have committed myself to coming to the House in advance of such meetings, which is a break with tradition, to allow all Deputies to have their say about European issues of interest to them.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Taoiseach, you say a break. We are broke. You need to tell the European Union that.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: That is a great help.

The Taoiseach: It is a difficult legacy to have to deal with.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Of course the question of the Shylock-like rate at which our so-called partners in solidarity have fixed the interest rates is a massive one. Is it not true that the critical issue is the tens of billions of euro in bad gambling debts that the European banks placed with Irish banks, speculators and developers? If the next meeting of EU leaders is not until June, why did the Taoiseach not insist on raising as a critical issue the need for those bond holders to take their losses? Was it not reckless or negligent in every way for him to hand something over to the finance Ministers which they, in turn, will probably lob to the next leaders’ meeting in June? Why did the Taoiseach propose this would not be discussed? Was it because his colleagues in the European People’s Party asked him not to raise the issue so that Chancellor Merkel would not be embarrassed in front of that element of the right-wing constituency on which she depends in Germany?

An Ceann Comhairle: Can I ask the Deputy not to answer his own questions?

Deputy Joe Higgins: As we generally do not get answers, the only recourse we have is to answer our own questions.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let us keep trying. 605 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: What was it the Deputy once said about playing handball?

Deputy Joe Higgins: I would like to make a final point. Is it credible to suggest that the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank hammered out a massive deal with the Government, in the process hammering the living standards of our people, without knowing the extent of the disaster in the Irish banks? Is it credible to say we have to wait until next Thursday for some marvellous revelations?

The Taoiseach: I had thought that because the Deputy was away in Europe for too long, he was not as accurate in his assessments as he used to be when he was in a different corner of this Chamber.

Deputy Finian McGrath: He is back.

The Taoiseach: In any event, my approach was neither negligent nor reckless. The Deputy, of all people, should know that one cannot attempt to buy a house unless one knows the price of it and what one has in one’s own account. In the same way, I considered it was appropriate that we should not discuss at length the question of an interest rate reduction, or any adjustment to the IMF-EU package, without knowing the extent of the liability following the stress tests. We do not want to continue in a monthly sea of confusion about where we stand. There was general agreement among the heads of government that be the case. Following my proposal that the matter should not be discussed, there was agreement that the next meeting of the finance Ministers will take it forward after we ascertain the level of liability. The Deputy is aware that long before the recent general election, I made the point that I considered that the IMF-EU deal, which was done with Ireland as a sovereign country, needed to be adjusted in terms of the interest rates and the cost of the banking structure. Clearly, I do not disagree with the Deputy’s comment about reckless banking practices. That is why a number of serious investigations are ongoing.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Does the Taoiseach accept that the Fianna Fáil Government agreed this onerous agreement with the EU and the IMF without the EU, the IMF or that Government knowing the extent of the disaster of the debt crisis in the banks?

The Taoiseach: The previous Government did a deal after denying the IMF was already here making assessments on our liabilities and economic position and that deal was voted on in the House. In my view, as I stated prior to the election and as other Members of the Government have pointed out, this was not a good deal for Ireland. That is why efforts have to be made to restructure the deal so that we are in a position where we can pay our way but at the same time grow our economy, create jobs and provide career opportunities for thousands of people.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach agree that in essence the problem has been the failure of European leaders to deal comprehensively and substantively with the euro issue? All of their steps have been too little, too late from the onset of the Greek problem to the present. What essentially happened last week was that the electoral considerations in certain member states took precedence over the objective needs of the European Union and, in particular, the eurozone. I flagged that issue last week as one of the central factors that have in many ways hindered or obstructed a fundamental and comprehensive resolution of this problem. A fortnight after the previous summit, a well-placed German source indicated there had been no talks between Berlin and Dublin since the last summit. That source stated: “Talking is the only tool we have at our disposal, but if someone doesn’t make use of this tool we can’t get anywhere...With no concrete ideas, there are so many rumours coming out of Dublin at 606 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions this stage that I [we] have had to stop.” That suggests to me a worrying lack of engagement on the substantive issues. We have had a lot of spin and I put it to the Taoiseach this suggests a lack of substantive engagement between Dublin and Berlin in the lead up to the summit. In its banking document, Fine Gael promised — credit where credit is due — that it would take unilateral action to force losses on bondholders. I stress the words “unilateral action”. Did the Taoiseach raise the issue of unilateral burden sharing with his EU colleagues at last week’s summit? I am somewhat surprised there are no plans for bilateral visits. Given the gravity of the situation and the importance of the issue, a quick tour of capitals across the European Union, and eurozone countries in particular, would be worthwhile in the period between now and June in terms of advancing some of these issues and giving a more detailed account of our perspective on a variety of issues that are encompassed by the economic situation.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Does the Deputy recall he was Minister for Foreign Affairs last November and December?

The Taoiseach: The Deputy’s first and last questions are related. It is fair to say that serious self-analysis is ongoing within a number of countries in Europe. The Greek Government is experiencing severe economic difficulties and, as the Deputy is aware, the Portuguese Govern- ment has fallen. There is a new trend in many countries that diverges seriously from what obtained heretofore. The CDU lost in Baden-Wu¨ rttemberg for the first time in 60 years, a loss which was exacerbated by the increase in support for the Greens arising from the nuclear reactor difficulties in Japan. There are no towering political figures on the European stage in the way that people used to consider there were before. I spoke to all the leaders on a number of occasions around the table over the two days at the Council meeting. I held a number of discussions with some of them. I do not disagree with the idea of arranging a number of bilateral visits. There may be some merit in the suggestion and, obviously, I will discuss it with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for European affairs. It is necessary in some cases because under the previous Govern- ment there were occasions on which Ministers did not turn up for whatever reason. There is a serious need for bridge-building. The Deputy will be aware that part of our programme for Government is the recall of all our ambassadors to Dublin at an appropriate time to discuss re-motivation and the restoration of Ireland’s status abroad and to give them missions they must fulfil in the areas of trade, business and regenerating links. That is something on which we intend to follow through. There was no discussion about burden-sharing at this meeting. As I outlined, there were discussions about Libya, the problem with the nuclear reactor in Japan, and a number of other issues, including the Euro Plus Pact. I made the point that the European Commission is perfectly entitled to produce its legislative papers at any time and that this country, no more than any other, would participate in discussions on whatever papers are produced. In respect of the proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base in the Commission paper, while we will discuss the paper in general, I have a healthy scepticism about that proposal. The question of the corporate tax rate was not raised at all.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I did not ask about corporate tax; I asked whether the Taoiseach raised the issue of unilateral burden-sharing, which he clearly did not. He has confirmed that he did not raise this at the meeting itself. 607 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Micheál Martin.]

We visited other capitals — I certainly did — and the Taoiseach should do that in the period between now and June. That would be worthwhile and constructive. There is no point in making petty political points about it; I just think it is a good thing to do, and should be done. The recall of ambassadors happens every year. It does not have to be part of a programme for Government. It is a fairly basic thing to recall ambassadors for a general discussion, and this tends to be done anyway as a normal part of operations. There are regular briefings for missions about the objectives of the Government and the external objectives of various Mini- sters and Departments in economic and foreign policy. I note the Taoiseach’s comments that there are now no towering figures in Europe, as in previous years. I made that point in the debate last week, and it is a serious issue for this country. Every time, the response is too late. The issue with Portugal arose in the 24 hours before the recent summit. The reaction to similar events in Greece was too late. All along, even the changes to the pact and the permanent mechanism have been too late and have failed to convince the markets. The international credibility of Europe and the pact for Europe has been reduced considerably because of this.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Deputy have a question?

Deputy Micheál Martin: I put it to the Taoiseach that outside Europe, people do not believe that Europe is, so far, demonstrating the capacity for a pan-European comprehensive resolution of this problem. He said there was a degree of self-analysis going on in Europe. What we really require is not self-analysis on a member-state-by-member-state basis, but a Europe-wide analysis with the aim of achieving permanent resolution of the issues that face not only Ireland but the eurozone in its entirety.

The Taoiseach: There is merit in what the Deputy says. Clearly, national political considerations play a part in the activity level and the response of a number of European leaders. That goes without saying. I have made the point at European People’s Party meetings for several years that in the production of the Lisbon agenda Europe failed to deal with that — as the Deputy knows, it was a proposal under which Europe was to measure up to the United States on the one hand and countries of the Far East on the other in terms of economic activity and the creation of jobs. There is now a refocusing on what Europe, as a union of 500 million people, can do. There were a number of comments about that. As the economic situation has become clearer in a number of countries, people are focusing on the necessity of a European response with regard to the protection of the euro. This was a central feature of last weekend’s discussions and it will obviously be discussed on many future occasions. I did not raise the issue of burden-sharing individually. However, the programme for Government is committed to it. When the stress-test position becomes clearer on Thursday, we will decide how best to deal with the consequences.

An Ceann Comhairle: We will move on to Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Gerry Adams.

Deputy Joe Higgins: May I ask one brief supplementary question?

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sorry, but I want to move on. We have already spent 25 minutes on this question.

Deputy Micheál Martin: There were four other questions taken with it. 608 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

An Ceann Comhairle: I want to move on to Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Gerry Adams.

Tribunals of Inquiry 6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the total cost to his Department of the Moriarty Tribunal. [5739/11]

The Taoiseach: Total expenditure by my Department from the establishment of the Moriarty tribunal in 1997 to end-February 2011 was €41.96 million. This figure does not include third party costs for which applications have yet to be received and ruled on by the sole member.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Seo an chéad uair ar thug an Taoiseach freagra díreach ar cheist faoi Moriarty. Comhghairdeas leis, tá sin go hiontach.

The Taoiseach: Thug mé an freagra céanna don Teachta an tseachtain seo caite.

Deputy Gerry Adams: It is great to have some clarity on a question to the Taoiseach about the Moriarty tribunal. If I am correct, €41.96 million has been spent on the tribunal over 14 years. This is a scandal. Recently there was a dispute and much controversy about the cost of the Saville inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday in Derry. The legal team at the Moriarty tribunal was paid over twice the amount paid to the Saville inquiry legal teams. Figures I have been given show two barristers received €8.5 million each. For a working person, such a figure would be in his or her dreams of winning the lottery. Does this not confirm that golden circles are still intact and thriving in Ireland today? Nach scannal mór é seo?

The Taoiseach: Thug mé an freagra céanna don Teachta an tseachtain seo caite. Bhí sé díreach, cruinn agus fíor. Expenditure by my Department on the tribunal was €41.96 million. I will give the Deputy some other figures to keep him in the know.

Deputy Gerry Adams: That will become clear later.

The Taoiseach: The full cost of the tribunal’s legal team, from its establishment in 1997 to the end of February 2011, was approximately €33 million. At the concluding stages of its work, the legal team consisted of two senior counsel, three junior counsel, a legal researcher and a solicitor. The two senior counsel who have ceased working with the tribunal were paid a daily rate of €1,955 and €1,564, respectively. The two junior counsel who remain with the tribunal are paid €860.20 a day, while the third more senior junior counsel who has left the tribunal was paid a daily rate of €1,050 a day. The solicitor’s daily fee is €782, while the legal researcher who has also left the team was paid €391.39 a day. The three senior counsel earned €9.6 million, €9.3 million and €6.8 million, respectively. The three junior counsel earned €2.4 million, €1.8 million and €241,000, respectively. The solicitor earned €1.8 million, while the legal researcher earned €754,000. All these figures include VAT.

A Deputy: They should be named.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I thank the Taoiseach for that answer. I hope he will be just as clear when following the other money trails later when we are debating the Moriarty tribunal report.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: As clear as Deputy Adams himself on such matters.

Deputy Shane McEntee: At least we know where it is.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Like the answers the Deputy himself gives. 609 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Gerry Adams: Would it not have been cheaper to go to the Garda Síochána on this matter?

The Taoiseach: Several years ago an Oireachtas committee carried out investigative work in the DIRT inquiry at a low cost and within a timescale which brought about real results and savings for the Exchequer. Deputy Adams is aware of the Government’s intention to hold a referendum on the Abbeylara case decision to allow investigative work to be carried out by specialist or select Dáil committees. On the question of the clarity of money trails, I am not sure about the OMO boxes but we might have a look.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I recall well a previous occasion when a Minister for Finance tried to reduce the cost of tribunals. When the current Taoiseach was in opposition, that Minister was met with a hue and cry of outrage that he was attempting to curtail the work of the tribunal.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Government at that time paid too much and forgot to reclaim it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach agree the costs are excessive? The Minister for Justice and Law Reform is not the party leader and should stay silent for a while. Accepting that the costs are very high and excessive, does the Taoiseach agree that those who failed to co-operate fully with the tribunal and obstructed the work of the tribunal should 3o’clock waive at least a portion of their costs and the moneys they will attempt to recover from the tribunal? I include the Fine Gael Party in that in respect of the Telenor cheque. An attempt was made to hide that information from the tribunal to prevent it acquiring any knowledge of the donation from Telenor.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Martin to put a statistical question.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It relates to the ultimate figure and the cost of the tribunal because failure to co-operate adds to the costs of the tribunal.

Deputy Alan Shatter: What about the €160,000 Fianna Fáil got? Mr. Haughey made away with €90,000.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Obstructing a tribunal adds to the cost of the tribunal. The parties in that position should waive some of their costs. Their legal advisers were probably paid the same rates outlined by the Taoiseach. They could take a cut as a result of the failure to be upfront with the tribunal from the beginning.

The Taoiseach: I absolutely disagree with Deputy Martin in his comment that the Fine Gael Party tried to obstruct the Moriarty tribunal. Based on the legal advice to the party in the circumstances, the party took a decision. In my view it was the wrong decision but the decision was taken. When my predecessor as leader of the party, Deputy Michael Noonan, became aware of the situation he transmitted the entire file and everything associated with it to the tribunal for its perusal and examination, in respect of which the tribunal thanked the Fine Gael Party for its forthrightness.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Come on.

The Taoiseach: The first part of the tribunal report dealt with a former leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and the comments therein were very clear.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: Will the Taoiseach show us the letter of thanks? 610 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin: We will read it.

The Taoiseach: I do not speak for the third parties to which Deputy Martin refers. I cannot comment on the extent of claim that will be made or what the sole member of the tribunal will do but clearly substantial amounts may be claimed and may have to be decided upon by the sole member of the tribunal in due course.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Does the Taoiseach agree that ordinary taxpayers will be outraged that, from the figures provided by the Taoiseach, the tribunal investigating four millionaires created six multimillionaires in the legal profession in the process? Is that not an incredible situation? It raises the serious question that most working people and poor people cannot afford to get justice in this country because they cannot afford the massive level of legal fees demanded. In government, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil always capitulated in front of the apparently massive power of the Law Library and refused to deal with the scandalous level of fees demanded generally for law cases and demanded and fixed for lawyers in the Moriarty tribunal.

The Taoiseach: The fees for senior counsel were fixed in 1997. The tribunal counsel sought a substantial increase in their fees and this went on until 2001 and 2002. On a number of occasions when I was in opposition, I raised the fact that payments of an increased nature were incorrectly sent out and were not reclaimed. I made the point that someone claiming social welfare who had been overpaid by €100 or €1,000 would be pursued by the Department of Social Protection for the recovery of that money over a number of years. This is an issue I felt very strongly about when I was on that side of the House and I would like to pursue it here. Whether it is possible to do anything about that, when these sums have been signed off on completely, is a matter I must pursue. The cost of legal fees at that level is exorbitant. That is why I genuinely believe that this House and the committees of this House, properly set up and with competent people, would be entitled to and could do a good job in the event that situations such as that might arise in the future at a fraction of the cost of tribunals running over a very long period.

Ministerial Staff 7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has appointed or will be appointing advisors and programme managers and other staff to his Department in addition to the regular Departmental staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5740/11]

8. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the number and work of special advisors in his Department; and the way this compares with his predecessor [5802/11]

9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of advisors he has appointed or will appoint to work in his Department [5910/11]

10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the names of the advisors and programme managers he has appointed to date and their specific role within his Department [5911/11]

Deputy (Deputy Enda): I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together. I am currently in the process of appointing Mr. Mark Kennelly, Mr. Andrew McDowell, Ms Angela Flanagan and Mr. Paul O’Brien as advisers in my Department. The primary function of special advisers will be to secure the achievement of Government objectives and to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for government. The role and duties of special advisers are described in section 11 of the Public Service Management Act 1997. In summary, these are (i) providing advice; (ii) monitoring, facilitating 611 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Enda.] and securing the achievement of Government objectives that relate to the Department, as requested; and (iii) performing such other functions as may be directed. The specific roles for each of the special advisers that I intend to appoint are being finalised at present. My special advisers will give me advice and keep me informed on a wide range of policy issues and perform such other functions as may be directed by me from time to time. I will also appoint a number of personal assistants and personal secretaries in the coming weeks as will the Ministers of State assigned to my Department. The Government has not yet finalised all of the appointments it will make. However, I expect that the overall number of appointments will be fewer than previous Administrations and the remuneration involved will be considerably less.

Deputy Gerry Adams: This Chamber seems to be awash with money today. When Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen were taoisigh the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, quite rightly gave off about special advisers. It is one of the matters that has helped to bring politics into disrepute. Last year the Fianna Fáil Taoiseach set out the salaries of his special advisers. There were seven of them with salaries ranging from €93,000 to €195,000 per annum. Bhí an Taoiseach ag tabhairt amach faoi sin ag an uair sin, agus tá sé ag déanamh an rud chéanna anois. The Taoiseach was giving out about that then, quite rightly, and now he is doing exactly the same thing. This is at a time when social welfare——

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

Deputy Gerry Adams: ——and the minimum wage rates are being cut and the universal social charge is being imposed. Would the Taoiseach not stop this gravy train for advisers? Would he not rely upon the very well paid senior civil servants in his Department and on his party staff to ensure that the programme for Government is implemented? Will the Taoiseach set out the cost of those special advisers to the taxpayer who is carrying many burdens at this time?

The Taoiseach: What I did say is that the numbers and the costs would be considerably less than in previous Administrations. At its first meeting in Áras an Uachtaráin the Government made decisions in that regard. I will publish all of the details when the appointments are finalised. Let me repeat again; both the numbers and the costs will be considerably reduced.

Deputy Joe Higgins: If I heard correctly, the Taoiseach said he was appointing four advisers.

The Taoiseach: Yes, four.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Could the Taoiseach tell me what the annual salary of those advisers will be? I asked in my question how the number of advisers he intends to appoint compares with his predecessor.

The Taoiseach: As I indicated, I will set out the salary scales, terms of reference and work of each of the advisers. That is not finalised yet but I will be happy to put it on record as soon as the details are finalised. Let me repeat; numbers and costs will be reduced in this case, as they have been in all others, in so far as the Government is concerned about such appointments.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The Taoiseach wants to vacate 25,000 jobs in the public service — scandalously so, in view of the mass unemployment and the small weight of the public sector compared to elsewhere in Europe at present. Why would he not find advisers from among existing public servants for his Department? 612 Ceisteanna— 29 March 2011. Questions

The Taoiseach: There is no question but that the Government has set out its programme for Government in respect of reducing the overall cost and size of the public service by means of voluntary redundancy, as the Deputy is aware. The persons involved in the case in question were all working in a party capacity. Fewer are being brought over to Government Buildings than was the case under all other Governments heretofore.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Special advisers have a very constructive role to play in modern Governments and modern policy formulation. They date back to 1992 when the then Fianna Fáil-Labour Government initiated the concept of programme managers. The easiest political game to play is to attack the concept of advisers.

Deputy Gerry Adams: It is the salaries that are being attacked.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Deputy Adams would have benefited from some programme advisers in a different context in terms of working out political issues associated with the peace process and so on. In the peace process, advisers played a noble and significant part. Regarding political reform and modern systems of government, does the Taoiseach agree that political parties, be they in or out of government, need independent capacity to interrogate policies and issues? While we can talk about value for money and the cost — I accept all that — we should not argue about the fundamental principle of a political party having depth in terms of policy and capacity. When a political party comes into power, there should be creative tension between its policy resource and personnel and what has been described as the permanent government. It works very constructively on many occasions, and that should be acknowledged also. It can be very useful in co-ordination and in developing joined-up government. It is disappointing that the specific roles for the programme managers have not been identified. We need to value democracy and the input of political parties. That is a perspective I would bring to the discussion on this specific question.

The Taoiseach: Good, competent people working in respect of the implementation of a programme for Government are always valuable. They interact with each other through the various Departments and with the public service. Ultimately the function of the Government is to determine solutions and make decisions, as the Deputy well knows. In that respect, effectiveness of government is critical to move the country on. I agree with Deputy Martin that it is important that there be objectivity and a different analysis of what might emerge from people being too concentrated inside government in many ways. The programme manager concept worked very effectively under a number of coalition Governments in that issues that were to be decided by Government were agreed and problems that arose were dealt with before they got to Cabinet, thus making it easier for members to tease out issues and make decisions. This is important. Time is not to be wasted. Good, competent people working effectively in the interest of implementing a programme for Government are working in the country’s interest.

Deputy Micheál Martin: In agreeing with the Taoiseach, I point out to him that the Oppo- sition parties are not yet in a position to appoint special advisers or a team because of the absence of any commission or the failure to establish one. It is a pressing issue in terms of how the Oireachtas works. We should address this fairly quickly.

The Taoiseach: I believe the Deputy will get more resources than might be expected from the Opposition perspective. There are guidelines and rules about this depending on the percentage of the vote and the number of seats each party gets. 613 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach is great.

The Taoiseach: He will get some assistance in that regard. I like to believe all the members of the parties——

Deputy Timmy Dooley: Do not tell Angela Merkel.

The Taoiseach: ——will get some assistance in respect of the work they have to do. I know this because I was in opposition for long enough.

Priority Questions

————

Employment Regulation Orders 29. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the position regarding the review of Employment Regulation Orders and Registered Employment Agreements as set out in the National Recovery Plan; when he intends to publish the review findings and if he plans to make provision in the legislative programme for any legislative changes that may occur [5972/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The review of the joint labour committee, JLC, and registered employment agreements, REA, mechanisms was initiated on 8 February 2011 last and is being undertaken jointly by Mr. Kevin Duffy, Chairman of the Labour Court acting in an ad hoc capacity and Dr. Frank Walsh, School of Economics, UCD, under specific terms of reference. Deputy Calleary was party to their appointment and I recognise his work on this. The review is a commitment under the EU IMF programme, which provided not only for agreement on the terms of reference but also the programme of actions arising. Public notices were placed in national newspapers in early February and key stakeholders were contacted to seek submissions by 25 February last. I understand that the review team subsequently met a number of stakeholders to discuss their submissions. These are being analysed by the review team. The programme for Government provides for a commitment to reform the joint labour committee structure, beginning with the appointment of independent chairpersons to JLCs, who will retain a casting vote. Reform options requiring examination include the rate of pay for atypical hours, such as Sunday premia. We need to ensure that statutory wage fixing mechanisms work effectively and efficiently and that they do not have a negative impact on economic performance and employment levels. Ireland is the exception in Europe in having a combined system of highly centralised bar- gaining, a relatively high national minimum wage and further higher sectoral minima that are decided by joint labour committees and extend to entire sectors. No other European country has such a complex web of wage determination mechanisms. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that these long-established mechanisms came under strain against the background of a severe contraction both by international and historical standards. While firms in sectors covered by JLCs and REAs may have been able to sustain high rates of pay when demand was strong enough for high labour costs to be passed on, this proved to be more problematic when these sectors experienced a major collapse in demand. It is important to note that employment regulation orders, EROs, and REAs cover more than rates of pay. In many cases certain conditions of employment are also governed by the 614 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions. agreements. As well as pay-related issues such as overtime and Sunday working rates, certain agreements include clauses relating to travel expenses, annual leave, dispute resolution, and board and lodging. These additional clauses may impose rigidity in the labour market and some have been superseded by economy-wide employment legislation. Perhaps of most concern is that EROs and REAs impose rigidity that reduces the flexibility of the labour market to adapt in times of difficulty. The rate of adjustment of a number of the sectoral agreements, for example in construction, retail, hospitality and agriculture, to the current economic crises, while welcome, has been slow. Reform of these systems is necessary to ensure a flexible labour market. I expect the review will be completed and submitted to me before mid-April and will then be published. I intend to engage directly with the European Commission on its contents and report to government on my proposals for follow-up action, including making any legislative provision which may be necessary.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I take the opportunity to wish the Minister and his team every success. As we reverse our roles for Question Time, we could have given that answer ourselves a few weeks ago so I take it no progress has been made in terms of publishing the report. The Minister identified in his answer the difficulties these mechanisms are causing, particularly their inability to respond to changing market situations. This is one of the reasons we want to get the review up and running as quickly as possible. I am concerned that the programme for Government states, “We will reform the Joint Labour Committee structure, beginning with the appointment of independent chairpersons to JLCs, who will retain a casting vote.” This seems to predetermine one of the report’s major outcomes prior to it being published. I will point the Minister to IBEC’s ten-point plan. I know Fine Gael is obsessed with a five- point plan. IBEC’s ten-point plan shows that one of the most objectionable aspects of the JLC, joint labour committee, system is the casting vote of a chairman. With regard to this review, has the Minister predetermined the outcome of any other issues, either on his part or by agreement with his partners in Government? Will the reforms the Minister proposes to implement be part of the so-called jobs budget due to be introduced within 100 days of the election?

Deputy Richard Bruton: I thank the Deputy for his good wishes and I pay tribute to his work while Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs. He is correct to say that no progress has been made towards publication of the report but I remind him it was he who set the timeframe for the report to be presented and that date has not yet been reached. It is expected that this report will be on time and the recommendations will be available then. Deputy Calleary is also correct in saying that the programme for Government includes having an independent chair and a casting vote. It is the view of Government that this system needs radical reform but not wholesale abandonment. We need to have a balanced and fair system for setting wages and one that is able to respond quickly to changed circumstances. Much of what is here is archaic in the way it was formulated. It is too cumbersome in the way it responds and it is too inflexible. We can achieve radical reforms without abandoning this system and this is my ambition. On the question of the timescale, it would be the ambition to be in a position to substantially move or indicate the direction of legislation within the 100 days framework but getting legislation through the House would necessitate debate in committees. The Government will not guillotine legislation in a new reformed Dáil but it will be necessary to give time for the House to consider this issue. 615 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

Deputy Dara Calleary: There will be support from this party for reform of the system because it is archaic. The Minister referred to the pay rates being high. Is this an agreed position with his partners in Government? When does the Minister intend to sign the order to increase the minimum wage rate, as per the commitment in the programme for Government?

Deputy Richard Bruton: The issue of the minimum wage is under consideration and it is a commitment in the programme for Government. I believe that in order to be successful, these projects need to be kept in harness. As part of increasing the minimum wage a balanced package will require greater flexibility in setting wages and other terms and conditions related to it. I would regard these two processes of reforming the REA, registered employment agreements, and the JLC system and the increasing of the minimum wage rate, as being paired. The reduction in the minimum wage rate was part of the EU and IMF agreement and it will have to be discussed with the IMF and the EU with regard to its implementation. It is important, both from an Irish point of view and from the point of view of satisfying the EU and IMF, that the two issues are paired. It must be shown that we are introducing a balanced package to respond to the needs of the labour market.

Job Creation 30. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the analysis done by him on the effects of the measures included in the Programme for Government on businesses in the border counties; the actions he will take to increase the competitiveness and viability of enterprise in the border counties, in view of the fact that measures included in the Programme for Government, including increasing the top rate of VAT to 23% will encourage persons to move across the border to avail of goods and services and will thus put pressure on business in the border counties; the estimated loss of turnover and jobs in the border region from increasing the top rate of VAT; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6031/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: The programme for Government is a national programme, aimed at fixing the banking system, restoring growth and confidence to the economy and supporting the protection and creation of jobs. As Minister with responsibility for jobs, enterprise and innovation, my objective is to create the conditions across all sectors of the economy and in all regions — including the Border region — to facilitate job creation. In this context, and in collaboration with my colleagues in Government, I will identify cross-government actions that can be taken to cut costs to business, remove obstacles to employment creation, and stimulate the domestic economy. The reference which the Deputy makes to the top rate of VAT is only one aspect of the Government’s wider fiscal policy in the programme for Government which seeks to address overall fairness in the tax system for individuals and business alike. The Deputy will know that part of the programme agreed between the previous Government and the EU-IMF was to increase the VAT rate over time. As well as limiting the top rate of VAT at 23%, the programme for Government undertakes to cut the 13.5% rate of VAT to 12% up to the end of 2013, to help labour-intensive economic activity; to maintain the corporate tax rate at 12.5%; to halve the 8.5% rate of employers’ PRSI to the end of 2013 on those low-paid jobs paying up to €356 per week; and to implement a number of sectoral initiatives in areas that will create employment in the domestic economy. These include the travel tax and other elements of the Government programme such as improving access to research and development credits, a partial credit guarantee scheme for small business and many other proposals. The programme for Government must, therefore, be seen as an overall package of measures to stimulate growth across the economy and across all regions. 616 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

The issue of cross-Border shopping, which was evidenced a number of years ago, was influenced by a variety of factors, including the euro-sterling exchange rate and high inflation in the Republic of Ireland. These factors no longer apply with the same force as the euro is weaker against sterling and inflation is now higher in Northern Ireland than in the Republic. I would point out to the Deputy that the Programme for Government includes a commitment to work for greater economic co-operation with Northern Ireland to accelerate the process of recovery and the creation of jobs on the island. Businesses in the Border counties, in particular, are well placed to benefit from such co-operation. In this context, my Department supports the work of InterTradeIreland, which assists SMEs across the island to develop North-South trade and business development opportunities. In addition, my Department’s agencies, including Enterprise Ireland and the county enterprise boards, will continue to work with companies in the Border region to improve their competitiveness, productivity and viability.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: Ba mhaith liom freisin comhghairdeas a gabháil don Aire mar gheall ar a phost nua. Is mórandúshlán é agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis. I refer to the Border region. The population of the six counties to the south of the Border is half a million people while approximately 800,000 people live in the five counties just north of the Border. This is a total of 1.3 million people, a not insignificant number comprising roughly 21% of the total population of the island. Due to partition, this region has become a zone of economic uncertainty. We all currently live in a zone of economic uncertainty called Ireland but the people living in these specific areas have to deal with further uncertainties. Over time there will be swings with regard to taxation and the Minister in his reply alluded to swings with regard to currencies and inflation. In the past, one side of the Border had become a boom area and had unfair competitive advantages while the other side of the Border has become a ghost area. Last January the English Government increased the VAT rate from 17% to 20%. If we had maintained our commitment to a 21% VAT rate, we would have near VAT harmonisation on the island of Ireland. The decision to increase the VAT rate will be detrimental to the Border economies and it will result in real outflows of shoppers, retail trades and funds across the Border. The effect will be felt in the Border counties and also down as far as County Meath and Dublin. Has the Minister the figures for the potential loss of revenue resulting from increasing the VAT rate? How many jobs will be lost as a result of this initiative?

Deputy Richard Bruton: I must first thank the Deputy for his good wishes which are very much appreciated. I recognise the problem described by Deputy Tóibín that people living in the Border region have to deal with currency movements, differences in tax regimes and in inflation rates and these are serious problems for them. A Government which is committed to finding an extra €9 billion through either tax increases or savings, will have to look at unpalat- able options. That commitment has to try to balance different needs. In envisaging a cap on the VAT rate, we are also envisaging immediate changes in the tax mix in order to help competitiveness. I refer to the cutting of employers’ PRSI contributions which will improve another dimension of the tax mix for those competing across the Border. The reason a cap exists in this regard is because we recognise there is a constraint. Serious problems arose when the gap was very wide. On the question of estimating the impact, such estimates are not available to my Department. In February 2009 the Revenue Commissioners and the CSO prepared a report attempting to calculate the value of cross-Border trade at that stage. They had an estimate of, I believe, €350 million to €500 million going across the Border. Obviously that waxes and wanes with currency and tax issues. Clearly there are swings and roundabouts. For example, while the excise duty 617 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] on whiskey is higher in the South, it is lower on beer, petrol and diesel. The Minister for Finance is always conscious of the impact on cross-Border trade when trying to make those difficult balancing calls.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): We will now proceed to——

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: I wish to come back, if I may.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): I ask the Deputy to be very brief because we are over time.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: My party is seeking to bring fiscal powers pertaining to the North of Ireland back to this island. Would the Minister consider trying to eliminate those swings and roundabouts over the years by working with the Administration in Stormont on harmonising the taxation rates on both parts of the island? The Minister mentioned the plan for the jobs budget a number of times. The ESRI estimated that 50,000 people will emigrate from this State over the next while.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): We have actually gone over time.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: This means that 13,000 people will emigrate while the Government is trying to get a jobs budget in place.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I accept that the challenges are huge, but the clear commitment of Government to introduce something in the first 100 days shows a serious sense of urgency in this regard. Equally the Deputy will be aware that we need to design workable proposals and time needs to be taken to ensure these are effective. The notion that we ought to harmonise our tax regime with Northern Ireland, the UK or other countries raises many issues. Ministers for Finance need to cater to the needs of the day and need to strike a balance. Those who seek to make similar decisions have other considerations. Preserving independence in setting tax policy is an important element of the way in which we manage our affairs and I do not believe harmonisation would be on the cards, but there certainly would be consciousness of the impact on Border regions.

Programmes for Government 31. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation his priorities for job creation; and if he will make a statement on the matter [5957/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: Job creation is central to our economic recovery and the programme for Government has job creation at its core. The role of my Department is to ensure we have the right policies in place that will support and increase our enterprise base in order to facilitate both job creation and job retention. It is only by creating the right environment for businesses to expand that we will see new jobs coming on stream. We must champion the cause of companies that can create good jobs in sustainable activities. To this end, the Government has committed to the creation of a jobs fund within its first 100 days. This fund will facilitate the implementation of a number of measures across a range of Departments, including sectoral initiatives in areas that will create employment in the domestic economy and a long-term strategy to develop new markets in emerging economies. I have already started working with the enterprise agencies under my Department’s remit to develop a jobs programme that will develop these various initiatives. 618 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

We will take action on a number of fronts such as access to finance; getting our cost base right; providing supports to help build businesses that are well run and innovative; helping companies win new markets; and reducing red tape and tackling barriers to entry. Under those headings there are specific initiatives which I can mention. My Department is working with the Department of Finance, the Credit Review Office, Enterprise Ireland and Forfás to address the credit issues for viable SMEs, including the commitment in the programme for Government for the introduction of a temporary, partial credit guarantee scheme. The programme for Government also includes a commitment to construct a €100 million microfinance start-up fund that will provide start-up loans and equity, and will draw funding from the National Pensions Reserve Fund. These are very important supplement to the real pressure on banks in providing credit to business. Getting our cost base right is obviously very important. As I mentioned in reply to the earlier question, we have a commitment to reduce employers PRSI and also to reduce the cost base in areas such as rents and energy costs. On businesses that can become more innovative, as the Deputy will be aware the programme includes the assessment of new incentives for research and development to help small companies to participate. One of those proposals is that companies spending more than €100,000 would have access to credit without the additionality requirement. Firms that are innovative will drive efficiencies and employment growth.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House. It is also important to help companies win new markets and the programme for Government contains targeted support for first-time exporters and through reform of public procurement to allow greater access for small and medium-sized businesses. Reducing red tape and tackling barriers to entry must be addressed also. Ensuring competition within Ireland’s domestic economy is vital to improving overall competitiveness and job creation. We must work across Government to ensure that there is a pro-business focus and that policies are aligned to the central goal of jobs. Along with my colleagues in Government, I plan to develop initiatives in all of these areas and to target particular sectors where there is great opportunity such as the digital gaming industry and international education sector. The jobs programme that is currently in development will set out in more detail what is proposed. I am confident that the range and depth of measures proposed by the Government in the programme for Government will get our economy moving and support the protection and creation of jobs.

Deputy Clare Daly: When I asked the Minister for his priorities, I was hoping for something more substantial than the generalities that appeared in the programme for Government. I was hoping for an indication of a real plan to deal with the crisis of almost 500,000 people who are unemployed. The Minister did not mention the shovel-ready projects referred to in the programme for Government. Clearly many people are ready with their shovels but have not been given any nod from the Government as to the useful works that might be carried out. What is the date for starting projects such as metro north and how many people will be employed? How many people will be employed in the energy conservation measures mentioned in the programme for Government? We have yet to see any details in that regard. We have seen no figures in terms of job creation; we have seen a job reduction figure. While his colleague is sacking 25,000 people in the public sector, I believe the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation has a target of 15,000 people in training and another 60,000 in intern- 619 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

[Deputy Clare Daly.] ships. At best internships are white-collar apprenticeships and are certainly not jobs. I ask him to outline how he envisages these being regulated, where they will be created and what will be the prospect for full-time employment at the end. There seems to be a clear flaw in the strategy in that there is a total reliance in the private sector. The Minister has mentioned tinkering with reducing employers’ PRSI and VAT. How many jobs does the Minister believe will result? It is clearly not the 500,000 people who are on the dole. I ask the Minister to comment on the fact that there was a reduction of 31% in private sector investment last year. If we are to address the issue of job creation adequately, there clearly needs to be a State-led programme and I have not heard any detail or substance in that regard. In fact the programme provides the opposite; it is a reduction of jobs with the targeting of the semi-State sector. That is where the Government has ring-fenced the funding for its jobs programme. We are now at day 20 out of the 100 days and there are not too many extra shovels working at the moment. The clock is ticking and I would be interested in hearing how the Government will square that circle.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I thank the Deputy for the question. Obviously I am restricted in answering a question to account for my own stewardship, if one likes. My area of responsibility refers to the enterprise sector predominantly. There are targets; it is not that we have not set targets. To be fair to the previous Government, targets have been committed to by Enterprise Ireland to create 60,000 jobs over the period, by IDA Ireland to create 75,000 over the period to 2014 and by the tourism sector so we are working to specific targets. The jobs programme I indicated I have undertaken is to try to build on those — to look at new initiatives to underpin and, if possible, exceed those targets. The Deputy is not accurate in saying the programme is exclusively dependent on the private sector. A key element of this is the development of the concept of NewERA, specific responsibility for which has been given to the Minister of State, Deputy O’Dowd. That is focused the capability of State enterprise to lay down important infrastructure for recovery and in that process not only create short-term employment in the construction phase, but also underpin strong enterprise growth in the longer term. Internships and work programmes no longer fall within the remit of this Department and are now under the Department of Social Protection. If the Deputy looks at the programme for Government she will see a real plan emerging with a balanced set of measures across different areas where a government can take initiative. What is important is to bring that together within the first 100 days to a coherent jobs programme that will build a platform for further initiatives.

Economic Competitiveness 32. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the steps he will take to help the struggling retail sector [5973/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: The retail sector, like every other sector of the economy, has been affected by the global economic crisis and by the loss of competitiveness in our economy. While Ireland has regained some of its competitiveness in the past two years, for example through reductions in electricity and gas prices for business and the reduction or freezing of local authority rates in 2010, this Government is committed to doing more to reduce the cost base for business. Our programme for Government has a focus on helping the domestic economy while continuing to maintain a strategic focus on exports and investment. As part of this focus on the domestic economy we will explore initiatives which will assist the retail sector. It is very labour intensive and, taken with the wholesale sector, employs 620 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions. approximately 267,000 people or roughly 15% of our workforce. In this context, the Govern- ment’s commitment to halve employer’s PRSI costs for those earning less than €356 per week is likely to assist the retail sector, particularly given the part-time nature of many jobs in that sector. With regard to other labour costs, as the Deputy is aware a review of the framework for registered employment agreements and employment regulation orders is under way. This review will be completed by April 2011. To reduce anti-competitive behaviour in the sector, the programme for Government states our intention to enact a fair trade Act to ban a number of unfair trading practices in the retail sector. Rental costs are an important factor for high street retail businesses in particular. in recent years, upward-only rent reviews kept rents for many businesses at artificially high levels, despite the fall in property values and open market rental trends. Under the Land Conveyanc- ing and Law Reform Act 2009, upward-only rent reviews were abolished for all new leases signed on or after 28 February 2010. The programme for Government expresses our intention to legislate to end upward-only rent reviews for existing leases. This is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Law Reform in the first instance, but there is also ongoing contact between officials of my Department and those of the Minister on the issue.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House. I am also keen to ensure that Local Authority costs which impact on businesses are kept as low as possible. In this context, I intend to explore with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government what measures can be taken in this regard. While there have been significant reductions in Ireland’s electricity and gas prices in recent years, retailers and other businesses can continue to reduce their energy bills by switching suppliers to get the best available value. We also intend to impose rigorous efficiency targets on the ESB, Bord Gáis and EirGrid to drive further efficiencies in the energy sector, leading to further cost reductions. The national energy efficiency action plan aims to achieve national energy savings of 20% by 2020, including measures to assist SMEs to lower electricity costs. Agencies such as the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland are helping individual businesses to identify actions they can take to improve their efficiency and reduce their energy costs.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): We have gone over time.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I will have to curtail the answers to stay within the requirements of the Chair.

Deputy Dara Calleary: We have a Grand Prix Chair today. I accept the Minister’s answer. On rates, can the Government increase resources for the re-evaluation project that is happening around the country? At the current rate of progress it will take 40 years to revalue every commercial premises. The rates that are currently being charged belong to a different era. A campaign got under way in Wexford last night on not paying, or challenging, rates. When can we expect legislation to come before the House about upward only rents? I know this is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Law Reform. However, it is a matter the Minister and his spokespersons from business made a big issue of during the election. I welcome the appointment of the Minister of State, Deputy Perry. As a small businessman he will bring a very particular perspective. What functions have been delegated to him within the Department? Does he have a designated budget to support retail and small business generally? What is the extra cost to the retail sector of the increase in the minimum wage?

Deputy Richard Bruton: The Deputy asked many questions. I nearly needed notice of many of them. The revaluation process is something I will bring to the attention of my colleague, the 621 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. To give credit to the Deputy’s Government, there was a review of local authority costs which indicated the capacity for, I understand, a cost reduction of €500 million to be achieved by the local government sector. Clearly, the long-term solution to rates is to start getting the cost base right. On the timing of legislation, I have spoken to my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform. It is an issue which has been contentious in terms of the view of the former Attorney General who took the view that upward only rents could not be restricted on existing leases. There is an alternative legal opinion on this. There is a general view that while there are property rights in the Constitution, they are not untrammelled rights and in certain circumstances they can be set aside in the greater public interest. That will require the Minister for Justice and Law Reform and the Attorney General to work on the issue. The functions of the Minister of State have not been finalised. I thank the Deputy for his welcome for his appointment. The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, will bring not only energy but a huge understanding of the sector to the Department. I intend that his delegated functions will give him full scope to work on the concerns of small business.

Deputy Dara Calleary: Will the credit guarantee scheme apply to the retail and hospitality sector? Is it intended that there be an employment limit on it, in terms of businesses with fewer than ten employees? That has been the case with previous State schemes. Will it be open to every business, regardless of the numbers of employees?

Deputy Richard Bruton: The details of the scheme are currently under examination. We will look at how that can be developed. This will be a targeted scheme. We are not in the business of substituting for bank commitments that have been made under the recapitalisation programme. The scheme will be targeted at the areas of greatest need and how we will do that is yet to be finalised.

County Enterprise Boards 33. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation his plans regarding the future of county enterprise boards; the way the merger of local enterprise and job support functions of local, regional and national agencies into a single business and enterprise unit within local authorities will be achieved; if the amalgamation of county enterprise boards will be part of this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6032/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy John Perry): As Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation one of my main priorities is to ensure that the manner in which State support for enterprise activity, entrepreneurship stimulation and job creation is delivered, properly targeted, effective and coherent. I want to ensure it is cost effective and that the resources available to the State are used to maximise business activity and sustainability across all sectors to drive economic recovery. The county and city enterprise boards, CEBs, have been the principal deliverers of State support to the micro-enterprise sector since their establishment in 1993. The role of CEBs is to support micro-enterprises employing up to ten people in the start-up and expansion phases and to stimulate and promote economic activity and entrepreneurship at local level. The CEBs deliver a series of programmes to underpin this role and can provide financial and non-financial assistance to an eligible micro-enterprise. This sector is a key component of the indigenous small business sector. It was to the forefront of Ireland’s past economic success and will be key to our economic recovery. 622 Priority 29 March 2011. Questions.

Parallel to the work of the CEBs is the work of Enterprise Ireland. Its remit includes the support of start-ups that have the potential to employ more than ten people and achieve €1 million in turnover. These are start-ups that are typically highly innovative and are in a position to sell globally from their earliest stage. Apart from these enterprise development agencies who report directly to my Department, there are other State bodies and organisations working with the Minister, Deputy Bruton, providing a range of enterprise type supports which serve other niche elements of the community. Each of these organisations has a distinct client base. The programme for Government recognises that there is a multiplicity of enterprise and job support functions being carried out by local, regional and national agencies. The programme also recognises the need to streamline such functions and increase shared knowledge capability and resources while saving on administration costs. A critical focus in achieving any such streamlining is to ensure that we do not compromise on service delivery to the end user. While unnecessary overlap or duplication between these agencies and organisations must be eliminated, as Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, it is my priority to ensure that above all else there is a coherent and cohesive delivery of State support to the indigenous business sector based on clear enterprise policy principles laid down by my Department. In regard to CEBs, their current structure is in need of review and reform for several reasons including the fact that they currently comprise 35 separate legal entities, significantly increasing the administrative overhead of the service. Nevertheless, I reiterate that any changes to the CEB structure must not compromise the State’s engagement with and support for important micro companies. I am engaging with my officials and other Government colleagues to determine the best way forward and will shortly bring my proposals to Government on the CEB structure. I thank the Minister for his comments.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: The CEBs operate as the engine for small business development throughout the State. They operate locally and therefore have a fantastic knowledge of enterprise locally. They also ensure that small businesses around the State can engage easily with expertise, funds and advice. Therefore, they are a very important part of the enterprise development area. We have a situation whereby Fianna Fáil, in the previous Administration, significantly reduced the amount of funding county enterprise boards received at a time when their job was important and jobs were important to the economy. I am not sure I got an answer to my question. My question concerned the future of CEBs because in recent years the previous Minister created an air of confusion and uncertainty with regard to them. People are fearful that the knowledge that has been built up will be dissipated. Will the county enterprise boards exist or will they be subsumed into the local authorities? If they are subsumed into the local authorities, will they become part of what people see as the layers of bureaucracy that may exist in some local authorities? What are the plans for the funding? Will the cuts by Fianna Fáil in the county enterprise board sector be reversed by the new Administration? If they go to local authorities, will it be the case that councillors may have influence over where grant funding can be allocated? This, if it arose, would be negative.

Deputy John Perry: Importantly, it is our intention to have a one-stop-shop solution for enterprise in every county. On the current duplication of providers, it is important that we would have facilitation, involving not only county enterprise boards but partnership and FÁS. Streamlining is needed. It is our intention to bring forward a plan in the next 100 days that will set the possibilities of getting value for money. Critically important is the administrative costs 623 Other 29 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy John Perry.] of county enterprise boards. Given there are 35 of them in the State, there is duplication that we want to eliminate. The backbone of the economy is small indigenous companies based in the community. I would agree with the Deputy that the boards have been successful in the past. It is critical that the work ongoing with enterprise boards, in mentoring and support to companies, is continued. Having said that the system needs major refocussing. We need to ensure that there is a one- stop-shop solution in every county or region that will offer support to small companies. On the future role of enterprise boards, there are many providers of job initiatives in counties at present. It is our intention to bring them all together in a one-stop-shop facility that will be clear in its message, will cut down on the cost and will give the end-user — the business person with the ideas — the critical support, and to ensure that the funding is available to them.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: In the 100 days while we are waiting, 13,000 people will emigrate from the State. Will the amount of funding being invested in the enterprise sector increase or decrease?

Deputy John Perry: We will get additional value for money from the funding already allocated. It is important that we maximise the value from the funding being allocated. While taking Deputy Tóibín’s point on job retention and job creation, great things can be achieved by small companies. I believe in the supports given. We are 20 days in the job. I can assure the Deputy that top of my priorities is to ensure that local small companies get every support and every job will be retained where possible. We are actively engaging with the enterprise boards in the job they are doing on a daily basis.

Other Questions

————

Departmental Agencies 34. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation when the Source Ireland portal will be set up as per the Programme for Government; the persons who will be responsible for running this portal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5861/11]

36. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation when the new Export Trade Council will be established; the number of members that will be appointed to this Council; the way these members will be appointed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5860/11]

39. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation if the commitment in the Programme for Government to implement the recommendations of the Trading and Investment in the Smart Economy means that he will see through the Smart Economy strategy [5793/11]

52. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the way local trade and investment teams will be set up in emerging economies; the persons whose remit these will be under and the persons who will be responsible for overseeing their activities, including reviewing their targets; the way the scholarship scheme be administered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5862/11] 624 Other 29 March 2011. Questions

60. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation when the new Export Trade Council will be established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5346/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: I propose to take Questions Nos. 34, 36, 39, 52 and 60 together. The Government believes that Ireland’s economic recovery must be export led and as such, is committed to taking the actions necessary to support that export growth to the maximum possible. We are also committed to promoting the long-term development of new markets. The programme for Government has outlined the Government’s commitment towards the progressive implementation of the recommendations in Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy, which was launched in September last. This is the first time that all of the relevant agencies and Department involved in promoting overseas trade, tourism and investment came together with an integrated approach to achieve a set of agreed priorities and targets for both existing and new high-growth potential markets. The targets agreed by these agencies are to be implemented through a suite of actions driven by a recently established Foreign Trade Council. These actions are aimed at strengthening Ireland’s international image and brand, strengthening in-country presence and support, developing and internationalising our enterprise base, developing Ireland as a hub for global high-technology enterprises and clusters, aligning visa policy with priorities in the strategy, support for SMEs, continuing develop of international trade agreements, joint actions and partnerships with other countries and effective engagement with the business community. The Government supports the overall objective of the strategy and action plan which is to marshal and co-ordinate the resources of the State. We believe that its implementation will result in sustained efforts of all key Departments and agencies. As soon as the transfer of trade functions to the new Department of foreign affairs and trade, as announced by the Taoiseach, has been effected, the nature, structure, future role and time lines of the proposed export trade council will be considered as a matter of urgency. The Government is conscious of the need to avoid establishing new groups and bodies unless absolutely necessary and will therefore consider what amendments to the membership and terms of reference are needed to re-align the existing Foreign Trade Council, one of which is to introduce private sector membership onto that body. As I highlighted already, the Government fully supports the consensus that economic recovery will be export led. Included in the process of achieving that will be looking at all initiatives to facilitate export growth and there will be an examination of how we can better provide a portal for companies seeking to export Irish good through a single Source Ireland portal. There are also proposals to introduce a home-to-export initiative which would focus on companies exporting for the first time. I am conscious of the valuable work already undertaken by Enterprise Ireland in helping Irish companies to sell their goods and services abroad, and this is an opportunity to develop that work. It includes breaking into new and high growth markets such as the BRIC countries and also in facilitating existing Irish companies in getting new and innovative products into new markets.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: I welcome the Source Ireland portal proposed by the Government to market Irish goods and services overseas. When will this be developed? Has the Department begun to develop this? How will enterprises link in to it? There is a website already established called thinkirish.ie. Is the Minister intending to develop the portal along the lines of that site and co-operate with those who operate it? 625 Other 29 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Richard Bruton: As I indicated in reply to an earlier question, we are developing within my Department a jobs programme into which each of these initiatives will slot. We are examining the existing operations and how they can be improved and amplified by proposals such as the Source Ireland portal and the other initiatives specifically targeting exports. No doubt many small businesses have the capability to export. Enterprise Ireland now recognises that a greater amount of its effort needs to go to a wider range of companies that might not have always been regarded as the key exporters in order to see where the job opportunities can be developed. Typically, it will be in smaller companies. We are looking at how a package of measures can be developed that help smaller companies to break into export markets. We hope there will be a series of initiatives that will be knitted together. I hope to develop that package within 100 days.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: It is a work in progress at this stage. In terms of the export trade council issue, there is already a Foreign Trade Council in existence which is made up of senior representatives from relevant Departments. The concept of that is to promote the brand Ireland, develop the St. Patrick’s Day potential; and trade missions utilising the existing embassies. When the export trade council is established, what will be different about it from the Foreign Trade Council? There is a mixture of public and private sector involvement. The concern, which I am sure the Minister would share, is that we do not need another quango. We need to know what are the terms of reference and what is distinctive from the Foreign Trade Council. What is the procedure for the appointment of personnel from the private sector? There has been much criticism of the appointments of the outgoing Government as it was about to leave office. Will the procedure for appointments come before this House so that we can scrutinise the capacity of the individuals appointed?

Deputy Richard Bruton: The idea of introducing trade into the Foreign Affairs brief is to get a better focus from the diplomatic service on the need to make those embassies the selling point for Ireland, both in investment and in trade. The need to use that instrument in which we invest to best advantage is shared widely across the House. To be fair, many of those embassies are already doing that. That is the logic of including trade under the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Clearly, that transfer will take time. The development of the new export trade council will be done jointly, with the Tánaiste as a key player. The introduction of private sector players is believed to bring greater focus in that the needs of business are brought directly into the mix when strategies are worked out. We are not losing momentum. Local teams for the promotion of trade and tourism investment, including State agencies and local ambassadors, have been working and developing plans. That work is ongoing. However, the method of appointment and detailed terms of reference have not yet been decided. I recognise, as I did in my earlier response, the 4o’clock Deputies’ concern. We are not trying to create big quangos. We believe that, owing to the need to export and the depressed state of the domestic market, we must maximise the impact of the foreign resource and sweat these assets. That is the purpose of this work.

Technology Research Centres 35. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the date on which the network of technology research centres will be established as per the Programme for Government; the locations for the initial three centres to be established; the way these will 626 Other 29 March 2011. Questions be funded; the timeframe for the establishment of further centres; the location of these centres; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5864/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Sean Sherlock): In the programme for Government a commitment has been given to establish a network of technology research centres that will accelerate the exploitation of new technologies and bridge the gap between research and technology commercialisation. The initial focus will be in the key areas of biotechnology, nanotechnology and high value manufacturing. In establishing the technology research centre networks I intend to build on the existing infrastructure of relevant centres for science engineering and technology, CSETs, strategic research centres and competence centres currently in place. My intention is that over a period of time a programme will be devised that will put in place a structure, or structures, to deliver on this initiative. Experience has shown that the best results are delivered when such centres are established by means of a competitive process. In this way the best proposals come to the top, ideas can be generated and refined, collaborations established and both industry and research centres afforded an opportunity to define the most apposite agenda to bring together both the needs of the present and the opportunities of the future. This process will determine both the timing and location of the centres. The programme for Government has committed to the initial establishment of three technology research centres, one in each of the fields of biotechnology, nanotechnology and high value manufacturing. The establishment of an applied biotechnology centre is timely because it will allow Ireland to fully capitalise on the very significant investments made in our basic research base since the late 1990s through highly talented people and the provision of world- class infrastructure. Nanotechnology is set to have a big impact on sectors which are important to the economy, in particular ICT, life sciences and the food sector. Ireland has made substantial investments in nanotechnology research, principally in CRANN in TCD and the Tyndall National Institute in UCC. A Forfás review of the nanotechnology infrastructure in Ireland proposed that the State should take a more proactive role in driving the commercialisation of nanotechnology, diversify funding and collaborate with industry and academia to deliver on key focus areas and leverage existing resources more fully. The proposal to establish technology research centres can facilitate a transformational change, enabling Irish industry to exploit new opportunities. The timeframe for future centres will be determined by the progress and success of the three initial centres.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): Before calling Deputy Tóibín, I advise the Minister and Ministers of State that the length of their replies is well in excess of the time limit.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: For years we have heard Governments talk about developing a knowledge economy, but at the same time moneys have been ripped from the education area. There have been two difficulties in the research and technology sector during the years. The first concerns the amount of money being invested and the priority given to the sector, while the second concerns the ability to monetise research results, create feasible businesses from them and sell them abroad. I welcome some of the initiatives mentioned by the Minister of State and look forward to seeing some of them being pursued. I have a major issue with the techno- logical research that takes place in that there is no understanding of what the market thinks. It is said the market has all of the answers. What input will industry and the market have in developing the technology and research initiatives mentioned? In most enterprise initiatives there is some level of benchmarking to establish what amount of money will be returned on each euro invested. What return does the Minister of State expect to receive on each euro invested under this initiative? 627 Other 29 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Sean Sherlock: We already have a process in place which adopts the clustering approach and brings together industry and research institutions. The purpose is to create synergies between industry and the research function within third level institutions in order that research findings can be commercialised. In the applied nanotechnology sector, for example, companies such as Aerogen, Analog Devices, Intel and Medtronic are all well established and already have well established links between industry and the research component. The Deputy has raised a valid point as to when research takes place and when the findings are commercialised. A relationship is developing between Science Foundation Ireland and Enterprise Ireland and it is growing deeper as the months pass and the sector becomes a more important part of the economy and our recovery. It has become glaringly obvious that we need to ensure the two agencies work side by side to ensure jobs are created as a result. I will revert to the Deputy on the question of value for money and the return on our investment. I have the same question and, therefore, beg the Deputy’s indulgence in giving a response. At this time I am being briefed as a new Minister of State and only developing my knowledge of the situation. These questions are inherent in the process. I will be happy to share information with the Deputy in due course.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): We are out of time, but I will allow Deputy Donnelly to put a question. I ask him to be brief.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly: I welcome the Government’s investment in the research centres. I will pick up on Deputy Tóibín’s point. I understand the Minister of State is new in the brief, but I imagine he did not pick up on the three areas of biotechnology, nanotechnology and high value manufacturing. Evidence from around the world shows that governments, even with the best interests, are incredibly bad at choosing areas in which the private sector should invest. There are many examples of failure from all over the world in this regard. On the basis that the Minister of State was given these three areas, I encourage him to look hard at why and how they were chosen. Were they chosen by the private sector companies which were going to have to commercialise operations in them or were they chosen by Government bodies or quangos which concluded they were good areas in which to invest? The Minister of State should look closely at why they were chosen and encourage the participation of the private sector in choosing the areas in which research will be developed.

Deputy Sean Sherlock: The Deputy’s comments presuppose that there is no interaction between the private sector and the Government. However, there is interaction, through the State agencies. I invite the Deputy to look at the Enterprise Ireland website or interact with the organisation when he will see there is a vast array of companies which interact with both it and Science Foundation Ireland. There is interaction between them so as to ensure research findings can be commercialised. The three strands selected were industry-driven and driven by the technology leaders within the various competence centres. The strategy is clear and well thought out. If the Deputy has ideas as to where there should be research, I would welcome engagement with him in that regard.

Question No. 36 answered with Question No. 34.

Enterprise Support Services 37. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation his plans to develop export programmes for small businesses; the facilities and assistance that currently exist for small companies wishing to export; if he will consider a State wide export programme for small and medium enterprises who do not have the ability to grow in the domestic market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5859/11] 628 Other 29 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Richard Bruton: I am discussing with Enterprise Ireland how its programmes could be better adapted to help small and medium enterprises to develop export opportunities. The programme for Government includes proposals to have a better system to allow foreign buyers easily source Irish products and to help companies now operating principally in the home market to launch into exporting. There are a number of programmes offered by Enterprise Ireland and some small companies would be in a position to avail of them. The focus of the agency is very much on high potential start-ups, of which 80 were developed last year. At a lower level the county and city enterprise boards support micro-enterprises that operate on a smaller scale but which would still include exporting opportunities. Enterprise Ireland offers a number of supports to assist companies explore new export opportunities such as the “going global fund” and “Graduates 4 International Growth” which places graduates in small companies with the opportunity to expand. It has an international selling programme and developed a series of workshops entitled, “Excel at Export Selling”, which helps companies to break into markets for the first time. It also offers its overseas office network which is located in 31 cities throughout the world and is developing business mentors to work with companies that have the capacity to export. There is scope to build on the initiatives already in place in order that a more coherent programme is developed to have a wider range of companies targeting the export market at a time of depressed domestic demand.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: The Government has put many of its chips on the export market which, unfortunately, is heavily reliant on foreign direct investment. There are 250,000 small businesses in the State, yet we have only 80 high potential start-ups developed by Enterprise Ireland, an extremely limited number. Most small businesses engage at county enterprise board level, yet there is no county enterprise board export programme operating throughout the State. There is a small number of boards that are progressive enough to offer small businesses the opportunity to do so. There has been an historic view that one needs to master the local economy before one can begin to export, but obviously there is no local economy for many people. What plans does the Government have to create a focused, financed programme to help these small county enterprise board businesses?

Deputy Richard Bruton: We are proposing the creation of a €100 million micro-enterprise fund that will be aimed specifically at such companies. We hope it will be rolled out in what is a competitive area. It will not only be confined to county enterprise boards, although they could be a feature. There are other useful groups supporting new start-ups such as First Step which is predominantly based in Dublin city but which has now a national mandate. There are opportunities to look at other ways to support them, but we need to make supports more accessible to smaller companies. I want Enterprise Ireland to develop programmes that will be easier to roll out and can be promoted in a business to business support format. I very much admire the Plato Programme that allows existing companies, working in their own free time, to support smaller companies to develop. If we can pump prime that activity, we can add much value without having to commit huge funds that clearly are not available. I share the Deputy’s eagerness to see development in this regard and we will be working to see how we can develop an effective package to help these companies.

38. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the way the cooperative model will be promoted; the way he will ensure a level playing field between cooperatives and the other legal options for structuring enterprise activities; when he will establish the constructive framework for the realisation of the potential of the sector as per the Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5873/11] 629 Adjournment 29 March 2011. Debate Matters

Deputy Richard Bruton: The co-operative model is one of a number of legal options available to those considering establishing themselves in business and the different models have their own distinct characteristics. It is, of course, up to each individual operation to choose the model that best suits the nature of the business and the desired ethos of the entity. The Department issued a consultation paper on the legislation that governs the majority of co-operatives in Ireland, the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, inviting interested parties to submit proposals for the changes to the legislation that they considered necessary to address issues causing difficulty for the effective operation of the co-operative model. On foot of this consultation process, I intend to bring proposals to the Government shortly providing for a number of amendments to the current legislation which will address the immediate difficulties raised by the sector. I expect that these amendments will make the co-operative model more attractive for those wishing to use it. The direct promotion of co-operatives is a matter for the co-operative movement. It is ably done by the three main umbrella groups for co-operatives, namely, the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society which developed predominantly in the dairy industry but has branched out to the wider food, agribusiness and rural sectors in Ireland, the National Association of Building Co-operatives which deals with housing co-operatives and the National Federation of Group Water Schemes which deals with group water schemes. In addition, I propose to engage with the co-operative sector on its plans to promote the particular benefits of the co-operative model to a wider audience, as it will come to the fore in 2012 which has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Co-operatives.

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 Joe McHugh — the report of investigation into the sinking of the FV Strath Marie under the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000; (2) Deputy Brian Walsh — the need for funding for refurbishment works at Taibhdhearc na Gaillmhe; (3) Deputy Mattie McGrath — gaelscoil Cluain Meala and the plans of the Department of Edu- cation and Skills to progress to the design and planning stages as there is a two-year time limit following the purchase of the site last year; (4) Deputy Michael Creed — the proposed changes to the primary school transport scheme; (5) Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn — to ask the Minister whether he confirm when the Government will allocate the necessary funding to ensure construction works on the breakwater at Greencastle, County Donegal can recommence and when the project can be completed; (6) Deputy Tom Fleming — the need for the Minister for Transport to bring forward to a more immediate date the PSO originally scheduled for July, following the continuation of reductions in the number of Kerry to Dublin flights which is impacting severely on tourism and business in County Kerry and jobs at Kerry Airport; (7) 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 have any plans to bring forward such proposals; (8) 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; (9) Deputy Catherine Murphy — the need for the Minister for Education and Skills to defer a decision to make SNAs redundant at St. Raphael’s special school in Celbridge; (10) Deputy David Stanton — to request the Minister for Education and Skills to debate the urgent need for additional second level school places and-or that a new second level school or schools be provided in the Midleton and east Cork area to meet the ever increasing demand for second level places which has resulted from the 630 Leaders’ 29 March 2011. Questions recent high population growth in the area; (11) Deputy Brendan Smith — the need to retain the full complement of beds in Lisdaran nursing unit for the elderly; (12) Deputy Gerry Adams — the need to reinstate services at Louth County Hospital; and (13) 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 Choir losing its ninth teacher from September this year. The matters raised by the Deputies Creed, Walsh, Smith and Adams have been selected for discussion.

Leaders’ Questions Deputy Micheál Martin: Three weeks ago the Taoiseach promised the House that he would operate his Government according to new standards of accountability and openness. He said nobody would be exempt from the need to be fully honest about his or her actions, past or present. He is now faced with turning these words into action. For the last week with the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and others, he has avoided making any public comment on the Mini- ster’s dealings with the Moriarty tribunal. It is now clear that the House’s consideration of the report is being designed by the Government to avoid the direct questioning of its members. Given the seriousness of the issues dealt with in the Moriarty tribunal report, I assume the Taoiseach has taken the time to discuss them with colleagues, especially the man widely viewed as being central to his retaining the leadership of Fine Gael and eventually assuming the office of the Taoiseach. Earlier this year the Minister, Deputy Hogan, publicly stated Fine Gael would shorten the work of the Moriarty tribunal. He did this with the approval of the leader of Fine Gael. Did the Taoiseach or the Minister have sight of the tribunal’s draft unpublished report before the Minister issued that statement? Will the Taoiseach indicate if there were any contacts or meetings between the Minister or any other senior Fine Gael representative with Denis O’Brien in the last 12 months and, if so, what was the nature of such contacts or meetings?

Taoiseach (Deputy Enda Kenny): On several occasions I have made my view known that I would like to see the report of the tribunal published as quickly as possible. If the Deputy checks the record, he will find that on umpteen occasions I asked from the other side of the House when we might expect to see production of the Moriarty tribunal report. I welcome the fact that it has now been published. Neither the Minister, Deputy Hogan, nor any other Deputy was in a position to shorten the timescale for production of the report. We had expressed the wish that it would be produced as soon as possible, in the public interest. I have no knowledge of any meetings with Mr. O’Brien in the past 12 months. I did not see a draft of the final report of the Moriarty tribunal before it was published. As I said to the Deputy last week, I was informed of the report being published in digital fashion as I was going to the Cabinet meeting.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach might answer whether the Minister, Deputy Hogan, saw a draft of the unpublished Moriarty report before he made his statement. The statement is very clear. It was made on 6 February last. It said that the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals would be given a strict deadline to issue their final reports within months of the new Govern- ment coming into office. It said that both public inquiries would be allowed a small window in which to conclude their current work. It said that the incoming Government would have the power to rewrite the terms of reference of each tribunal and to place a deadline for the completion of their reports if the tribunals failed to demonstrate a willingness to complete them. It was a clear and specific statement. It referred to a new plan to be unveiled by Fine Gael. It was a clear statement by a senior member of the Fine Gael Front Bench of the time. It was almost menacing and threatening in its tone and tenor and in the way in which it was written. Did the Minister, Deputy Hogan, have sight of the unpublished draft of the Moriarty report prior to issuing that statement on behalf of Fine Gael? Has the Taoiseach had any conversations with Members or with the Minister, Deputy Hogan, on the Moriarty report since it was published? 631 Leaders’ 29 March 2011. Questions

The Taoiseach: As I have said, our view was that it was opportune that this tribunal and others should be brought to a conclusion. My own view was that I would have liked the Moriarty tribunal, if it was going to continue, to be able to finish before the end of this year or some time like that. I am glad that it has been concluded and the report has been published. There was no question of Fine Gael attempting to rewrite the terms of reference of a tribunal that had been running for 14 years, nor should there have been. There was a public interest in seeing that the report was published and concluded, and I am very glad that the sole member has done that. I cannot answer the question about whether the Minister, Deputy Hogan, saw a draft of the Moriarty report. I certainly did not and I do not assume he did. I expect he will contribute to the debate and answer that question. The Government considered the implications of the Moriarty report this morning. On behalf of my Department, I sought the approval of the Government for the recommendations of the Moriarty report to be circulated to Departments that are affected by or have responsibility in respect of the Moriarty report. It was agreed that the Departments should make recommendations to the Government within four weeks with regard to the implementation or otherwise of the recommendations in the Moriarty report. In addition, there was an understanding that a number of legal cases which are pending, arising from the Moriarty tribunal, need to be borne in mind by those who speak about the report and its conclusions.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Very briefly, a Cheann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Adams.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I am within my time limit.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy knows the Standing Orders as well as I do.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I do.

An Ceann Comhairle: We have run out of time on this question. I call Deputy Adams.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I just want to say——

An Ceann Comhairle: We will have a debate on this issue after the Order of Business.

Deputy Micheál Martin: We will indeed.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will be allowed to speak for 30 minutes.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I want to put it on the record that it is not a view or a perception.

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

Deputy Micheál Martin: There was an actual statement by Deputy Hogan that he would rewrite the terms of reference and that one of his first priorities would be to write to the tribunal to inform it of that.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Níor mhaith liom cur isteach ar an Teachta. I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that golden circles and elites have brought this State into economic distress. There is evidence of complicity and collusion between some politicians, some sections of the media, big business, financiers and so on. Some people have been accused of economic treason. As the Taoiseach has said, there is a wide gap between citizens and the political system. He has said that honesty is his only policy. I accept that. Why then did Fine Gael not inform the Moriarty tribunal about the donation of $50,000 that it received from Telenor in December 1995? There were two people at the centre of that. Deputy Lowry was chair of the board of 632 Leaders’ 29 March 2011. Questions trustees of Fine Gael. The late David Austin was an acknowledged supporter and fundraiser for the Fine Gael Party. This begs another question. How many donations were made to Fine Gael in this way?

The Taoiseach: I have referred to this on a number of occasions. I deplore the fact that — human nature being what it is — some people use and have used the privilege of being elected to this House for personal advancement as distinct from public service. I have a very fundamental view about that. The contribution that was raised by the late David Austin has been the subject of intensive discussion. I have referred to it in the House and do so will again now and later. I might make the point that I understand that the deceased person referred to by Deputy Adams also raised £60,000 for the late Mr. Haughey when he was in office. Be that as it may. I would like to address the issue of the contribution from Telenor, which was transferred by circuitous routes and came to Fine Gael under a different heading before the subsequent election. When it was discovered that it was from the group involved, the then leader of the party, John Bruton, was outraged and asked that it be sent back. There followed some further rooting before it became clear that the Fine Gael Party did not benefit from this contribution. It was neither wanted nor held when it became known.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It was.

The Taoiseach: Fine Gael sought the advice of an eminent senior counsel on whether this contribution was relevant to the Moriarty tribunal and its remit. Based on the evidence given to that senior counsel — the background information, the notes about meetings and all the rest of it — the eminent senior counsel said that in his opinion, it did not fall within the remit of the Moriarty tribunal. One has to apply political common sense to these things as well. I would have disagreed with that decision. In hindsight, obviously, Fine Gael would have sent that information to the tribunal. That is what happened when that information was leaked. As I have said, the then leader of the party, Deputy Noonan, sent the entire file down to the tribunal and asked that it be assessed and considered. It is given particular treatment in the findings of the sole member — it is said to be distinguishable from other contributions. I would have taken a different view about sending it to the tribunal in the first instance. I assume it is easy to be wise in hindsight. I wish to inform Deputy Adams that I will publish the senior counsel’s advice this evening so that nobody needs to be in any doubt about the legal advice in the information that was given to the party by a senior counsel.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It should never have been sought.

The Taoiseach: Given what transpired subsequently, my view is that it should have been sent to the tribunal in the first instance.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It was not a legal question. Legal advice should not have been sought.

Deputy Gerry Adams: It is like saying “big boys made me do it”. The fact is that the legal advice did not have to be taken.

The Taoiseach: Correct.

Deputy Gerry Adams: That begs another question. Who paid for that legal advice and how much was it? I would like to return to the whole business of payments. Denis O’Brien made a series of payments to Deputy Lowry when the Deputy was a Fine Gael Minister. A payment of £147,000 was made on behalf of Denis O’Brien via a series of offshore accounts to Deputy Lowry’s Irish Nationwide account in the Isle of Man. Did Fine Gael receive any of this money? 633 Leaders’ 29 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Gerry Adams.] Was Deputy Lowry acting as a Minister, as a chair of trustees, or in a private capacity? Is there any way of getting clarity on this issue?

The Taoiseach: I do not speak for Deputy Lowry or the circles in which he moved, or in respect of any payments he may have received. The Fine Gael Party was asked by the tribunal about contributions that may have been made by Mr. O’Brien and it carried out an extensive trawl in respect of a range of companies in every constituency, and that information was given to the tribunal. It amounted, over a period, to €22,000 in different contributions and that was made known, fully and completely, to the tribunal by party sources.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Does the Taoiseach accept it was utterly negligent of him to allow the former Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, to sideline the Cabinet in which they both served and bounce the entire Government of which they were Members into awarding the second mobile telephone licence to Esat and Mr. Denis O’Brien by foreshortening the process and bringing it forward by one month? Did the Taoiseach understand at the time this was probably the most valuable licence that would ever be awarded in the history of this State? That being the case, is it not incredible that no serious Cabinet discussion took place about the final decision? He was part of that. We now know that Deputy Lowry delivered a licence by disgraceful and insidious means to Mr. O’Brien, which highlights the Taoiseach’s failure in Cabinet. Can he explain? Evidence to the tribunal reveals Fine Gael’s enormous propensity to peddle political influence for big business funding. It had its face in the corporate trough every bit as much as Fianna Fáil. Perhaps it was in more genteel surroundings than a crude marquee in a race course but Mr. Denis O’Brien showered the Taoiseach’s party with cash throughout the whole of 1995, while the mobile telephone contest raged. Without even a discussion at Cabinet, Fine Gael and Labour Ministers, including the Taoiseach, gifted the same Mr. O’Brien with a personal gold- mine from which he made €300 million or more shortly afterwards. Considering the relationship between Mr. O’Brien and Fine Gael, is there any way that the Taoiseach is anything but hopelessly compromised in this situation? Will he at least begin by making a full apology to the Irish people for this disgusting relationship of big business influence and the Fine Gael Party?

The Taoiseach: Generally the Deputy uses the phrase “slurping from the corporate trough”. I have heard him on that on several occasions. The subject of the Deputy’s question was the subject of a tribunal that has run for 14 years. There will be a particular and special debate with questions and answers on this matter.

Deputy Joe Higgins: I am asking the Taoiseach, not the tribunal.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I am answering the Deputy. If he is ever lucky enough to serve at Cabinet level in the future, he might find himself in a position where whatever Department he serves in is given responsibility of a sub-committee to deal with particular issues. In this case, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will deal with questions in so far as the tribunal per se is concerned. I am prepared to answer questions in respect of the party I lead and its fundraising activities in so far as the Moriarty tribunal is concerned. The Moriarty tribunal is very clear in a number of respects. It makes it perfectly clear that the Members of the current Government who sat around that Cabinet table have been completely exonerated in respect of the decision to award the licences concerned.

Deputy Michael McGrath: On what page does it say that?

The Taoiseach: The Moriarty tribunal and the findings of the sole member are explicit in that regard. 634 Leaders’ 29 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin: They are not explicit.

The Taoiseach: Yes. they are.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The Taoiseach refused to answer the question. He refused to answer for his conduct at the time. He was not exonerated, he was absent. That is the situation in regard to what the tribunal found. I remind him of the relationship between his party and Mr. Denis O’Brien. On 30 August 1995, seven weeks before the award of this licence, the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government wrote:

Dear Denis I am delighted to hear of your response in becoming a sponsor of the Fine Gael Golf Classic. Your very generous sponsorship of £4,000 will be used two-fold, with £1,000 sponsoring a hole and the remaining balance sponsoring the wine for the Gala Dinner.

An Ceann Comhairle: Questions please.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Two months before Fine Gael in Government awarded the most valuable contract in the history of this State the private individual who was desperately looking for it was lubricating the throats of Fine Gael grandees at a gala dinner. Is it not obvious to everybody this was to lubricate the licence process?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Wine is dangerous.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Is there any way to describe this other than as a corruption of Govern- ment and a peddling of Government by Fine Gael for funds from big business?

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you Deputy.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The Taoiseach was rostered to be at the private dinner in New York on 9 November 1995, around which time a £50,000 donation was made. Is he aware of the letter from Mr. Austin——

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry Deputy, this is Leaders’ Questions. He will have an opportunity to put what he wants on the record when we get to the debate.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Allow me to finish my point.

An Ceann Comhairle: Your time for questions has expired. You are 30 or 40 seconds over your time. Please put a question.

Deputy Joe Higgins: I simply ask the Taoiseach to explain a dinner peddling Fine Gael influence to American big business, as is clearly outlined in this letter. He was rostered to be in attendance. Mr. O’Brien used it to make his £50,000 donation. Was he at that dinner and is that not another corruption of politics? How does he explain this?

The Taoiseach: The sponsorship by Mr. O’Brien of a golf classic conducted by Fine Gael was not an individual thing. Many companies sponsored many golf classics around the country. I am not sure whether the letter was carried through in respect of sponsoring wine or whatever. The Deputy stated that I was “rostered” to be in New York.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Yes.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I am not sure from what book he is quoting. I was never rostered to be in New York. The late Mr. Austin proposed in the beginning that a number of Ministers 635 Order of 29 March 2011. Business

[Deputy Enda Kenny.] might attend that function and that I should be one of them. In the event, I had no hand, act or part in the persons who may have attended that function. As I certainly did not cross the Atlantic and I certainly was not in the 21 Club, his comment about being rostered to attend is off the mark yet again.

Deputy Joe Higgins: What about the principle?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Deputy Higgins is wrong. He should check his facts.

An Ceann Comhairle: That completes Leaders’ Questions.

Deputy Finian McGrath: Was Deputy Durkan there?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Have a word with him.

An Ceann Comhairle: May I have order, please?

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 notices under Standing Order 32. I call Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to discuss a matter of national importance, namely, the urgent need for the Government to determine what procedures were employed in awarding the very sensitive and lucrative 2011 Irish national census contract worth €6 million to CACI, an international consulting firm that has been associated with human rights abuses at the notorious Abu Ghraib detention centre in 2004; and to determine whether adequate investigations were carried out by those charged with conducting the competition into the information provided by the US Government’s Penta- gon report, entitled Investigation of Intelligence Activities at Abu Ghraib, which implicated CACI with regard to abusive activities.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having consider the matter raised, it is not in order under Standing Order 32.

Order of Business The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 6, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; and No. 10, statements on the Moriarty tribunal report. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted on the adjournment of Private Members’ business, which shall be No. 20, motion re universal social charge, which shall be taken tonight immediately after Deputy Lowry’s first statement or at 7 p.m., whichever is the later, and adjourn after 90 minutes; No. 6 shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on No. 10 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. tomorrow, and the following arrangements shall apply: the statement of the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; Deputy Michael Lowry shall be called upon to make a statement which shall not exceed one hour; the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; a Minister or Minister of State may speak more than once; Members may share time; Deputy Michael Lowry shall be called upon no later than 5.20 p.m. tomorrow to make a statement, which shall not exceed 20 minutes; a Minister or Minister of State shall take questions no later than 5.40 p.m. for a period not exceeding 60 minutes; and a Minister or Minister of State shall make a statement in reply which shall not exceed 20 minutes. 636 Order of 29 March 2011. Business

Deputy Gerry Adams: A Cheann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle: Just one second, please. There are three proposals to be put to the House today. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 6, ministerial rota for parliamentary questions, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10, statements on the Moriarty tribunal report, agreed to?

Deputies: Not agreed.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I put it to the Taoiseach that we have not agreed to the arrangements for statements on the Moriarty tribunal report. Sufficient time has not been allocated to deal comprehensively with the statements and the questions that will follow. We also need clarification on who is to answer questions. Last week I asked the Taoiseach whether he would answer questions on this issue and whether other Members who were members of the Fine Gael- Labour Party Government that awarded the licence back in 1995 would also be available to answer questions. It is still unclear, based on the arrangements announced by the Taoiseach, how this will operate. Due to the additional time allocated to Deputy Lowry and the run-on of the sitting this evening, we will need more time, perhaps tomorrow, to facilitate comprehensive debate.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I object to the proposed Order of Business on the basis that this is not an adequate debate. We should be debating a motion endorsing the recommendations in the Moriarty tribunal report. I thank the judge for completing his investigation on behalf of the Dáil. It is not acceptable for us to deal with this through a serious of speeches. I note that the Government is to give Deputy Lowry a full hour and 20 minutes to speak, which is more than the total amount given to questions at the end of the statements. Deputy Lowry, on whom I do not make any judgment at this point, has had 14 years, through the tribunal, to give an account of what happened. The Government should make time for a motion of censure. Sinn Féin has submitted such a motion, and we want to see the Government giving time to ensure it is debated this week. We also need to know, in the course of any proper debate, precisely what the Government will do to establish a process for implementing the recommendations of the Moriarty report. It has said that it accepts the recommendations, as I and Sinn Féin also do, but we need to know how they will be processed.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The Taoiseach said there would be one hour of questions to a Minister or Minister of State. Does he include himself in this? Will he be here to answer questions during that hour?

The Taoiseach: They say “Repetitio mater studiorum est.” I was asked last week whether I would be here to answer questions — yes or no — and I said “Yes”. I will be here, please God, to answer questions. I will answer, as far as the Moriarty tribunal is concerned, any Member who has questions about Fine Gael’s fund-raising activities in that regard. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will take questions about the tribunal per se. I wish to outline the reasons we have put this in the way we have. Deputy Lowry is the central focus of the tribunal report. He approached the Whip to seek a speaking slot, which we were quite happy to grant him. Subsequently, he came back to seek more time. I discussed this with the Tánaiste and we agreed, in respect of his request for 50 minutes, that we should give him more than that. He then requested that he be able to participate in the question and answer session and, rather than divert that from the Minister with direct responsibility for it — or, as far as the party and its activities with regard to the tribunal are concerned, myself — we agreed that Deputy Lowry should be given an opportunity to respond to any claims made 637 Order of 29 March 2011. Business

[The Taoiseach.] during the course of the debate before the question and answer session, which will be taken by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and me, with a wrap-up by the same Minister. Deputy Martin makes the point that not enough time has been allocated. I remind him that he asked for the Dáil to be recalled last Monday for a couple of hours debate on the Moriarty tribunal. We have already allocated seven and a half hours. I remind him that on 10 February 2004, statements on the Mahon tribunal lasted for 55 minutes, with a 15-minute question and answer session. I also remind him that on 14 February 2007, statements on the interim report of the Moriarty tribunal lasted for 90 minutes, with no question and answer session.

Deputy Tom Hayes: Keeping records.

The Taoiseach: What we want to do is to put an end to all of this.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is fundamental.

The Taoiseach: The recommendations arising from this report are clear. I received approval from the Government this morning for these recommendations to be circulated to the relevant Departments and to come back here within four weeks with information on their implementation. Seven and a half hours are being allocated for discussion of the Moriarty tribunal. Whether the Deputies stand in judgment of anybody, I was happy, having discussed this with the Tánaiste, that the Deputy who is central to the report should be given adequate time to make a statement and respond to the conclusions that have been drawn by the sole member. I will be clear about who is to answer questions. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, will answer questions on matters to do with the Moriarty tribunal. I am prepared to be here if members of the Opposition wish to ask questions about fund-raising by the Fine Gael Party and its relationship to the Moriarty tribunal. I hope that makes it clear.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Can I just——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will now put the question.

Deputy Micheál Martin: On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sorry; the Standing Order allows for a brief statement from leaders, and I have allowed that. I am now putting the question.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: It is tough over there.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is not that it is tough——

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Micheál Martin: On a point of order, I seek agreement with the Taoiseach.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Respect the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry; I am dealing with this matter in accordance with Standing Orders.

Deputy Micheál Martin: A Cheann Comhairle, may I—— 638 Order of 29 March 2011. Business

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 112; Níl, 41.

Tá

Bannon, James. Kenny, Seán. Barry, Tom. Kyne, Sean. Broughan, Thomas P.. Lawlor, Anthony. Bruton, Richard. Lowry, Michael. Burton, Joan. Lynch, Ciarán. Butler, Ray. Lynch, Kathleen. Buttimer, Jerry. Lyons, John. Byrne, Catherine. Maloney, Eamonn. Byrne, Eric. Mathews, Peter. Carey, Joe. McCarthy, Michael. Coffey, Paudie. McEntee, Shane. Collins, Áine. McFadden, Nicky. Conaghan, Michael. McGinley, Dinny. Conlan, Seán. McGrath, Mattie. Connaughton, Paul J.. McHugh, Joe. Conway, Ciara. McLoughlin, Tony. Coonan, Noel. McNamara, Michael. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Mitchell, Olivia. Costello, Joe. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Coveney, Simon. Mulherin, Michelle. Creed, Michael. Murphy, Dara. Creighton, Lucinda. Murphy, Eoghan. Daly, Jim. Nash, Gerald. Naughten, Denis. Deasy, John. Neville, Dan. Deenihan, Jimmy. Nolan, Derek. Deering, Pat. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Doherty, Regina. O’Donnell, Kieran. Donohoe, Paschal. O’Donovan, Patrick. Dowds, Robert. O’Dowd, Fergus. Doyle, Andrew. O’Mahony, John. Durkan, Bernard J.. O’Reilly, Joe. English, Damien. O’Sullivan, Jan. Farrell, Alan. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Feighan, Frank. Penrose, Willie. Ferris, Anne. Perry, John. Fitzgerald, Frances. Phelan, Ann. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Phelan, John Paul. Flanagan, Terence. Quinn, Ruairí. Gilmore, Eamon. Rabbitte, Pat. Griffin, Brendan. Reilly, James. Hannigan, Dominic. Ring, Michael. Harrington, Noel. Ryan, Brendan. Harris, Simon. Shatter, Alan. Hayes, Brian. Sherlock, Sean. Hayes, Tom. Shortall, Róisín. Healy-Rae, Michael. Spring, Arthur. Heydon, Martin. Stagg, Emmet. Hogan, Phil. Stanton, David. Howlin, Brendan. Timmins, Billy. Humphreys, Heather. Tuffy, Joanna. Humphreys, Kevin. Twomey, Liam. Keating, Derek. Varadkar, Leo. Keaveney, Colm. Wall, Jack. Kehoe, Paul. Walsh, Brian. Kelly, Alan. White, Alex. Kenny, Enda.

Níl

Adams, Gerry. Calleary, Dara. Boyd Barrett, Richard. Collins, Joan. Browne, John. Collins, Niall. 639 Order of 29 March 2011. Business

Níl—continued

Colreavy, Michael. McConalogue, Charlie. Cowen, Barry. McDonald, Mary Lou. Crowe, Seán. McGrath, Finian. Daly, Clare. McGrath, Michael. Doherty, Pearse. McLellan, Sandra. Dooley, Timmy. Moynihan, Michael. Ellis, Dessie. Murphy, Catherine. Ferris, Martin. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Fleming, Sean. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Halligan, John. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Healy, Seamus. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Higgins, Joe. O’Brien, Jonathan. Kelleher, Billy. Pringle, Thomas. Kirk, Seamus. Smith, Brendan. Kitt, Michael P.. Stanley, Brian. Lenihan, Brian. Tóibín, Peadar. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. Troy, Robert. Martin, Micheál.

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

Amendment declared carried.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is over three weeks since the changes in ministerial responsibilities were announced yet Members of this House are being denied the right to ask questions of two members of the Government. All questions to Deputy Brendan Howlin are being answered by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. All questions to Deputy 5o’clock Frances Fitzgerald are being answered by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy James Reilly. According to the Order Paper, Deputy Fitzgerald will come before us as the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Deputy Howlin has responsibility for public service employees and is allegedly responsible for billions of euro yet he cannot be asked questions in the House. Can the Taoiseach state when the situation will be dealt with and when Ministers will come before the House to answer questions on the areas assigned by the Taoiseach? Who will take responsibility for the announcement of the May budget?

The Taoiseach: I accept that the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and public reform and the Minister with responsibility for children are Ministers without portfolios because the legislation giving effect to both new Departments has not been passed. This is being treated as a matter of priority. Both Ministers are concerned. The Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and public reform has initiated expressions of interest for suitably qualified persons to head up the Department. The Minister with responsibility for children is doing this through an open competition and it will be pursued as quickly as possible. We will bring the matter to the House as soon as it is ready. I cannot give an exact date but it will be as fast as we can do it. The jobs budget is being worked on separately by the Minister for Finance and will be presented by him.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I refer to a matter of grave national importance. I tabled a question to the Taoiseach on this matter but the question was not reached. A fellow Deputy also raised this point. Can time be made available to discuss the census issue and the company involved and contracted to participate in organising the census? I imagine the Taoiseach is aware that the company is CACI UK, which is a subsidiary of an American-based multinational that had the contract from the US Department of Defence for involvement in interrogation in 640 Order of 29 March 2011. Business

Abu Ghraib and against which serious allegations have been made in regard to its involvement in the horrendous activities in Abu Ghraib.

An Ceann Comhairle: A question please, Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I am trying to make the case to the Taoiseach why time should be made for this. Serious concerns are being expressed about the sensitive nature of the census information being potentially accessible to a company against which grave human rights allegations have been made and which is linked to the US Department of Defence. This is a matter of national importance and it should be discussed. Statements on behalf of the Govern- ment should be made and Deputies should have the opportunity to ask questions about this matter.

The Taoiseach: I suggest to Deputy Boyd Barrett that he raises this matter on the Adjourn- ment through the Ceann Comhairle’s office. I know he has tabled a question to the Taoiseach and these are answered on the basis of a rota. A certain number are answered every day. Deputy Boyd Barrett could change this to a written question and I will see that the Whip with responsibility for census matters gives the fullest information possible.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ferris.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Briefly ----

An Ceann Comhairle: No, Deputy Boyd Barrett has received his answer. It is a matter for the Whips. Deputy Boyd Barrett can seek time through his Whip to deal with the issue.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: The census is taking place on 10 April——

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry Deputy Boyd Barrett——

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: There is a timing issue. There is a question about the integrity of——

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

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: ——-the census and this is a serious national matter.

The Taoiseach: I launched the census a short time ago and it is very important in terms of Ireland’s economy and social issues. Deputy Boyd Barrett requests up-to-date information on this matter and I suggest seeking Dáil time through the Whips or he can request the Ceann Comhairle’s office to grant an Adjournment debate. This will allow Deputy Boyd Barrett some time and allow the Minister some time to answer. He can also transfer his oral question for written answer and he will be given as much information as can be supplied.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I refer to a matter raised in the House last week that, to my knowledge, was not answered. I refer to the serious industrial relations issue with regard to staff in the House from a health and safety point of view and enforced working hours due to the public sector embargo. No Dáil tours can take place after 4 p.m. due to the lack of staff. Alterations have been made to the contracts of staff without consultation with the employees or Members — the employers.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. 641 Order of 29 March 2011. Business

Deputy Martin Ferris: Is it intended to set up the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to deal with this issue urgently?

The Taoiseach: Yes, I understand the Whip is meeting the Houses of the Oireachtas Com- mission on that matter tomorrow.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Can the Taoiseach indicate exactly the day on which the Government will present a programme of promised legislation under each of the departmental heads? Can the Taoiseach indicate if the programme will reflect commitments across the various Departments contained in the programme for Government? I refer in particular to legislative commitments with a health interest. Will the promised legislation, the intended legislation to give effect to those commitments, be included and be followed up within the current year?

The Taoiseach: The legislation is to be published next Tuesday. I have already asked Mini- sters to only produce the legislation they know is ready to be published and which will reflect those priorities. For instance, the legislation to introduce a ban on corporate donations will be prioritised, as will a number of other matters that are contained in the programme for government that are deemed priority issues. Deputy Ó Caoláin and I, when on that side of the House, have raised matters about the list of proposed legislation on many occasions. I do not wish the situation to arise where legislation is listed that cannot be produced in a considerable time. I am more interested in seeing what can be produced as a priority and legislation that comes through efficiently that Members of the House can deal with in the course of their duties.

Deputy Michael McGrath: Last week the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Deputy Shatter, announced his intention to introduce a Bill aimed at speeding up investigations which are currently under way, including those into Anglo Irish Bank. The Bill would apparently include detailed measures relating to the production of documents required during an investigation into and prosecution of complex crimes — something I am sure we will all welcome. Could we have an indication of when the Bill is likely to be introduced in the House? As the Taoiseach is aware, the agreement with the EU and the IMF requires the establishment of a budgetary advisory council by the end of the second quarter of this year. Is it still the Government’s intention to proceed with that and, if so, does it require legislation?

The Taoiseach: I understand from the Minister for Justice and Law Reform that the legislation referred to will be published within six weeks. What was the second question?

Deputy Michael McGrath: It was about the budgetary advisory council required under the EU-IMF deal that must be in place by the end of June. Is that still the intention?

The Taoiseach: Yes, it is.

Deputy Michael McGrath: Does it require legislation?

The Taoiseach: I do not think it requires legislation. It is already agreed and it is our intention to introduce it. I will confirm that to the Deputy later.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The programme for Government includes a commitment by the Government to introduce within 100 days a budget that will give effect to a range of measures, some of which are outlined in the programme for Government. Given that the commitment of the Government is to stay within the financial parameters that were laid down by the previous Government to year-end, is it the intention in the finance Bill that will give effect to those 642 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements measures, to offset those measures in the mini-budget in June or will the offsetting be deferred until December? I raise the matter because as we all know the domestic economy is completely flat-lined. There are many people without two pennies to rub together but the people who have money are afraid to spend it. We could not get the answer from the Minister for Finance. Will the legislation to give effect to the mini-budget just relate to the programme for Government commitments or will the off-setting which the Minister for Finance has said is necessary happen in June or in December during the normal annual budgetary process. The offsetting of those measures between now and 2013 is at least to the tune of €1.5 billion. There is a need to explain matters to the House today to give confidence to people that there will not be a mini-budget in June which will dig deeper into the pockets of ordinary spenders.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy is aware that when the troika met, before the election and since, it made it perfectly clear that adjustments can be made within the agreed programme but that in respect of any such adjustments compensatory measures would have to be identified and agreed. That is the position in regard to the budget within 100 days for a jobs stimulus of the indigenous economy and a restoration of confidence for employers for the creation of jobs. The measures that will be included in the jobs budget to be taken within 100 days will include measures that have already been compensated for within the programme and as agreed by the troika. In other words, this is not a case of just putting up measures that do not have to be compensated for until the end of the year. They must demonstrate and have them accepted now. The intention is to provide a stimulus for the indigenous economy for credit for job opportunities and for a return of confidence so that people who have money will understand that they will have an opportunity to spend it in good measure.

Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions: Motion Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): I move:

That, notwithstanding anything in the Order of the Dáil of 9 March, 2011, setting out the rota in which questions to members of the Government are to be asked, questions for oral answer, following those next set down to the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, shall be set down to Ministers in the following temporary sequence: Minister for Health and Children, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Minister for Community, Equality and Gael- tacht Affairs, Minister for Defence whereupon the sequence established by the Order of 9 March, 2011, shall continue with questions to the Minister for Transport.

Question put and agreed to.

Moriarty Tribunal Report: Statements An Ceann Comhairle: Before we move on to statements on the Moriarty tribunal I beg the indulgence of the House. As my predecessors have ruled in similar circumstances, while the Chair fully acknowledges that the House is about to embark on a discussion of a tribunal of inquiry report which criticises named individuals who are very much in the public domain, I ask Members to be mindful when making their contributions to take into account as far as it is humanly possible the long-standing convention of this House, namely that Members should avoid criticising or making charges against a person outside the House as he is defenceless against accusations made under privilege. Standing Order 59 offers some protection and safeguards to persons in this regard. However, these are limited but it remains the case that serious allegations, in particular against any 643 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[An Ceann Comhairle.] member of the Judiciary, should not be made under privilege. Members should also remember that the House is not a court of law and questions of guilt or innocence are matters for decision by the courts. Adjudication on aspects of current controversy under fair and proper procedures rests elsewhere in accordance with the law and not with the House. There is therefore an onus on Members to avoid, if at all possible, referring to others in a manner which could be construed as being prejudicial to any subsequent investigations which may be deemed necessary by appropriate authorities. Any Member wishing to pursue such matters should table a motion to that end which, subject to the rules of order, can be moved and debated subsequently. In other words, I wish to try to be fair to everybody in the course of the debate if that is humanly possible. I beg the co-operation of Members in that matter.

The Taoiseach: I welcome the fact that the House will hold a comprehensive debate on the final report of the Moriarty tribunal. I am sure that Members will appreciate that I am somewhat constrained in what I can say because there are legal proceedings before the courts.

A devastating critique of a powerful elite exposing a gross abuse of privilege; a rank abuse of public office and a devastating abuse of public trust is how I described the first Moriarty report when I sat in the seat currently occupied by Deputy Martin. Across Ireland, four years later, people might think, “Here we go again.” I assure them that is certainly not the case because the recent election did matter. The people’s vote did and will bring change. They were right to place their trust in a new Government. Consequently, on this final Moriarty report, they can expect anything but more of the same. I know that yet another report reeking of fanatical greed or an obsessive attachment to power and breathtaking attempts to acquire, use and access privilege is enough for the people of Ireland. In fact, it is too much — way too much, as they watch their own lives imploding and the future they had planned disappearing. This report will weary and bewilder people more than others. In these straitened times, when people are hurting and suffering so badly what the report exposes is all the more galling, damaging and worrying. In a well-functioning democracy, a republic, this information, difficult as it might be, is essential. I welcome the publication of the final report of the Moriarty tribunal. I welcome the fact that the tribunal does two important things: It exonerates the members of the then Government of any wrongdoing in the awarding of the licence and it asserts that the normal decision-making procedures were bypassed in that case. The tribunal finds seriously against Deputy Michael Lowry and others who are major players in Irish business and public life. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform has already addressed the arrogance, unseemliness and danger of their public reaction. Deputy Lowry, however, was elected to the Dáil, the highest forum in the land, on the basis of public trust. It is here in this forum that I expect him to avail of the opportunity to answer Mr. Justice Moriarty’s finding against him. I expect him to do so forensically and willingly and not from any sense of ego or position he and others might have adopted from the outset of this tribunal, or from any sense of mandate. I cannot imagine a mandate from the Irish people, or true democrats anywhere, that would involve an order, desire or permission for the behaviour outlined in the report. I remind the House that, even before the tribunal, when the first issue regarding Deputy Lowry’s conduct arose, Fine Gael acted immediately. He was removed from Government office and then from the party itself. Fine Gael did so in keeping with the party’s desire to maintain probity and standards in politics, as befits the party that founded the State. Fine Gael’s response was swift and appropriate, in sharp contrast with the blind and tribal defences mounted by 644 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements other parties in comparable circumstances. In that context, I welcome equally the tribunal’s recommendations. In many ways, the recommendations reflect the vital reform plans of this Government. This is a serious report that merits a serious response. Previous tribunals elicited thousands of words, but pitiful inaction on the part of those who then sat on this side of the House. The new Government breaks from that precedent and will act definitively and decisively. We referred the Moriarty report to the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Pros- ecutions and the Revenue Commissioners without issue, hesitation or equivocation. Earlier today, the Cabinet considered the report and directed the relevant Departments to provide a comprehensive report for the Government within four weeks on the report’s recommendations so that appropriate action can be taken in respect of a number of them. We plan further direct action to sever the links between politics and business once and for all and, in so doing, achieve three fundamental goals: stop the further pollution of our society; re-establish a moral code and order regarding public life; and, through that, restore public confidence in politics and government. In is in that context that I want to deal with the tribunal’s interaction with the Fine Gael Party. In September 1997, the then Government voted unanimously to set up the Moriarty tribunal. Fine Gael assisted the tribunal in every way possible to the degree that, on occasion, the tribunal commended the party on its assistance and co-operation. To the best of my knowledge, Fine Gael was the only political entity before the tribunal to waive its entitlement to legal privilege and make available all notes, letters and attendance notes that were available to the party’s legal advisers for the purpose of obtaining a legal opinion from an eminent senior counsel. By any objective measure, these are not the actions of a party that had anything to hide. With regard to the issue of the much discussed Telenor donation to the party, mindful of its obligations to the tribunal, and concerned that the donation might fall within the terms of reference of the tribunal, Fine Gael sought the opinion of a senior counsel, who gave the clear opinion that this donation did not fall within the remit of the tribunal. That legal opinion stated the donation in question was a donation to the party and that, because it was a party donation and was of no benefit to Deputy Michael Lowry, it did not fall within the tribunal’s remit. Fine Gael acted on that legal opinion. To clear up any doubt that might exist about the clarity of this opinion, I have instructed Fine Gael Party officials to publish it on the party’s website immediately. For its part, the Moriarty tribunal has recognised Fine Gael’s entitlement to adhere to the strong legal opinion it received. Equally, the tribunal expresses its regret that the party did not over-ride that opinion. There are three points I would like to make in this regard. First, I do not just share Mr. Justice Moriarty’s regret as I believe our party’s failure to over-ride the legal opinion was, in hindsight, wrong. Second, the circuitous and clandestine way in which the cheque was routed to the party was also wrong. This resulted in the then party officials not being initially aware of the true source of the donation. When the source did become known, the position of the party leadership was unequivocal. Section 62.04 of the Moriarty tribunal report, which outlines the final conclusions of the report, states: “That donation was unwelcome to the party and was rejected by the party leader”. Not alone did the then Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, reject it, he ordered that the money be returned. The tribunal report states:

[It] is satisfied that he [John Bruton] sought to convey to Mr. Austin that acceptance of the donation was then entirely inappropriate. This is confirmed by his subsequent direction 645 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[The Taoiseach.] that the donation should immediately be returned to the donors on learning that, contrary to his wishes, the donation had in fact been received by Fine Gael.

Thereafter, when Deputy Michael Noonan became leader and the donation was once more at issue, he in turn ordered that all relevant documentation be made available to the tribunal with alacrity and seriousness. The tribunal welcomed his actions in so doing. Third, in the context of the new, revitalised republic we are in the process of building, with the Government and people working together in trust and partnership, neither action would happen today. To recreate political virtue, rebuild public trust and restore our reputation, it is no longer sufficient to do what is correct. To achieve even a fraction of that, we must do what is right. While what is correct starts in legal opinions and rules and legislation, what is right starts here in the human heart, in our conscience, in respect for our neighbour, and in the values that define who we are and what we want to be. If this is how we try to live our lives, this is how we should practise our politics. I speak for the entire Government when I say this is what will inspire and drive our tenure in office. In the programme for Government, which was published by the new Government and endorsed by this House prior to the publication of the Moriarty tribunal’s report, we set out proposals for the most comprehensive programme of political reform since the 1930s. We believe politics must be about service to the public, and not to provide financial gain for politicians or anyone else. We have already kept our promise to reduce the salaries of members of the Government and to reform the arrangements in regard to ministerial transport. With regard to the relationship between business and politics, we committed ourselves to introducing the necessary legal and constitutional provisions to ban corporate donations to political parties. I am informed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that this legislation is now being prioritised and that it should be published before the summer. We also committed ourselves to reducing the limits on donations to political parties and candidates and to requiring disclosure of all aggregate sums above a limited threshold. We promised to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, in addition to a set of rules governing the practice of lobbying. With regard to the relationship between civil servants and Ministers, we need to introduce reforms that reflect the transformation taking place in this relationship in light of the public service transformation programme. The programme for Government outlines substantial reforms in this area. We will introduce whistleblowers legislation and return freedom of information legislation to where it was before the 2003 Act was introduced. We will amend the Official Secrets Act, retaining a criminal sanction only for breaches that involve a serious threat to the vital interests of the State. We will scrap the current restrictions on the nature and extent of evidence by civil servants to Oireachtas committees and replace them with new guidelines that reflect the reality of the authority delegated to them and their personal accountability for the way it is exercised. We will amend the rules to ensure that no Minister or senior public servant, including a political appointee, can work in the private sector in any area involving a potential conflict of interest with his former area of public employment until at least two years have elapsed after he has left public service. We will also introduce reforms which, while not directly related to issues emerging from the Moriarty tribunal, will ensure that trust is restored in our democratic institutions and that the concerns of citizens, rather than the elites, are placed firmly at the centre of Government. In its terms of reference, the Moriarty tribunal was asked to bring forward any recommendations which it deemed appropriate to the matters investigated by it. In this context, in 646 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements addition to dealing with the issue of political donations, the tribunal’s final report outlined a series of recommendations in the areas of company law, the independence of the Revenue Commissioners and the future conduct of tribunals of inquiry. With regard to Mr. Justice Moriarty’s comments on the conduct of tribunals of inquiry, the Government has restored the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill to the Dáil Order Paper. This Bill will provide for a comprehensive reform and consolidation of the current legislation relating to tribunals of inquiry to put in place a modern and comprehensive statutory framework governing all aspects of the operation of a tribunal, from the time of its establishment to the publication of its final report. The Bill implements in large part the proposals contained in the Law Reform Commission’s report on public inquiries, particularly those relating to the more efficient management and operation of public inquiries. We will review the Bill in the context of the report’s recommendations on tribunals of inquiry. Much comment has been made on the effectiveness of using tribunals at all for inquiring into matters of urgent public importance. The Government is committed to holding a referendum, subject to approval by the Oireachtas, to reverse the effects of the Abbeylara judgment and enable Oireachtas committees to carry out full investigations.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach: Overall, for the sake of our democracy, and in the context of the national misery caused by weak and reckless administration and corrupt self-serving politicians, we must return both government and parliament to the people. We must rehabilitate the idea of civic virtue and the idea of the duty and nobility of public service. We must do so and we will. Let me state as Taoiseach, and as father of the House, the very fact that a modern democracy — a still-young republic — would require tribunals into payments to politicians at all is proof of the degradation of politics, the decline of civic virtue, and the inevitable rise of public cynicism and disengagement. It also shows what happens to a society when people swap the big idea of being responsible and powerful citizens for the infinitely smaller and confining idea of being mere customers or consumers. Ironically, it was Deputy Lenihan who best summed up our current situation when he said, last Thursday, that, “Nothing would damage our international reputation more than uncertainty on an issue of that character”. He was right, but where he says “would damage” I say that incalculable damage has already been done because of a culture of “thanks very much, big fella”, walking-around money, whip-rounds, luck on the horses and a Taoiseach degrading our nation and this office by trousering after-dinner tips. It is a culture typified by arrogant, mercen- ary and immoral politics that almost ruined our reputation and made a mockery of character itself. When that culture included business and banking it contaminated our country, divided our society and diminished our republic. That contamination, division and diminution must end now, when the stakes are soaring, when our country faces unprecedented obstacles, when the eyes of so many are on us and when, as a country, we have the palpable and urgent sense of making a new start for and with each other, together for a change. The contamination, division and diminution end here with this Government, which has a radically different standard and a radically different view, which is that the Irish people are citizens of a republic; that we have rights and responsibilities to build a bright future, a strong economy, and a compassionate and thoughtful society; and that we will exercise these rights to the fullest by believing and showing that we cannot be bought, cheapened or exploited by politicians, banks and businesses, whoever they might be or from wherever they might come. 647 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[The Taoiseach.]

This new speculation in favour of the citizen, democracy and justice can do much to give our own people, and others, new confidence, faith and energy in the ideals on which our republic is founded. Yes, Ireland might be a small country but we are a significant nation. Our honour, reputation and future are priceless and can never be for sale, whether as a matter of fact, perception or opinion. When I was elected Taoiseach, I spoke of restoring morality to our public life. I did so aware that we are haunted by a previous morality, where elements of the church and State colluded to permit all kinds of savagery on our society. It was a morality that decommissioned conscience, suffocated spirit and created an architecture of intrigue, denial and deception that excluded heart, truth and even humanity itself. In the aftermath of this report, I want the Government and the people to work together to bring a new, life-giving morality to public and civic Ireland. This morality would be based on compassion, kindness, thoughtfulness, dignity, honesty and, above all, respect for ourselves, for all who share our society and for our country. Such respect would bring out the best in the Irish people, making us responsible for our choices and our actions and keeping us mindful of their consequences for the generations to come, because the future belongs to them. I look forward to this debate and to hearing the views of all of the Members of every party with regard to Mr. Justice Moriarty’s final report.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I welcome the publication of the final report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters. I accept fully the conclusions of the Moriarty tribunal, and I note that sentence is missing from the Taoiseach’s address. The Taoiseach needs to clarify prior to the conclusion of this debate that he accepts the conclusions and findings of the Moriarty report——

Deputy Michael McGrath: Hear, hear.

Deputy Micheál Martin: ——and not just the recommendations. As we know, Mr. Justice Moriarty had an extremely difficult task. He investigated complex matters and faced active hostility from some individuals before the tribunal. He has done his work with integrity, commitment and skill and he has produced a very comprehensive report. I believe the Dáil and the public should thank him for his efforts. This is a report of real significance. Mr. Justice Moriarty clearly sets out illicit, inappropriate and irregular behaviour which has done great damage and may cause much more. The report exposes serious malpractice and corruption. It is not based on the unfounded opinions of one judge; it is based on the evidence. The report addresses two major issues relating to Deputy Michael Lowry. In relation to improper support he received from Ben Dunne, the evidence of his attempts to seek to corrupt an independent process in favour of Mr. Dunne is absolutely clear. However, the public policy implications of this and the unanswered questions are somewhat limited. The main issue of focus in the report is, as a result, the awarding of the second GSM licence. This was the largest commercial contract ever awarded by the State. The report makes it abundantly clear that the integrity of this process was disgracefully compromised. The State may yet be exposed to punitive compensation claims from losing consortia, some of which appeared before the Supreme Court last week. This report is a deep indictment of the conduct of Deputy Lowry, both as a Minister and in the years following his reluctant resignation. In spite of the deeply cynical spinning by Govern- 648 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements ment representatives, the report encompasses far more than the damage caused by one rogue politician. The facts are that the licence competition was allowed to develop in a way that directly went against the rules agreed by the then Government. It included the targeting of Fine Gael by a consortium through a conspicuous campaign of financial support, and basic procedures were set aside in signing off the award in favour of that consortium. When legitimate questions were raised by another bidder, they were dismissed out of hand by the then Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael. During all of this, six members of the current Government were sitting at the Cabinet table. Another member of the current Cabinet, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, was chairman of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party and was directly involved in receiving donations covered by the tribunal’s report. The report is a direct challenge to every Member of the House to treat its findings with the seriousness they deserve. It contains much detail, but this cannot be allowed to be an excuse for failing to accept clear conclusions. Over the past week, both the report and Mr. Justice Moriarty, have been subject to a sustained attempt to undermine them and this has had two separate but equally serious elements. First, there has been the direct assault of Denis O’Brien, Deputy Michael Lowry and others. One of Ireland’s richest men and the owner of substantial media interests, has announced his intention to campaign against Mr. Justice Moriarty and his belief that there is a conspiracy against him and Deputy Michael Lowry which is being aided by the entire judicial system. Deputy Lowry’s attacks have been equally fierce. Second, there is a sustained effort to undermine the impact of the report through attempting to misrepresent its findings as being purely about one rogue Minister. The Government benches are full of people who have built their careers on posturing about both real and imagined ethical issues. When confronted with a report as serious as this, their response has been a combination of silence, misrepresentation and minimisation. In this House, the handling of the report by Government has been cynical in the extreme while outside of this House it has been a disgrace. There are 112 Government Deputies but vast swathes of the airwaves have been left without a Fine Gael or Labour representative during the past week. It took four days before any member of Government could be found to criticise the escalating attacks on the Judiciary — and not one member of Government who participated in the process of awarding the licence has been willing to address his or her own role or knowledge other than to claim exoneration. The Taoiseach came into this House last week and said that he and the six Ministers would answer questions. This pledge was then abandoned before word reached us this morning that the Taoiseach would, in fact, answer some questions. However, what we heard from the Taoiseach on the Order of Business was unprecedented. I have never heard of a Taoiseach saying he would answer on one part of a report and not another. This is an extraordinary state of affairs. The Taoiseach should be capable of answering all aspects and conclusions of the report with regard to the decision of a Government of which he was a member. I welcome the U-turn made by the Taoiseach but I ask that from now on, the prevarication stop and arrangements be made for all of the Ministers involved to be questioned on the issue of the awarding of the licence. While saying that he had not read the report and could not comment upon it, the Taoiseach claimed in the House that “the report exonerates party leaders and members of the Cabinet”. Having praised his own commitment to transparency and honesty in everything only a few weeks ago, he has repeatedly refused to even acknowledge what the report says about the fund-raising activities in which he and other Fine Gael Ministers participated. Media manage- 649 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Micheál Martin.] ment has been the main priority, as witnessed again this morning when the media were told about his U-turn on taking questions, in advance of the Opposition Whips being informed. The efforts of Fine Gael spokespersons to claim that the Taoiseach has been forthright and energetic in this response to the report are nonsense. The Taoiseach informed the House that the first report of the Moriarty tribunal had waited for more than a month before it was discussed in the House. What he failed to state was that it was published a few days before Christmas and there were no Opposition calls for an earlier debate. He failed to state that the interim Flood tribunal and final McCracken tribunal reports were both debated on the first sitting day following their publication. He also failed to mention the number of times he and other members of Government demanded immediate statements and questions on daily evidence before tribunals. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, is already recorded in history as the Deputy most likely to sweep any passing rumour onto the record of this House in his now abandoned quest to rock foundations, yet he and the Labour Party have been fully complicit in the strategy of minimising the significance of the report. The notion that a Labour Party Minister could give clarity on internal Fine Gael affairs is an insult to the public and to the role of this Parliament. The other former ethics hawks who line the Government benches have been studiously non-judgmental and desperate in their attempts to avoid the topic. The only issue they have been loud on is claiming the right to decide who does and does not have the moral standing to even ask questions of Fine Gael and Labour. I say to Deputies who make up the largest majority ever seen in this State that they have the numbers to shout down anyone if they wish; they have the numbers to vote through or block any business; if they want to fill our debates with sycophantic barracking in support of their leaders and against their opponents, they will be able to do this. The challenge for them is whether they will show themselves to be capable of putting aside the self-righteousness we saw during the election campaign and adhere to the standards we discussed on the first day of the Dáil term. We will see a lot from how they behave in this debate and how they react to legitimate questions, no matter how uncomfortable they are for them. With regard to the Judiciary, I repeat my words of last week that I abhor the conspiracy theories and attacks which have been directed at the Irish judicial system in the past week. They are not perfect but they are a bulwark of our democratic system and we should not stand back and see them attacked in this manner. We should also acknowledge the work of journalists who have taken considerable professional risks in pursuing some of the matters addressed in this report. In one case, a journalist has been subject to what can only be described as a legal vendetta which he has had to face down at potentially great financial cost. Politicians often complain about the standards in journalism, but we should be willing to acknowledge significant public service when it occurs. When the Government of Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left — the then party of the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte — was formed, one of the early items on its agenda was a consideration of how the second GSM licence was to be awarded. On 2 March 1995, a memorandum went to Cabinet which set out the process and guidelines for how Ministers should behave during the competition. It was to be a sealed process which would be entirely non-political from beginning to end. The role of Ministers was to be guardians of the process, reserving for themselves the final decision on the licence as a protection for the integrity of the competition. The guidelines, which were directed at all Ministers and not just at Deputy Lowry, stated that any meetings with bidders should have at least two extra witnesses present, that these meetings should be recorded immediately and that social exchanges with bidders should 650 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements be avoided. The Cabinet agreed that this was essential to ensure the transparency and objectivity of the competition. It is in the major deviations from the content and spirit of the process agreed on 2 March 1995, that the most serious issues arise both for Deputy Michael Lowry and for Ministers of the then Government. The uncontested facts of the tribunal’s report show that a Minister who was supposed to know nothing about the competition sought and received information from officials. They show that he pushed the process in the direction of one of the bidders. They show that he sought to influence at the very least the then Taoiseach with a false claim concerning supposed Fianna Fáil links to another bidder. They show that a targeted programme of financial donations to Fine Gael and engagement with Fine Gael politicians was a core part of the strategy of the same bidder. They show that enough was known about this for Cabinet to have insisted on a detailed report on the process before a decision was made. No twisting by either Deputy Lowry or any Minister or anyone else, can get away from these facts. On 3 December 1996, following on from the announcement that Dunnes Stores had paid for work on the then Minister for Transport and Communication’s home which had not been declared to the Revenue, the current Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny said: “I very much regret the departure of Deputy Michael Lowry from Cabinet. I have known him for many years both as a member of Fine Gael and as a Government colleague and he is a man of the highest integrity and honour.” This perhaps explains the curiously equivocal and almost neutral stance adopted by the Taoiseach in his earlier contribution with regard to Deputy Lowry. The assessment in this report of Deputy Lowry is far less complimentary. It amounts to a shocking indictment of his behaviour. Commenting on his motives or actions, the report says of Deputy Lowry that it is “beyond doubt” that he gave “substantive information to Denis O’Brien, of significant value and assistance to him in securing the licence”; that he had “irregular interactions with interested parties at its most sensitive stages, sought and received substantive information on emerging trends (and) made his preference as between the leading candidates known”; that he “conferred a benefit on Mr. Denis O’Brien, a person who made payments to Mr. Lowry”; that he, “not only influenced, but delivered, the result”, when Esat secured the mobile phone licence; that he was an “insidious and pervasive influence” on the licensing process; that he had engaged in a “cynical and venal abuse of office”; and that he was involved in attempting to influence an arrangement that was “profoundly corrupt to a degree that was nothing short of breathtaking”. Deputy Lowry wants the House to put aside the report and believe instead a series of expla- nations that, in fact, explain nothing. It is not credible to ask the House to see his pattern of actions during the competition and accept that he met with Mr. Denis O’Brien at the most sensitive time without either of them mentioning the competition. It is not credible to ask us to ignore the £147,000 paid into an Isle of Man account for his benefit but returned on the day that the McCracken tribunal was established. It is not credible to expect us to ignore the English property deals and falsified documentation. It is not credible at the end of this tribunal to expect us to accept his blanket denials over the accumulated evidence. The guidelines adopted by Cabinet on 2 March 1995 laid great stress on the need to avoid contact with the bidders. Not only was this not adhered to, there was in fact what the report calls a concerted campaign of “conspicuous” financial support of Fine Gael during the competition period and immediately afterwards. Paragraph 41.34 of the report points out that exclud- ing the $50,000 Telenor cheque, a total of £22,140 was paid by Mr. O’Brien or Esat companies to Fine Gael between January 1995 and June 1996. The evidence before the tribunal was that Esat had relatively limited financial resources available to it during most of this time, yet chose to prioritise donations to Fine Gael. The evidence before the tribunal was also that not one person in Fine Gael raised a concern during that time. This is all the more striking given that 651 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Micheál Martin.] a substantial number of these donations were made in a manner where they were known to senior members but designed to avoid public scrutiny. The report contains a short but extraordinary letter written on Esat notepaper by Ms Sarah Carey to the Minister, Deputy Hogan, two weeks before the licence was awarded. It states:

Dear Phil,

Please find enclosed a draft for the Golf on 16th. I understand Denis has requested that there are no references made to his contribution at the event. Best of luck on the day! I’ll give you a call soon.

Sarah Carey.

Enclosed was £4,000 sponsorship for the Fine Gael national golf classic. This donation was made by way of a bank draft by Esat at a time which in Mr. Justice Moriarty’s words “coincided with a critical point in the evaluation process” of the mobile telephone licence. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, was at that time chairman of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party, director of elections for by-elections and centrally involved in fundraising. Today he is a Cabinet Minister, trusted lieutenant to the Taoiseach, national director of elections for Fine Gael and centrally involved in the party’s fundraising. While she is a minor figure in the whole affair, Ms Carey’s approach to the tribunal has been illustrative of a much wider strategy followed by others. When caught out, her approach has been to minimise the issue and look for distractions. Her lie or untruths to the tribunal related to when she leaked material in a vain attempt to spread Fine Gael’s pain to others. The idea that a donation to an Opposition party in the years after the competition should distract from what went on within Fine Gael at that time is remarkable. As well as Esat conspicuously supporting Fine Gael fundraisers, Mr O’Brien and his companies engaged in what Mr. Justice Moriarty describes as a “concerted campaign” to raise its profile with Fine Gael with the assistance of Mr. Dan Egan, a former Fine Gael adviser. In 2003, at the tribunal, Mr. Egan confirmed that in this period he had arranged a meeting for Mr. O’Brien with the then Minister for Tourism and Trade, now Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny. This meeting took place on 17 May 1995. I believe it appropriate for the Taoiseach to outline to the House his knowledge of the concerted campaign undertaken by Mr. O’Brien in regard to Fine Gael Ministers. The Taoiseach should also once and for all respond to the ongoing question surrounding the allegations contained in Magill in 2003 that he was a host of a fundraising dinner only two days before the second mobile telephone licence was awarded at which apparently one of the major bidders for the licence was present. When asked about this by journalists the Taoiseach, by then already leader of Fine Gael, refused to comment and there has been no comment in the eight years since then. The Taoiseach was involved in Fine Gael fundraising at the time and respected this work enough to appoint one of the party’s trustees to the board of Bord Fáilte on his final day as Minister in 1997 — we all know how seriously the Taoiseach takes Ministers making appointments during their final day in office. Given the clear guidelines to which he and all members of Cabinet agreed on 2 March 1995, the Taoiseach should tell us the names of the two witnesses 652 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements who attended this meeting and supply us with the written record of the meeting. If there were no witnesses and there is no record he should explain why. In regard to the now infamous Telenor cheque, the Moriarty tribunal report has identified a number of troubling issues that require answers from Fine Gael Ministers including the Taoiseach. People should be in no doubt about why there was a major donation to Fine Gael by a company involved in a lucrative commercial licence awarded by the State. In the words of Denis O’Brien Sn., in his evidence to the tribunal, the donation was given to Fine Gael because “Fine Gael asked for the donation”. It was routed as it was, he said, to “ensure confidentiality”. The proposal for a fundraising dinner was outlined initially in a letter dated 4 July 1995 to the then Minister, Deputy Lowry. That letter identified that “those attending the dinner should include the Taoiseach and Ministers Lowry, Barrett, Yates, [and] Kenny...”. The specific purpose of the dinner was not disinterested support of Fine Gael, but to be sold as something more. The letter stated that it was to be targeted at those who wished to “make a definite contact and to avail of the opportunity to discuss their future within Ireland under a Fine Gael government”. The Taoiseach needs to clarify — I believe he has clarified — if he was at the dinner and who attended that dinner on behalf of the Fine Gael Party at a senior level. The Moriarty tribunal report refers critically to $50,000 cheque as a “covert routing of funds from Esat-Telenor to Fine Gael”. This payment was made in a clandestine manner to an offshore account to ensure it remained hidden from public view. In stark terms, in paragraph 3.61, the report states the payment was “made in a manner which, having regard to its false and misleading documentation, the initial payment to an off-shore Jersey account, and the eventual delays and misrepresented form of transmission to Fine Gael, was secretive, utterly lacking in transparency and designed to conceal the fact of such payment...”. In regard to the Telenor cheque, Fine Gael should explain why there was such a delay in returning the donation. According to the report, on 2 March 1998 Fine Gael decided that it would return the donation to Telenor. However, as the report records at paragraph 6.36 the donation was not returned until March 2001. Why did this take more than three years? Since the publication of this report, the Taoiseach has sought to make a virtue of the fact that his party returned the covert $50,000 donation and waived legal privilege. The facts are that this only ultimately happened when the donation was publicly exposed and it was clear that the Moriarty tribunal would be investigating it. Prior to this Fine Gael had attempted to hide this donation from the Moriarty tribunal by getting a senior counsel to advise on whether it was reportable. The evidence of the former Fine Gael general secretary, Jim Miley, to the tribunal indicates that the idea that the cheque fell outside the terms of the tribunal was first suggested to Fine Gael by Esat’s public relations representative. As Mr. Justice Moriarty has reported, the clandestine circumstances of this donation would have remained hidden from public knowledge had it not been for media disclosures in 2001. The Taoiseach would be well advised to talk to his own party’s current general secretary on this matter. In 2001, Tom Curran said that the party had decided to not to report the donation to the Moriarty tribunal because it would have been “politically disastrous”. He said that he had feared if the donation was revealed a connection might be made between Fine Gael and the granting of a mobile telephone licence to Esat Digifone. Mr. Justice Moriarty draws a damning conclusion on Fine Gael’s concealment of the Telenor cheque. Paragraph 3.63 reads:

653 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Micheál Martin.]

“No person or entity connected with the payment saw fit to notify the Tribunal of it, notwithstanding a substantial degree of knowledge of its clandestine circumstances and prof- fered return, and it is likely that, without the media disclosures that occurred in 2001, the matter would have remained hidden from public knowledge. The entitlement of such persons to seek and act on legal advice is not in question, but it is nonetheless viewed by the Tribunal as regrettable that no such disclosure whatsoever to a public Tribunal of Inquiry transpired. Whilst allowance is made for the factors mentioned at 3.31, this observation nonetheless is seen as applying to Fine Gael.

For the Taoiseach to claim, as he did today again in the House, that Fine Gael has been “commended” by the tribunal is deliberate misrepresentation of the report and a refusal to acknowledge a clear and serious finding of evasion against the Fine Gael Party. On RTE’s “Prime Time” programme, on the day the Moriarty tribunal report was published, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, claimed the report expressly exonerated the other members of the Fine Gael-Labour-Democratic Left Government of the time. This was repeated by the Taoiseach again in this House. The report does nothing of the sort. Beyond the spin, it is very clear from the report that a responsibility rests upon all of those Ministers who were members of the Cabinet in 1995 for how they allowed the process they agreed in March of that year to be subverted. The tribunal report states at paragraph 60.19 that the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, “pro- ceeded to bypass consideration by his Cabinet colleagues, and thereby not only influenced, but delivered the result” in favour of Esat Digifone. It seems some Ministers are seeking a pardon for themselves on the basis of this statement. However, the question that needs to be asked is how Ministers allowed themselves to be bypassed. Given the “conspicuous” nature of Esat’s lobbying and Deputy Lowry’s advocacy of their case, why did they sit back and say nothing? It is documented in paragraph 48.31, that the meeting at which Deputy Lowry obtained political clearance to announce the winning consortium of the GSM licence — prior to it receiving full Cabinet approval — was actually a meeting of the aviation committee. It was not even a properly convened Cabinet committee and the issue of the mobile telephone licence had no business being discussed at it. The Moriarty tribunal reports in detail how the decision of the Fine Gael-Labour-Democratic Left Government to award the licence was made on 25 October 1995. Mr. Justice Moriarty reports at paragraph 48.55 a private conversation between former Taoiseach, John Bruton, and the then Minister, Deputy Lowry. They then met the former Tánaiste, Dick 6o’clock Spring, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and the Minister, Deputy Quinn. At that meeting, Deputy Lowry said that Esat Digifone had won the competition. Deputy Lowry also recommended that he should proceed to announce the result forthwith rather than postpone the announcement until after the result had been considered by Cabinet at a meeting scheduled for the following day. This was approved. Mr. Justice Moriarty is highly critical in his report of the informality by which this crucial Government decision was taken. He states at paragraph 48.66:

In securing what was de facto Government approval, otherwise than through the route of bringing a recommendation to Cabinet on foot of an Aide Memoire, or a Memorandum for Government, or even by deferring the matter to the scheduled Cabinet meeting the following day, all of the procedures which had so carefully been put in place by Mr. Bruton and his colleagues, when the Rainbow Coalition entered Government, were rendered of no application to the GSM decision ... in consequence of the approach taken by Mr. Lowry, the 654 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

opportunity for scrutiny or consideration by his Cabinet colleagues, or their advisers, was significantly curtailed.

In effect, what occurred was that the party leaders of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Demo- cratic Left, together with the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, acquiesced to Deputy Michael Lowry’s fast-track proposal that the result be announced immediately rather than being considered by the full Cabinet. A number of questions arise from the rushed and ill-informed decision of the Cabinet committee and the failure of the full Cabinet to consider the decision. This was a widely publicised announcement. It was the largest commercial announcement ever made by an Irish Government. Why did the members of that Government not ask why the decision did not come up for discussion at Cabinet before it was announced? The Taoiseach as well as Ministers Ruairí Quinn, Brendan Howlin, Richard Bruton, Michael Noonan and Pat Rabbitte were members of that Cabinet. Why did none of these Ministers insist in accordance with procedure that this decision should come before Cabinet for discussion, particularly given the knowledge that some of them had that the spirit and content of the March guidelines had been broken? Did the failure of this matter to come before Cabinet for discussion not raise a question in Ministers’ minds as to the orthodoxy of this decision? As Ministers who were aware that this decision had been made, but who were also aware that it had not been discussed by cabinet, do they now accept that they failed in their duty to scrutinise the contest in any way? We know that the scheduled Cabinet meeting on the next day, 26 October 1995, simply noted the decision that had already been made. The report states at paragraph 49.01:

The decision was duly noted by Cabinet, which procedure was, in the circumstances, no more than a formality to ensure substantial compliance with the conditions of the Govern- ment decision of 2nd March 1995 which had authorised the process at the outset.

Did no one at that Cabinet meeting ask why this decision was not being discussed at Cabinet? Did no one inquire as to whether they could have a report from the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, on the competition and how it progressed? The report also raises critical issues about the evidence given to the tribunal by the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan. The position on this matter which is unequivocally set out in the report is as follows. Mark Fitzgerald, Fine Gael treasurer during the critical period, gave evidence to the Moriarty tribunal that he was asked to attend a meeting with Denis O’Brien in Lloyds Brassiere on 17 October 1995. He said that when he arrived he was surprised to see that also present were the Fine Gael chairman, the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and the late Deputy Jim Mitchell. He says that he was asked questions about the licence and whether he heard anything about it from Deputy Lowry. It is his evidence that this discussion took place while the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, was present with them at the same table. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, gave evidence to the tribunal two days later and stated that as far as he was concerned that meeting did not take place or if it did take place, he had no recollection of it. However, his primary evidence was that it did not take place. In his evidence to the tribunal, which is available on its website in the transcript for day 237, the Minister said that he would have remembered such a meeting with Mr. O’Brien. That was a clear conflict of evidence that Mr. Justice Moriarty had to resolve and he resolved it in favour of Mark Fitzgerald. Consequently, in respect of the suggestion of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that the meeting never occurred, that sworn evidence has been rejected by the tribunal.

655 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Micheál Martin.]

There is nothing surprising in this, particularly given the unchallenged fact that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, was personally involved in receiving for Fine Gael a large donation from Denis O’Brien and Esat at a time when he was aware that Esat was competing for an immensely valuable State licence. If one take the time to read the transcripts, one will see the futile effort undertaken by counsel for Denis O’Brien to undermine Mark Fitzgerald’s evidence. It is now incumbent upon the Taoiseach to give his views on the credibility of a Government member whose evidence has not been accepted by a Tribunal established by the Oireachtas. The failure of the Taoiseach to do so has reinforced the impression of a Fine Gael Party that believes that accountability is for other people and that standards are to be demanded of others. The Taoiseach talks a lot about change, but what change is he showing in his failure to talk about how he and others in Fine Gael ignored their own guidelines, engaged directly with bidders for this licence and sought and received substantial donations? From the outside we see the Minister, Deputy Hogan, is still central to Fine Gael fundraising and as recently as last month refused to answer questions about who it was targeting for funds. We see the person who was Deputy Lowry’s closest adviser in 1995 installed as the Taoiseach’s closest adviser today. We see Ministers leaving chairs vacant on important media programmes rather than run the risk of answering questions. The Taoiseach and his Ministers want to draw a line but admit no errors. They want to propose reform, all of which is ready to implement and agreed by all parties, but do not want to admit their part in practices which need to be reformed. They want to operate to a grossly hypocritical tactic of talking about accountability for the past of every party except those that make up the Government. Deputy Lowry was fully entitled to be heard by the tribunal and to expect the Dáil to acknowledge this fully. This was done for 14 years. The publication of this report fundamentally changes the position. The request that we wait to hear all the evidence no longer holds. He has indicated that he will do nothing other than launch more attacks on Mr. Justice Moriarty and the entire Judiciary. For our part, we believe the key findings of the report. We, therefore, believe that Deputy Lowry should consider his position and resign from Dáil Éireann. If he chooses not to do so we will propose a motion expressing the will of the Dáil on this matter. This was done before in the case of the late Liam Lawlor and while the all-party motion did not cause his resignation, it did mark an important public statement of standards by this House. I have instructed the Fianna Fáil Whip to make contact with his counterparts with a view to bringing forward an agreed motion in Government time which will call on Deputy Lowry to voluntarily resign his membership of Dáil Éireann. I would expect and urge the co- operation of every Member of this House in the speedy resolution of this motion. We will also continue to seek a forum where real questions can be asked of the Ministers who allowed the awarding of the largest State licence in our history to be completed in direct contravention of the guidelines they themselves agreed. The Moriarty report is lengthy, detailed and subject to unprecedented attempts to misrepresent its contents. It falls to us all as Members of Dáil Éireann to stand against this campaign and show that we are capable of acknowledging and addressing serious failings when they arise. Only then will our collective and individual promises of change be realised.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before calling on Deputy Adams I wish to state that it is a long- standing ruling of my predecessors that it is disorderly to attempt to involve the Chair in issues of the day before the House. Moreover, as Deputy Martin will be aware, the Ceann Comhairle cannot defend himself or herself but must remain neutral as the presiding Member in the Chair. 656 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

Deputy Martin referred to me in his statement as being present at a meeting in New York. I wish to state I was not present at any meeting in New York. In fact, I know nothing about such a meeting.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I wish to share time with Deputies Ferris and O’Brien.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I am a bit conflicted by this debate. I scanned the report, read the executive summary, wrote up notes, was briefed and took advice on it. I came into the House with a speech and then I heard the Taoiseach’s remarks. It is a bit strange for people like me to come into the House and try to make sense of all of this. I believe in politics as a public service. I believe in republicanism. I served in the Assembly outside Belfast. There was none of the imagery of this institution on show. I look at the bust of James Connolly behind me. I think of Pearse and the 1916 Proclamation. I think of Countess Markievicz, the first woman elected as Minister for Labour who died in a poor hospital. I then listen to what is being said here. The Fine Gael manifesto refers to golden circles, crony Government and crony capitalism. The Taoiseach talked about a full and substantive debate. This is not a full and substantive debate. This is a series of statements I have no interest in Deputy Lowry. I accept the report. I do not know the man; I have never spoken to him. We should deal with him because the report was commissioned by the Dáil, incidentally not because someone wanted to sort the issue out. I am a newcomer. The Taoiseach has been here for, I understand, 36 years and knows everything that needs to be known about this institution. The tribunal was set up because a well-known businessman went on the tear in Florida. In almost every instance when something gets into the public arena, the politicians have played catch up to try to deal with it. The section of the Fine Gael manifesto dealing with reform states: “In any Republic the people are supposed to be supreme. Judged by that standard Ireland today is a Republic in name only.” They are the words of Fine Gael, not mine, and when I said this in the course of the election all sorts of commentators jumped all over me. Here we are today. I am not naive. I learned my politics on the streets and in terms of campaigns, when I say I believe in republicanism, republicanism places citizens at the centre. The citizen is in charge — an phoblact, an pobal. It is about rights, equality and treating everyone properly and decently. I was surprised when this report was published that it was business as usual here under this new regime given all I had read about, and seen and watched previously from the Visitors Gallery etc. I and other Sinn Féin Deputies sought time to debate this report, which was being debated the length and breadth of the country. When I say “the country”, I mean the island. It is hard for me to get used to people speaking of “the nation.” It does not stop at the Border. It is the entire nation and, as my friend Mr. Barry McElduff MLA would say, its offshore islands. While this was being debated everywhere else the Government refused to allow it to be debated here. Then the Taoiseach’s response to reasonable questions from me about the behaviour of Fine Gael, not my view but as outlined in the report, was to jibe about the Northern Bank robbery. It is fair enough if that is the way he wants to go with this, but it was hardly a mature or statesman-like response. I was disappointed in it because I always found the Taoiseach on a personal basis to be fair and decent.

657 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Gerry Adams.]

If we are to have a debate about these issues, what we say rhetorically about bringing in a new era and rebuilding the republic, then let us deal with the issues in an up-front, friendly, fraternal but straightforward way. That we are not having a proper debate today flies in the face of Government protestations that it is a Government of reform and it highlights the imperative of business in this Chamber to be conducted in a different way. There is no motion. We will talk our way through all of this, we will say what we say about it and sin é; the Government may or may not at some point bring in some measures. Sinn Féin is prepared to work with the Government because we believe, not in this Government, not even in Sinn Féin, but in a genuine republic on the island of Ireland. The Government has made some commitments in this direction. I note the absence of the Tánaiste here today. Where is he? Why is he not here with the Taoiseach dealing with these matters? In my view, the first challenge facing the Government in dealing with this report shows that it fell at the first hurdle. I accept that it was dropped on the Government and as far as I know, it did not have notice of the report. I do not make any judgment on any of that at all. Then there is the issue of tribunals. Sinn Féin supports the notion of tribunals although we do not support the notion of it taking 14 years and all the millions that were spent on it, etc. There are cases where one must have an investigation into some issues, but we cannot get investigations into other issues. Since I became a Teachta Dála, I have met citizens, such as women who were butchered in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital who cannot get an investigation into that, and others up and down the country who are trying to get ones. The people in this city who are living in slums, on Dominic Street, out the back of my party’s head office, at Croke Villas, cannot get any sort of justice in terms of what they deserve as citizens. If one wants an answer as to why there is a lack of confidence in the political system, it seems — this is a cliché—there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. If one is part of the golden circle, one gets a tribunal. Where is the tribunal for the social offender? If someone is in poverty or falls into some offence — this is not to accept any wrongdoing — he or she gets hauled in and put through due process. What if one is a political activist? For instance, six of the Shell to Sea people are locked up for six months for trying to defend their communities after a corrupt decision by a Government that gave away natural resources. These law-abiding family men from the Taoiseach’s county ended up in prison. Where is the tribunal for the poor? The Taoiseach is well known; I still walk the streets. People who are trying to recover from drug addiction come to me. More people died from drug addiction in this capital city within the echo of the GPO than were killed at the height of the Troubles in similar neighbourhoods in the Six Counties. Why did it happen and why was it tolerated, and why did people have to fall back and defend themselves?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): To let Deputy Adams know, he has one minute.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I beg leave of Deputy Ferris to give me slightly more time. It is all here, and I will quote. Others have quoted it, but I will do my best. In terms of the infamous €50,000, the report states:

. . . the immediate donor was . . . outside . . . the jurisdiction; that the donation was misrepresented in the books of the immediate donor; that it was transmitted [via] . . . a covert off-shore route, . . . that on its face there appeared to be no disbursement [of] . . . Telenor to Fine Gael; that, following its rejection by Fine Gael, the payment reposed for some time in an off-shore account in the Channel Islands, where it was retained under the control of 658 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

the late Mr. David Austin [a Fine Gael fund-raiser]; that is was subsequently introduced to party funds, disguised as a personal contribution by Mr. Austin; and that the . . . [money] was initially made at a time when the Esat Digifone consortium, of which Telenor was a key member, was engaged in direct negotiations with a Department of State, for which a Fine Gael Minister had direct Cabinet responsibility, namely Mr. Michael Lowry.

The report further states, “Of equal significance were donations made to Fianna Fáil in the context of the 1989 General Election by Custom House Docks Development Company, and by Dr. Michael Smurfit.”, and it goes on to detail all of that. Sin é, that is the report. There is a series of reports gathering dust somewhere else. The Taoiseach speaks of it being a small country and a proud nation, and so we are. I am not here to preach or moralise, but we are better than this. The only way this will be sorted out is if the connection between big business, financiers and all of those elites and the political class is broken, if we put in place processes which are transparent and which serve citizens, and if we understand that society is made up of people, communities and families who are equal to everyone in this House. I do not sit down inspired in any way that the Government will do right on all of those issues. I am open to be convinced. However, this party, Sinn Féin, will do its best within our lights to ensure, as every day we try to build a real republic on this island, that the mission statement of that republic is the Proclamation of 1916, not a manifesto of any other political party which can be turned around in the back of an election and made to mean whatever happens to be expedient at that time.

Deputy Martin Ferris: At the end of George Orwell’s Animal Farm there is a scene where the animals who thought they were being liberated discovered that they could no longer tell the difference between the old masters and those who had replaced them. Sitting here, less than half an hour ago, when Deputy Martin stated that it was not credible for us to believe that Lowry and O’Brien met and did not discuss the licence, I could not but recall when the Fianna Fáil Front Bench wanted us to believe that Cowen and the directors of Anglo Irish Bank, who met for dinner and had played golf in Druids Glen, did not discuss the banking losses. The many people who look through the Moriarty report and reflect on its findings may find it hard to tell the difference between the main party now in power and the one sitting in reduced numbers to my left. Fine Gael spoke a lot during the election campaign about political reform and bringing an end to cronyism. It also promised to introduce legislation to ban corporate donations. However, the fact its campaign was funded by a large war chest made up of donations from corporate donors may have been seen as somewhat contradictory and ironic. The irony was not lost on Deputy Creighton, who at least had the grace to be embarrassed at the McGill summer school last year, when she criticised the fact that Fine Gael golf classics were being attended by people linked with the banking and property collapse. The fact those people were happy to pour money into Fine Gael coffers did not augur well for the future. Of course, Fine Gael could argue that these people were not being promised anything in return for their patronage. What the Moriarty report proves is that such people did, indeed, have good reason to believe that in funding Fine Gael in the past, they were buying future political influence, and perhaps more. Certainly, the luck that befell Denis O’Brien as a consequence of his generosity would indicate that their faith was not unfounded. It is also worth mentioning that at the same time Deputy Creighton was talking about her party’s NAMA and banking friends, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, stated publicly that he was not in favour of banning corpor- 659 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Martin Ferris.] ate donations. He said he would make no apology for accepting such gifts. Has he changed his mind on that or has he, as with his chat with Denis O’Brien about mobile phone licences over dinner in October 1995, forgotten it all? Also, who were the people who funded Fine Gael’s election campaign? Unfortunately, current legislation does not allow us to discuss exactly from where all the money came, but we do know some of the donors. Among those attending the sponsored Fine Gael golf classics were Treasury Holdings and O’Flynn Construction, both major players in the NAMA debacle. Indeed, Michael O’Flynn was one of those who was consulted, on the establishment of NAMA, to sort out the mess caused by himself and his friends. He was also on record at the time as stating that he believed that the failed speculators ought to be given more of a say in how NAMA might save their bacon. I wonder whether he will be consulted by Fine Gael as part of its promised review of NAMA or was his bet on Fine Gael, like his money on the property market, a failure? The reason the more recent donations to Fine Gael are relevant to the discussion on the Moriarty report are that they prove that nothing much has changed in the 15 year period with which the report deals. If anything, it proves that Fine Gael, like Fianna Fáil, became cleverer at hoovering up cash from corporate donors and at concealing it. The only reason we know the identity of some of those who bankrolled the successful Fine Gael election campaign is that some of them turned up and won prizes at the golf classics but the origin of the majority of the funding is a mystery because it was cleverly concealed. We know that Fine Gael received at least £110,000 from Denis O’Brien between 1995 and 2000. That does not take into account whatever money went to Deputy Lowry. During the same period, Fianna Fáil received approximately £90,000, and to cover all bets, Denis O’Brien gave approximately the same amount to the Progressive Democrats. In fairness to a former leader of Fine Gael, the current Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, decided in 2001 that Fine Gael would no longer look for or accept corporate donations. That policy was changed by his successor, the current Taoiseach and has obviously been a success, given that Fine Gael had a huge sum of money to spend in the recent election campaign. However, it raises questions with regard to Fine Gael’s stated aim to end the culture of corporate donations to political parties. If Fine Gael intends to use this debate to draw a line in the sand, it should first publish the full list of corporate donations it has received over the past number of years. That might create some confidence among citizens that Fine Gael is genuine about putting an end to the culture of the Galway tent and the cosy dinners and golf classics. The point must be made with regard to the reason people with money fund political parties. The reason is clear from the Moriarty report as to why Denis O’Brien funded Fine Gael in the 1990s. It is also clear, despite all the denials, that he was well rewarded for his troubles. What exactly do Fine Gael’s most recent backers expect from Fine Gael? The EBS, for example, has supported Fine Gael golf classics and is one of the financial institutions that has landed us in the mess we are in. It is one of the institutions which has saddled citizens with an unpayable debt and an IMF-directed austerity programme. The only benefit I would see from any EBS executives attending golf classics is that they would be good people to bet against, given their disastrous losing streak when they engage in property gambling. It does not augur well for any Fine Gael Government to carry an IOU for such an entity, not to mention the brass neck of the EBS, which must be saved by the taxpayers, deciding to back one of the horses in the election race. Do the terms of the bailout allow for those rotten financial institutions to embroil the democratic process through the funding of political parties? This is another area the Government should look at as part of its promised reform and putting an end to the cronyism that exists.

660 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

With regard to what Fine Gael donors expect from Fine Gael, it is clear from the Moriarty report that Denis O’Brien expected and was given the inside track on the mobile phone licences. It was massively profitable to come in on the ground floor of that business in the mid- 1990s. Where do people like Denis O’Brien and Fine Gael’s latest backers see the main chances now? I suggest that one of the areas in which they have a high interest is the sell-off of State assets. The Government has already committed to selling off €2 billion of so-called non-strategic assets. The likelihood is that, as in Greece, this will be only the start and that the IMF and European Union will insist on wholesale auction of State companies and assets to service the bank debt. We will have to await the appearance of the McCarthy report to see what is in store for us on that front. I suspect that one of the reasons it has not yet appeared is because the spotlight shone on Coillte by the Woodland League and others has possibly upset plans to sell off 7% of the land of the State to a company fronted by a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach. One thing that is certain is that when the Government begins to sell off the family silver, among those at the top of the queue will be the kind of people who have bankrolled Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. That is the reason they bankrolled them and they are in prime position to move when the opportunity arises. It helps to have a friend, or several friends, in court, as Denis O’Brien well knows. We and the people have seen, experienced and know that the political elite here, the people at the top in the two main political parties, have compromised the political system and have been compromised by big business. It is time to change all that.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: To many, the contents of the Moriarty report will be seen as just another confirmation that politics in this State has been corrupted by shady deals, golden circles and brown envelopes. The report shines yet another spotlight on the cosy relationship between big business and politics. What it reveals is not pretty, even if predictable. In recent days, the findings of the tribunal have been partially obscured under a torrent of misinformation and deliberate distraction and spin, much of it emanating from Deputy Lowry and Denis O’Brien. Let us remind ourselves of the issue. In 1996, the State awarded its second mobile phone licence to a consortium led by Esat-Digifone, a company chaired by Denis O’Brien. At the time, this was an incredibly valuable State asset, seen by many as literally a licence to print money. Within four years, the licence was sold for a profit of €250 million. The findings of the tribunal are that during the period of competition for the mobile phone licence and subsequent licensing negotiations, from March 1995 to June 1996, Denis O’Brien’s companies supported 14 Fine Gael fundraising events. In the same period, Denis O’Brien made a further £50,000 donation to Fine Gael through his partner company Telenor. In the course of the competition and negotiations, the then Minister with responsibility for communications, Deputy Michael Lowry, passed vital information about the licensing process to Mr. O’Brien and used his influence to slant the awards process in favour of Esat Digifone. Within months of the contract being signed with Esat, a six figure sum was transferred from Denis O’Brien to Deputy Lowry through a series of offshore accounts. The tribunal and its findings have been the subject of a sustained media campaign by Deputy Lowry and Denis O’Brien to point out what in their analysis is the opinionated finding of one man. That will come as no surprise to people outside this Chamber. These are wealthy and powerful men who stand accused of grave wrongdoing. It is not hard to understand why they would deny the charges of political and financial corruption levelled at them by this report. It is much harder to understand why Mr. Justice Moriarty, a reputable judge who has presided over an exhaustive investigation of this matter, would make findings against them without good reason. The Moriarty report has been 14 years in preparation. It is a detailed and lengthy document based on substantial evidence and statements by former Ministers and numerous 661 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Jonathan O’Brien.] civil servants. I see no reason we should believe the assertions of Denis O’Brien and Deputy Lowry over those of Mr. Justice Moriarty. Deputy Lowry will get his opportunity to explain the dealings outlined in the Moriarty report later this evening. Following that, the people of this country will make up their minds on who is more credible. Having said all that, it is important that we do not let ourselves become distracted from the main issue here. At a time when one of our nation’s most valuable assets was being sold, a senior member of Fine Gael, its chief fund-raiser, the then Minister with responsibility for communications in a Fine Gael-led Government, stands accused of manipulating the award of said asset, which resulted in personal financial gain. As Deputy Ferris pointed out, Fine Gael wants once again to sell off State assets, which is surely a case of déjà vu. Fine Gael accepted more than a dozen donations from Mr Denis O’Brien and his companies during the period when they were competing for the mobile phone licence. We are talking about a Government Minister enabling a clique of businessmen to enrich themselves massively at the expense of the Irish people. We are talking about the rotten relationship between Irish business and Irish politics; a relationship whose fruits we are seeing today in NAMA, the bank guarantee scheme and the IMF bailout. Perhaps the most shocking thing about this report is how little the people are shocked. They have seen it all before. Many outside this Chamber suspect we may be here again. In the eyes of many people, Deputy Lowry has taken his place in the rogues’ gallery that is already well populated with household names. His mugshot hangs there alongside those of Charles Haughey, Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor and Bertie Ahern. While the public has become accustomed to allegations of undercover payments and dodgy dealings by politicians of the establishment, its attitude has turned from outrage to cynicism. Politics should be an honourable profession. To represent the Irish people and to be entrusted to take critical decisions about the future of our country should be a proud task and one that should be undertaken with humility, with honesty and with a determination to put the national interest first at all times. Unfortunately, a substantial number of senior politicians saw it otherwise. They saw it as a chance to profit from public office. This is a tragedy not just for Ireland, but for the many decent and honest politicians of all parties who do their best to serve the people who elect them. It is bad for our democracy and it is bad for our country. It erodes people’s trust in our institutions, and it makes capable people more reluctant to serve in politics. The Moriarty report should be taken as a clarion call to make politics honourable again. It should become an historical turning point; the moment when we committed ourselves, as a nation, to root out corruption once and for all, and the moment when we began a comprehensive reform of our political system. We cannot afford to brush it under the carpet. We cannot afford to dismiss it as yesterday’s news. The corrupt nexus of business and politics it has uncovered remains in place. There will be more Michael Lowrys, Ray Burkes and Bertie Aherns and more tribunals in future if the Government does not act on the report’s findings. What must be done? People must be held accountable and those with questions to answer — including the Taoiseach — should answer them. There should be no more hiding behind political rhetoric. The Government should move immediately to ban corporate donations and the requirement that only donations over a certain limit need to be declared should be done away with. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform needs to bring forward new legislation on political corruption and white collar crime as a matter of urgency. Stiffer limits should be imposed on spending in elections. The culture of political expenses and ministerial perks must be reformed, and the structural reform of the political system needs to take place. 662 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

This House needs to be able to hold the Government properly to account, but we need to go deeper than this. We need to change the culture of Irish politics. The blatant corruption uncovered by the Moriarty report is only the tip of the iceberg. Brown envelopes and offshore accounts feed into a wider culture of political deference to business. Political corruption is not a victimless crime. When powerful businessmen are able to subvert the political process in their own interest, the public interest suffers and real people pay the price. We see the consequences of this in the current economic crisis which has effectively bankrupted this State. We have seen what happens when we run our country according to the calculations scribbled on the back of a brown envelope. Our political system is broken; not just because it is open to corruption, but because it has brought the country to the brink of ruin. We need to end this political homage to big business. We need to end the culture of favours that has grown out of it. Political decisions must be made openly and transparently. Every Irish citizen must be able to participate in making them. We need a culture of openness, a culture of civic duty, and a culture of patriotism. In essence, we need a culture of real republicanism.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I am sharing my time with Deputies John Halligan, Richard Boyd Barrett, Mick Wallace, Tom Fleming and Joan Collins. The findings of the Moriarty tribunal are very disturbing. These findings are that there was inappropriate political interference and the process through which the licence was awarded was grossly deficient, that the Government of the day acted with gross impropriety and the rules of competition were broken in evaluating the bids. However, the central contention of both Denis O’Brien and Deputy Michael Lowry is that the award of the mobile phone licence was above board, that the report is ultimately the opinion of the chairman and has no basis in law, and that it was the most expensive comic ever produced. Where exactly is the truth? What I find alarming is that when the suggestion of wrongdoing was made all those years ago, the tribunal route was chosen, knowing that if anything illegal was established, charges could not be brought. It reminds me of the beef tribunal, which cost millions and which resulted in the arrest only of a journalist in its aftermath. This propensity to set up a tribunal with all its intricacies, instead of using the appropriate authorities, baffles me. It seems to be an elabor- ate ruse to prevent accountability and transparency. The beef tribunal established links between business and politics; links that continue to thrive and that must be broken. Otherwise, we will continue to be a grubby, corrupt country. Another disquieting issue is that of public procurement. Why was there not an open, transparent auction to the highest bidder? It led to the licence being given at a fraction of what it was worth and there is still no satisfactory explanation of that fact. I find it extremely alarming that the leading businessmen mentioned in the report moved residency to other countries to avoid paying just taxes in their own country. The cost of the tribunal is also extremely alarming. It may exceed €250 million and its 14 year timespan was partly due to the misleading testimony given to the tribunal. After 14 years, there still appear to be more questions than answers, as the song goes. The report of the Moriarty tribunal recommends wide-ranging changes in the way politics is funded. Various suggestions have been made regarding audits, tax relief and rules about disclosure. Do we seriously think they will work? There is a simple solution — no political donations, either personal or corporate, should be allowed. Plenty of charities could do with extra funding. When 129 Members of the Dáil were surveyed last November, two thirds of them said they had no confidence in the Moriarty tribunal. Therefore, I request that no more tribunals be established. These matters should be dealt with by the Office of the Director of Public Pros- ecutions, the Garda Síochána or the Criminal Assets Bureau, as appropriate. The bureau has 663 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan.] greater powers of search and seizure, including the power to freeze bank accounts and seize property. Although it can read this report, it cannot use it as a basis for evidence. It will have to start gathering evidence and re-interviewing witnesses. The media has been robust and fair in its reports on someone who is the largest shareholder and owner of a media outlet. Many workers in the media depend on him for their living. Questions need to be asked about the roles of the Civil Service and the Danish consultant, Professor Andersen, in this process. Professor Andersen has said that the tribunal’s conclusions have no factual basis. He has made the point that its findings are not consistent with the evidence given by civil servants. Who is telling the truth? Reputations are being damaged. Either Denis O’Brien and Deputy Lowry have had their reputations damaged by Mr. Justice Moriarty, or Mr. Justice Moriarty has had his professional and personal reputation damaged by Deputy Lowry and Mr. O’Brien. The Taoiseach’s fine words will only be given credence when there is an actual outcome. Irish people cannot afford these expensive processes and false promises at a time when families are suffering as a result of cuts and negative equity, small businesses are failing and bonus- paying banks are continuing to be bailed out. The country voted for a change in leadership and in government. The people do not just want a change in dealership from one clique to another — they want actual outcomes so that trust in our political system can be restored. They did not want the most obvious outcome of the tribunal, which is that certain lawyers have made a lot of money. It is important that the truth be established and, when wrong has been done, that it be punished.

Deputy John Halligan: In recent days, I have found it absolutely nauseating to have had to listen to representatives of Fianna Fáil, which is involved in a so-called rehabilitation and is supposedly on the road to Damascus.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Hear, hear.

Deputy John Halligan: On the basis of the past record of Fianna Fáil, I do not doubt that it will face another day of reckoning when the Mahon tribunal issues its report in the coming weeks or months. The image of this country, externally and internally, has been damaged and tarnished once again. Whether we like it or not, the public perception is that if one is a multimillionaire, one can use one’s money to influence politicians and political parties. That is how I see what is happening. I have no doubt in my mind about it. If nothing comes from this inquiry, it will be disastrous for the well-being of Irish society. That might well happen. I was glad to hear the Taoiseach say there could be other investigations outside this inquiry. It is sad that appropriate legislation was not put in place earlier, as we would not have needed an inquiry that became a slush fund for lawyers and barristers to make millions of euro. When one speaks to people on the street, one hears their perceptions of these inquiries. First, people think the rich elite can get away with anything they like. Second, they think the main result of these tribunals is that those who are already rich get even richer. Third, they think nothing is being done for ordinary people whose lives are being destroyed by the policies of the last Government and the possible policies of the current Government. It is worth revisiting the ideological decisions that were taken when this mobile phone licence was issued. Members will recall the unfortunate failure to invest substantially in Telecom Éireann at the time. Such moneys would have been well invested. We would have secured 664 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements many jobs and we might have had a better service. Ideological questions need to be asked about the policy of selling State assets, the results of which are clear in this instance. I am conscious that other Deputies are keen to speak. Before I ask the Taoiseach two questions that should be answered, I want to say I believe him when he says he will do certain things. I have to believe it because he has said it. I hope he will do what he has said. If he does, he will have my support. I am not here today to criticise him. I listened carefully to what he said. I hope he will implement his proposals. If he does, it will be for the betterment of this country. I will conclude by asking two questions. First, will the Taoiseach consider releasing all the Cabinet papers of relevance to the awarding of this licence? Perhaps that has been done already. I suggest that records of all Cabinet discussions of the time should be released. Second, did the former Taoiseach, John Bruton, have any concerns about the issuing of the licence? Did any member of the then Cabinet, or anyone from an outside body, come to Mr. Bruton to raise such concerns? I would like those two questions to be answered in the Dáil at some stage tonight or tomorrow, if possible.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: This debate is not primarily about Deputy Lowry. Given the amount of speaking time he has been given, I find it slightly frustrating that he cannot be bothered to stay to hear what the rest of us have to say on these issues.

Deputy John Halligan: Hear, hear.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: This debate is about the credibility of the entire political system, which has been battered as a result of a series of scandals which have revealed the rotten relationship between politics and big business. Like most people, I feel that the rotten relationship in question has contributed to the desperate situation in which we now find ourselves. People want to know that things have genuinely changed, that we are serious about getting to the bottom of the matter and that we intend to change that relationship. That would give real meaning to the noble aspirations enunciated by the Taoiseach in his speech. I concur with Deputy Halligan’s assertion that when one listens to Fianna Fáil interrogating the Government about cronyism in this particular instance, one really thinks one is living in a parallel universe. That party has been the master of cronyism and cute hoor politics. It will need a substantial decontamination period before any comments it makes on this subject can be taken seriously. I have no reason not to believe what the Moriarty report says about Deputy Lowry. It says he was guilty of tax evasion. It says he abused his position by trying to benefit Mr. Ben Dunne, from whom he received payments. It says he delivered the huge contract for the second GSM licence for Denis O’Brien, from whom he received substantial payments. For the majority of people, what most churns the stomach is the fact that the beneficiary in this case, Denis O’Brien, is a tax exile. He has not shown the country that enriched him and made him a multimillionaire the gratitude of bothering to stay here to pay tax on what I consider to be his ill- gotten gains. All of that is in the past, to some extent. We need to focus on the extent to which this Government is serious about making real change in this area. I have a few questions for the Taoiseach in that context. Will the Government provide the House with a list of the corporate donors to his recent election campaign? In February of this year, the Irish Daily Mail revealed that companies like Johnny Ronan’s Treasury Holdings, Cement Roadstone Holdings, the EBS and a company owned by JP McManus had made contributions to Fine Gael fund-raising 665 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.] events. If the election of this Government was financed by significant corporate donations from people in the golden circle, it is hard to give much credit to its promises to get rid of corporate donations. Will the Taoiseach name all of those who donated to Fine Gael’s election campaign, or the campaigns of individual Fine Gael Deputies, including those who made payments of less than the threshold amounts? I ask the Taoiseach to state honestly if any representatives of the Government met Deputy Lowry in order to elicit the support he provided during the recent election of the Taoiseach in this Chamber. Did any meetings take place? Was any agreement reached? Were any undertakings given to Deputy Lowry with regard to what he might expect in exchange for the support he gave the Taoiseach and his Government?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Do we not also have to address a more systemic problem in terms of selling State assets in a competitive market driven by profit? Should we not draw from the series of scandals of this nature, as well as the banking crisis and the global crisis, the lesson that where a society and an economy driven by profit puts public assets on the market, the political system is inevitably corrupted?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Is that not the issue we have to address? The last thing we should do is sell State assets to pay off the bad gambling debts of speculators and developers, as is proposed in the programme for Government.

Deputy Mick Wallace: Mr. Justice Moriarty is a High Court judge who was appointed to chair the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters. To find out what a judge is supposed to stand for I referred to the Constitution, which requires him or her to state the following:

I...dosolemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office...without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.

I was somewhat taken aback at the manner in which Mr. Justice Moriarty and the Judiciary have been called into question. This is a dangerous road to follow. The Judiciary in Ireland is an independent and fair system. It may not get all the answers right but it is worthy of our respect. If we are not going to respect its decisions, what are we going to do? It would not stack up anymore. The core of any democracy has to be respect for what a judge decides or has to say. It is not good for us that people with influence, whether political or financial, are able to challenge the legal system with such brazenness. It is something we have to think about. I am surprised that the Government is not more outraged about this matter. We should be angry this is happening. It must seem to the ordinary people there is one rule for them and another for the people who have influence. Is this the way it is supposed to be? Is this how it will stay? We heard a great deal about change during the election campaign, which was my first. As I travelled around to listen to people I observed an appetite for change. Fine Gael and the Labour Party have promised significant change but I am taken aback they are not more out- 666 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements raged. I am disappointed the Chamber is not full. The Moriarty tribunal and its report have serious implications for our society. Does it not matter enough?

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: They are at funerals.

Deputy Mick Wallace: If they are serious about making this Parliament work in the manner it should or organising our society properly, can they show a bit more interest? Can they be here? We have a huge responsibility. The people put us here. They expect us to run this country in an honest fashion, to make honest decisions and to care. We have to forgive them for thinking we do not care. This is an opportunity to show that perhaps things can change. The Taoiseach promised a number of reforms and it will be great if he is able to implement them. He referred specifically to donations. If someone wants to give €100 to a politician running for election, we should know who he or she is. People who pay pipers call tunes. Through money, businesses big and small can separate the electorate from the Legislature. Money comes between them. This is not good and we should stop it completely rather than introduce half measures such as bringing it down to this or that limit. Let us do away with the practice completely. It is not the way to run a proper democracy. Perhaps I am naive or too idealistic but I believe things can be different.

Deputy Tom Fleming: In the 25,000 words of the Moriarty report, Mr. Justice Moriarty used strenuous language. Are these 25,000 words a load of garbage? I believe Deputy Lowry has serious questions to answer. The report is either a load of garbage or it is a serious document which sets out an appalling vista. In the interest of democracy, Deputy Lowry should resign if he cannot answer these questions in the Dáil because his position in this Parliament would be untenable. This Parliament must also decide whether he has serious questions to answer. In the recent past this country has experienced an avalanche of scandals. Internationally, our reputation is in tatters and as a nation we were probably never held in lower esteem worldwide. It is time to finally clean up our act and restore our credibility as a nation. We must start in this House.

Deputy Joan Collins: If we are to believe the version of events put forward by Deputy Lowry and others in the media, an incredible number of coincidences have occurred. Let us look at one such set of coincidences. The £147,000 which Mr. Justice Moriarty believes was a payment to Deputy Lowry from Denis O’Brien was routed through offshore accounts to keep it from public view. We are asked to believe all the following events are completely unrelated. Denis O’Brien has his accountant, Aidan Phelan, open an account in the Isle of Man in the name of Mr. Phelan. A sum of £150,000 is then paid from this account into an account in the Isle of Man controlled by the late David Austin, a Fine Gael fund-raiser and friend of Deputy Lowry. In a completely unrelated coincidence, Deputy Lowry opened an account in the Isle of Man into which £147,000 is paid from the Austin account. Strangely, £147,000 is transferred back into the Austin account on the day the McCracken tribunal began its investigation into the award of the Esat licence. I am with the learned judge on this. There are too many coincidences involving people bumping into each other in Croke Park, property deals in Britain involving the same names and the late involvement of Dermot Desmond in the Esat bid. The only conclusion I can come to is that of Mr. Justice Moriarty, namely, that the awarding of this lucrative contract was corrupted by a senior Minister in the Fine Gael-Labour Party-Democratic Left coalition Government of the 1990s, in which nine members of the present Cabinet served as Ministers. 667 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Joan Collins.]

My colleagues have noted the seriousness of this matter. It is no good to indulge in hand wringing and tut-tutting, polite requests for Deputy Lowry to resign and promises of change if we go back to the business as usual of tents, golf classics and private fund-raising dinners. This is the very process that corrupts democracy by allowing big business and wealthy interests to buy influence and obtain a so-called business-friendly environment — in other words, the light regulation and lower taxes on wealth and profit that were key factors in creating the present economic crisis. It is not just a case of a few bad apples. The system 7o’clock which allows and encourages corporate donations to parties and individuals, while it may be legal, is corrupting the political process itself. This is recognised in the many promises to ban corporate donations. To my knowledge, €12 million was spent by political parties in the 2007 election, most of it by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and only €2 million was registered as declared donations under the Standards in Public Office Act. This is much too loose and we cannot tolerate it as a nation. Deputy Wallace made the point that money comes between democracy and abuse. It is also a fact that the promise of future money comes between democracy and abuse. The former Deputy Bertie Ahern, who led the charge of the corrupt brigade, now has cosy positions in the likes of the International Forestry Fund, which is interested in buying Coillte, one of our precious national assets, although I know the people of this country will fight tooth and nail to stop that from happening. I will reiterate a point made by Deputy Boyd Barrett. We need a list of all donations given to Fine Gael or any other party in the last election. We need action now, not promises. We need an effective ban on donations, a register of lobbyists, and published annual accounts by all parties represented in the Dáil.

Deputy Michael Lowry: I have three simple messages that I would like to leave with all Members of this House. The first is that I did not engage in any wrongdoing with regard to the awarding of the second mobile licence. That is a fact which is substantiated by every witness who gave evidence to the tribunal over a long period. The second point is that I received no payments from Denis O’Brien with regard to the second mobile licence. Not a single witness before the tribunal gave evidence that I did receive a payment. The third is that Mr. Justice Moriarty has created a false impression in his report that I was a net beneficiary of approximately £900,000 sterling arising from two property transactions and a loan agreement. This is not a truthful or accurate presentation of the facts. Absolutely no money accrued to me from the transactions referred to in his report. The trail of documentation, both legal and accounting, confirms the validity of that statement. As everyone in this country is aware, my financial affairs, both personal and business, were the subject of intense scrutiny and investigation by the Revenue Commissioners. Last Friday, I contacted my professional advisers, and they reconfirmed to me that the three transactions referred to in the Moriarty report were covered under the period of investigation by the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners accepted that I had no income from these transactions and therefore I had no tax liability attached. It is extraordinary, therefore, that Mr. Justice Moriarty can give such a misleading impression to the Irish public. These are the three simple messages. That is the truth, and those are the facts. Let me return to a number of issues that have been raised. Sixteen years ago I became the subject of investigation by the institutions of this State. I first went through the Buchanan inquiry. I was then passed on to the McCracken inquiry. Then I was the subject of an extensive investigation conducted by Mr. Appleby, who was the Director of Corporate Enforcement at 668 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements the time. Then there was the prolonged investigation by the Revenue Commissioners, and I finished up for 14 years with the Moriarty tribunal. Constantly, every day for 16 years, I have been investigated by some institution of the State. When this issue arose 16 years ago, I accepted responsibility and admitted mistakes in the manner in which I had conducted business with Ben Dunne. I took responsibility for that. I made a voluntary declaration and I went to the Revenue Commissioners and settled my affairs. As an individual, my total liability was €60,000, and my company had a further liability. Rather than passing the blame to somebody for the unorthodox way in which Ben Dunne did business, I settled my affairs. In settling those affairs, I paid in the region of €900,000 in penalties and interest on a bill of approximately €400,000. I remortgaged my house to fulfil my commitments and I paid what was owed. Like any other taxpayer, I settled my affairs and I expected to be able to walk on and leave that behind me. However, it has not happened that way. Now that the Moriarty tribunal has concluded, I am again under further investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau. I want to make one thing clear: you can send in the CAB, you can send in the Army, you can send in whom you like to investigate my affairs after all of these investigations, but no £900,000 will be found, because it was never there and it is not there. The media have been gleeful in their anticipation that I might go to jail because I broke a tax amnesty. Every transaction I have ever had has been the subject of inquiry and investigation, and to facilitate the Revenue Commissioners in that investigation, I made my voluntary disclosure available to it. The amnesty, and my dealings with the Revenue Commissioners, were all open and on the table. It was in the context of the amnesty that my full and final settlement was made with the Revenue Commissioners in June 2007. This House established the Moriarty tribunal 14 years ago. That has been, for me, 14 years of intrusion, examination, scrutiny, interference, stress and vilification. No trial has ever lasted so long with so little fact or truth to justify its existence. The Moriarty tribunal has become a monster of extraordinary proportions, feeding off itself and costing this State a fortune. For an inquiry to go on for 14 years in a democratic society is absurd. Yet here I stand, 14 years on, nonetheless accused. There is no evidence to support the report’s findings. Every witness questioned was absolutely clear that I did not influence the outcome of the mobile phone licence award in any way. Why was Mr. Justice Moriarty unwilling to believe or accept those testimonies from so many people under oath? Why is the tribunal happy to fabricate and invent the content of a conversation between me and Denis O’Brien in 1995 that never happened? Both of us confirmed that it never happened and nobody else was present to confirm otherwise. What is the legal basis or justification for such outrageous assumptions and findings? John Waters, who has often been very critical of me, highlighted in last Friday’s The Irish Times the injustice of this approach by the tribunal to evidence when he wrote:

To conclude that a particular meeting dealt with matters which 100 per cent of the participants insist were not discussed is to propose that every allegation comprises its own proof. This is not the “balance of probabilities”, but the elevation of suspicion to the level of hard evidence.

This comment puts the entire tribunal travesty into a perfect context. It was not about evidence, but assumptions; it was not about truth, but self-justification and media soundbites; it was not about legal jurisprudence, but witch-hunting and scapegoating. The tribunal was driven by forces and syndicates in this country whose vested interests, ambitions and greed were thwarted by a perfectly legitimate licence application procedure. During the prolonged inquiry, rumour and innuendo suddenly became fact, guilt by association became the norm, and any association between the parties involved became proof that something sinister was going on. 669 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Michael Lowry.]

Michael Moriarty took his terms of reference from this House and converted them into an open-ended mandate without restraint. He has pursued this open-ended agenda with an unlimi- ted budget and zero accountability to this House for the past 14 years. The ultimate outcome of this process is a report filled with intemperate language, one which is professionally inappropriate, has no evidentiary framework or merit and makes claims that would not stand up to scrutiny in the local pub, let alone an esteemed courtroom. I have served as a Deputy for Tipperary North for 24 years and lived with this tribunal animal for 14. Not a single day passed when this tribunal did not negatively impact on my personal or professional life in some way or another. This slow Chinese torture has taken an enormous toll on me in every respect. This House established the tribunal. I believe I am entitled at least to a right of reply. I owe that to myself and my family. Mr. Michael Moriarty has been proved wrong on several occasions and he is grievously wrong with the opinions he reported to the House last week. Members would do well to remember that thousands of court cases are successfully appealed, mainly because judges do get it wrong. They get it wrong, despite the fact that both civil and criminal trials are subject to strict rules of evidence. It is precisely because of these tested rules of evidence that the ultimate decisions of the court are respected, not because of the personality of the judge involved. My position was completely vindicated by all of the sworn evidence given before the tribunal by dozens of witnesses during the years. Not one single person went into Dublin Castle to give sworn evidence that I had interfered in any way with the awarding of the second mobile phone licence. It was, in fact, the opposite. Not one single person went before the tribunal to claim I had received money from Denis O’Brien. No one gave evidence to the Moriarty tribunal in support of what is contained in its final report. Today we are debating the opinion of one man, not facts or evidence-based conclusions. No Member can forget that basic principle. The report is not based on evidence, but is the opinion of the tribunal’s chairman. The only parties involved in this entire process who disputed my principal positions were Michael Moriarty, his team of multimillionaire lawyers and certain members of the losing applicants in the licence process. These are the very same individuals who have been doing an enormous amount of crowing in the media in the past week. Members must not forget that the stated goal and ambition of these parties is to sue the State for the highest possible amount of damages. Since 1995, they have sat back and let the tribunal, paid from State funds, to do all of the legwork in preparing damages actions against the State. It is bewildering. In 1996 I invited Persona to contest the licence decision before the courts. It, or any other losing applicant, will not succeed in its objective for compensation because there is no evidence to support a successful court challenge. I always understood a tribunal was duty bound to reach conclusions based only on the sworn evidence provided for it in public sessions. Mr. Moriarty himself said he would do so in a ruling delivered in 1999. How then has it happened that he has reached these primary conclusions in his report when he did not obtain a single witness to support his theory of events in either the licence process or in respect of alleged payments to me? It is impossible to reconcile this obligation to report only on evidence heard in public with what is contained in his final report. What was reported was simply not based on evidence. Somewhere along the line, this duty to report only on evidence was cast to one side. I was alarmed to learn in 2006 that Mr. Moriarty would not actually be making findings of fact, that rather he would be reporting based on “reasonably informed expressions of opinion”. Would the Oireachtas have set up a tribunal 670 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements costing tens of millions of euro to make findings of fact if it knew that nine years later the tribunal would announce it was only making a report based on opinions? I challenge any Member of this House to find me an extract from the actual evidence given to the tribunal in the past decade which supports the view that I either interfered in the licence process or that I received money from Denis O’Brien. There are years of transcripts from which to work. If Members of this House wish to lazily parrot the words from the tribunal’s report, as some have already done this evening, to secure some perceived political points, there is little I can do to stop them. Perhaps some of them could just dig a little deeper and see if there is evidence to back up these findings. Less than four months ago The Sunday Tribune published the results of a comprehensive poll conducted among 129 sitting Deputies and Senators in which they were asked the simple question if they had confidence in the Moriarty tribunal. More than two thirds of those polled said, “No”; only one in five answered, “Yes”. As part of its front page piece, the newspaper stated, “The lack of confidence in the tribunal was not confined to any particular party or specifically to either the Dáil or Seanad, with the dissent spread between the two houses and across the political spectrum.” During the years many Members have gone on record openly criticising the operations of the Moriarty tribunal. There has been much commentary in recent days and again tonight about attacks on the Judiciary and statements made about the deplorable nature of persons seeking to defend themselves against the damaging personalised opinions emanating from the Moriarty tribunal. I remind the House that the chairman of a tribunal does not sit as a High Court judge or as a member of the Judiciary. There is absolutely no requirement that the sole member of a tribunal needs to be a judge. It would be far better if these roles were never again confused in this way. Most of the time when it suits them, tribunals gladly take the position that they are not courts, yet they wish to avail of the cloak of protection of the Judiciary when justified criticism is aimed in their direction. Tribunals, particularly the Moriarty tribunal, do not provide any of the protections or standards to which a citizen would be entitled as a matter of right in a court of law. It was the Moriarty tribunal that introduced the desperately low standard of the reasonably informed expression of opinion as the basis upon which it would arrive at its conclusions. Members need to give very serious consideration to whether this is an acceptable standard to be employed in such a serious process with such far-reaching consequences. Is it fair that career civil servants have had their personal and professional reputations shredded based on opinion where there is no evidence? This is what the Moriarty tribunal has done. Do these civil servants not deserve better? One of the greatest flaws in the modern tribunal system is that while it looks like a court and has all the appearances, airs and graces of one, it provides the accused with absolutely none of the protections provided in a court. Neither is it obliged to follow the standards of law which are sacrosanct in a court or the rules of evidence or the procedures of a court. Mr. Moriarty speaks in innocuous tones of “relaxing” the rules of evidence. In my case, Mr. Moriarty threw the rules of evidence out the window. A tribunal is no more than a prosecution show trial that gets to operate without any of the checks and balances that are properly embedded in any respectable democratic court process. That is what makes a modern day Irish tribunal of inquiry such a dangerous animal and something that is nigh on impossible for citizens to properly defend themselves against. I say to this Chamber without fear or hesitation that the chairman of this tribunal did not act with the detached independence one would properly expect. He assumed the role of judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner all rolled into one. Is there any other legal process in the 671 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Michael Lowry.] world where the prosecution team would work privately with the judge, eat with the judge and share an office with the judge for 14 years? If that relationship happened in any other legal process, it would collapse in a deluge of controversy. In the Irish world of tribunals, the prosecution team and the judge go to work together and do so as close friends and colleagues for 14 years. We seem to have become immune to this incredible proposition. There are many legal people in this Chamber. There has been no commentary on it. I cannot recall a single instance in the past 14 years when any objection to the approach of tribunal counsel was accepted by the tribunal chairman. How would Members feel if they were to walk into a court tomorrow as a defendant to find that the prosecutor worked in the same office as the judge, discussed the case openly with him, and that they co-operated to prepare questions for the defendants? It seems crazy but this is what happened for the past 14 years at this tribunal. The Moriarty tribunal is noteworthy for its extraordinary wide range of scathing attacks on the reputations and characters of an enormous amount of individuals in Ireland and abroad from all walks of life. It seems that anyone who looked sideways at this tribunal over the past decade received withering criticism in the final report. Dozens and dozens of people get it right between the eyes in scornful and personalised comment in the tribunal’s 2,000 pages. Anyone who gave evidence to this tribunal that conflicted with the case being put forward by the tribunal was attacked in this report. However, the tribunal’s sensitivity is incredible in terms of any perceived criticism levelled against the chairman or any member of his legal team. The tribunal report devotes entire sections in its report to defending the honour and integrity of its team while shredding the reputations of others on a wholesale basis. If Mr. Moriarty is entitled to be protected or insulated as a member of the Judiciary, then he ought to have applied the standards and principles that go with that high office. His tribunal was not an inquiry; it was a show trial where he and his legal team decided what evidence would be heard and how it would presented to the public. The amount of evidence and information that was withheld and concealed by the tribunal was astonishing. There is absolutely no doubt that if the Moriarty tribunal was a criminal process, it would have collapsed under the weight of its own impropriety many years ago. The rejection of the absolutely overwhelming body of evidence given in public sittings is the real story of this tribunal. I am not aware of any other legal process, in Ireland or elsewhere, where a judge could base his conclusions not on the evidence he heard before him under oath, but on a theory or opinion of events that he and his lawyers constructed. Indeed, when the first theory on the licence process was blown out of the water by the forced calling of additional evidence, the tribunal just went back to the drawing board and created a freshly minted theory that it refused to share with any of us involved in the process in the form of new provisional findings. The basic summary of the Moriarty tribunal is that Mr. Moriarty refused to accept any of the evidence heard but went on with his preferred story of how certain things happened 15 to 20 years ago. It tells a great story and he does not spare the verbose dramatic flourishes, but one has to scratch just a little beneath the surface to see the gaping cracks in the theory as put forward in these opinions. In this context, I am fully entitled to voice my concerns about this flawed process in the House today. I have taken the slings and arrows for 15 years with very little at my disposal to defend myself. The lawyers for the tribunal cashed cheques for over €50,000 a month, every month of every year for 14 years. They were handed this money to prepare and hone their attacks on me and others, yet I was left to fend for myself as a private citizen without State 672 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements support. The chairman of this tribunal, who did not sit as a member of the Judiciary, should not be cocooned away from questioning or critical appraisal. The current Taoiseach repeatedly questioned his predecessor during his time as Leader of the Opposition in a manner that could only be described as giving voice to real, serious concerns about the Moriarty tribunal and its activities. The Taoiseach was joined by the leader of the Labour Party, now the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore and the then leader of Sinn Féin in the Oireachtas, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, who rowed in on numerous occasions to criticise the conduct, the time delays and other matters involved in the Moriarty tribunal. The Taoiseach was justified and correct in that questioning and criticism. As recently as May of last year, Deputy Kenny asked the then Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, the following question:

My understanding is that the Attorney General advised the tribunal of the legality of the change of ownership in respect of the consortium bidding for the licence. It has come to light only recently that this was a fact. How could legal personnel paid at premium rates on a daily basis make a fundamental error such as that, and the legal adviser to the State and to the Government advise on the legality of the change of ownership yet that did not emerge until quite recently?

Deputy Kenny went on to state trenchantly that what he described as “two grievous errors” had been sensationally uncovered in the approach adopted by the Moriarty tribunal. Deputy Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he believed that the sole member of the tribunal was in a position to produce a credible and impartial report and whether the then Taoiseach, Mr. Cowen, could have confidence in the Moriarty tribunal in light of the disclosures forced out of the tribunal. At that time Deputy Kenny was undoubtedly supported in that position by his party colleagues who now make up the majority of the Government benches in this House. I will answer that question for Deputy Kenny now. The tribunal did not produce a credible and impartial report. The fears expressed in this House have proven to have been very well founded. Mr. Michael Moriarty and his team of lawyers have been wrong on many occasions. On 25 February 2008, the tribunal published a written ruling on its website dealing with a critical matter concerning information it had received from the Office of the Attorney General. Two years later, it was forced to take down that ruling and post a new ruling that said precisely the opposite to what the tribunal had been informed by the Office of the Attorney General. On 25 September 1995, the tribunal published another ruling in which it dealt with many of the matters under inquiry. This ruling was shown to have been flawed and wrong in many material respects. The tribunal pursued a line of inquiry with me in which it openly alleged that I was involved in a secret trust relating to Doncaster Rovers’ property. It transpired through questions I asked of the tribunal counsel that the tribunal had already received conclus- ive evidence from the entity in the UK that I had absolutely nothing to do with that in any capacity. The chairman went on to say that this was an error. In the course of sittings, the tribunal counsel denied meeting with officials from the Office of the Attorney General in Dublin in 2002 during which critical matters were discussed. Notes were then produced showing that tribunal counsel attended this critical meeting. That was again put down to error. Dr. Peter Bacon was retained by the tribunal in 2002 to prepare reports that were used to tear apart the second mobile phone licence process and to question civil servant witnesses for years. When the secret report and the relationship between Bacon and the tribunal was uncovered, the tribunal made a humiliating climbdown and ruled five years later that Peter Bacon was not an expert in the field and that it could not rely on the contents of the report. It was wrong again. In the meantime it had interrogated officials in the Department over a five year period on the basis of the secret report in the background. 673 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Michael Lowry.]

Although he was forced publicly to admit to those errors, the chairman of the Moriarty tribunal has never properly explained those “significant errors”. It is impossible to believe that they were simply errors. In the case of the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General in advising on the awarding of the licence, the impediments that were put in place by the tribunal to prevent the calling of evidence to unmask those staggering mistruths were startling. It is a matter of fact that the Moriarty tribunal repeatedly refused to call the evidence from the Office of the Attorney General and only relented at the very last minute in the face of judicial review proceedings. It was only because of the threat of judicial review proceedings that the truth on the ownership issue was allowed to emerge publicly. Mr. Moriarty was proven wrong then and he is wrong now in his findings. It is also a fact that Michael Moriarty has never explained how it came to pass that he ignored ten letters from the Office of the Attorney General which directly contradicted the position that his tribunal had openly adopted concerning the critical ownership issue. As counsel for the State put it during a public sitting in 2009 — I was there to hear it and witness it — the Moriarty tribunal refused to engage with the “inconvenient truths” which defeated the tribunal’s theory in relation to the licence process as it then stood. However, the tribunal would, in time, get around those evidentiary roadblocks. The tribunal then went back to the drawing board and rewired its predetermined conclusion that I was guilty of wrongdoing in relation to the licence process. It is accepted that grievous errors were previously made by the tribunal. It moved away from the ownership issue because it could not be brought home to roost. What Mr. Moriarty did then was move the goalpost and last week he unleashed on the public other conclusions which are not substantiated by fact. Despite the consistent and trenchant criticisms levelled at the approach of the Moriarty tribunal by Members of this House, Mr. Moriarty has now taken possession of an impenetrable cloak of infallibility and has been bestowed with the ability to repel any semblance of attack or criticism. As I noted in the past week, he has a shield of invincibility which means that no Member of this House can bear to even question the outcome of this report. Despite the fact that he was proven wrong on so many matters in the past why is it that Mr. Moriarty’s report on the licence process is being taken as gospel? Months ago, serious questions were raised as to his ability to produce a credible and impartial report. Now, any view falling short of 100% declaration of acceptance and support will not even be countenanced. Since last Tuesday, the Moriarty tribunal report has been accepted and trumpeted by Members of this House as though it is gospel, as though every opinion and position contained in it is impervious to criticism or even a contrary view. As I know, politics can be a very fickle pursuit. A position taken today can be abandoned for a political advantage tomorrow. The approach in this House to the Moriarty tribunal is proof of that. A fickle approach is certainly not unique to Members of this House. I have noticed in the past week that some leading media commentators have simply refused to critically assess or question the opinions arrived at it in the tribunal’s report or to even question the means by which those opinions were arrived at. That is bizarre, considering that many of the same writers were the authors of some hugely critical analysis, particularly over the past two years. All of that is quickly forgotten. Michael Moriarty’s wrongs and failings have been cleansed. Again, it seems as though many of those in the media believe that Mr. Moriarty issued his report from some throne of infallibility and that all doubts and concerns about his approach that were widely expressed in the media were dispelled instantaneously. The same journalists who were writing about the “tribunal’s appalling vistas” or the “credibility of the tribunal being in tatters” or the “beleaguered tribunal admitting significant errors” now present their articles as though 674 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements the opinions of the tribunal are sacrosanct and that to express even the slightest doubt or concern would be sacrilegious. The ferocity and personalised nature of Michael Moriarty’s condemnation serves to conceal the threadbare nature of his conclusions. The very least that one would expect from a team of lawyers that shared a €45 million bounty over 14 years is that they would be able to write a credible, factual and convincing report. The Moriarty tribunal’s report is nothing more than the presentation of the opinions of the prosecution. In any legal process, if one side was given the sole authority to write the judgment in the way it wanted, without interference from the other side, then of course it would read like a compelling and damning verdict to the public. That is exactly what I faced last Tuesday. The report was a completely one-sided, self-serving production designed to inflict as much damage as possible on those who opposed the tribunal while vigorously defending every step and action taken by the tribunal itself over the past decade. This is my opportunity to say what I have to say. I do not have €45 million worth of legal advice and support. I know I will not get any glowing national and international media attention promoting my version of events. I most certainly will not get the unquestioning adulation of the Members of this House but I wish to state clearly, here and now, that the report as issued by Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty last Tuesday is not factual, it contains horrendous errors and reaches false conclusions. I do not accept the contents of this report and I never will. I make absolutely no apology for that. The Moriarty tribunal report is not some piece of unquestioned doctrine that must be followed with a slavish devotion. I know it to be wrong and I will not cower in some dark corner after being kicked from pillar to post for 14 years and refuse to call a spade a spade. The opinions expressed in this report have inflicted enormous damage on me. Much more important than that, they have inflicted enormous damage on the credibility and integrity of a great many individuals who deserve and are entitled to much better. The number of decent people subjected to scathing, relentless attack by the Moriarty tribunal is staggering. The personalised and vindictive rhetoric found throughout the report is striking. It seems that anyone who displeased the Moriarty tribunal in any way has been maligned. Anyone who dared offer evidence or views which did not accord with the predetermined Moriarty tribunal theory has been denounced by the tribunal. The report which appeared last Tuesday was rough justice getting its finest hour. Last Tuesday was payback time, albeit of a different variety from that which the members of the previous rainbow coalition Government will certainly remember. Members of this House should give very grave consideration to a report which calls into serious question the integrity and credibility of a large number of career civil servants. I know the civil servants impugned in this report. They are among some of the finest people that I have ever had the pleasure to encounter in my life. The treatment that they have endured, individually and collectively, at the hands of this runaway tribunal is nothing short of a national disgrace. The Members of this House, and particularly those who have had the privilege of serving in ministerial office, know only too well that the civil servants that run the public administration of this country do so to the very highest levels of personal integrity and competence. We are not short of problems in this country, but the Civil Service is something of which we can be proud. The Moriarty tribunal’s report is, among other things, an assault on the honour and integrity of the Civil Service. The Moriarty tribunal is the first body in the history of the State to call into question the reputation of the Civil Service. Where does the House stand today when the reputations of many of this country’s finest civil servants have been damned on nothing more than “opinions”? I urge the Members of this House to ask themselves if such an attack on the previously unblemished record of the Civil Service is mer- ited. In November 2008, the Moriarty tribunal circulated what it called provisional findings; 675 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Michael Lowry.] essentially it was its draft report in summary form. When I read it I was appalled. In this draft report the tribunal had found that numerous civil servants were “in thrall” to me and that, because of this, they had facilitated wrongdoing. The thrust of the tribunal’s report at that time was that I made known my preferences to the project team through some nod and a wink and it busily set about delivering the result that I wanted. According to the tribunal, the supposed wrongdoing at that time was largely carried out by the Civil Service in line with what it knew was my desired general outcome. One of the provisional findings issued to me read as follows:

Mr Lowry intervened in the process and influenced the outcome of the process by making known to the Secretariat to the Project Group, which comprised officials drawn from the Telecommunications Section of the Department and in particular through interaction with Mr Fintan Towey in the course of a telephone conversation, his preference as between the top two ranked applicants in circumstances where those officials were in thrall to him as Minister, and in doing so made that preference known to the Project Group.

Many of the other provisional findings referred to me being “facilitated” in my alleged wrongdoing by the civil servants involved. The Moriarty tribunal was clearly alleging co-operation and collusion involving the Civil Service. In God’s name, how could any Minister have the collaboration, co-operation and collusion of 17 civil servants from the Department of Finance and what was then my Department? It did not happen; it is a total nonsense. The circulation of this draft report calling into question the role of the civil servants obviously caused consternation. Those familiar with the tribunal will be aware that the Department openly threatened the tribunal with judicial review proceedings. The tribunal was forced to call additional evidence from the Office of the Attorney General and from an eminent senior counsel, and further evidence from the Civil Service. The tribunal fought the calling of this new evidence tooth and nail. It did not want to call them or hear what they had to say. However, when the evidence was called, it comprehensively dismantled the very basis of the tribunal’s initial theory and forced the Chairman of the tribunal into an embarrassing public declaration that he had made very significant errors. This episode, along with the later evidence of Professor Michael Andersen, tore the tribunal’s draft report completely to shreds. The blue- print that the tribunal had assembled and which it was within weeks of publishing as a final report was totally blown out of the water. Many of the journalists who have trumpeted the tribunal’s report in the past week were writing articles decrying the approach taken by the tribunal in relation to the licence process. It was widely reported by the journalists that the tribunal had failed completely to uncover any “smoking gun”. The licence inquiry was being decried as a damp squib or an appalling vista. I, along with every other affected party, was virtually certain that in light of this additional evidence, the Moriarty tribunal’s report would deem the licence free of any form of interference. I vividly recall the defeatist body language of the tribunal’s legal team as witness after witness pummelled its theories relentlessly and left its draft report without a shred of credibility. Professor Michael Andersen gave evidence and ran rings around our former esteemed colleague Mr. Michael McDowell, SC, for two weeks in November last year. The tribunal did not even dare to challenge the credibility or veracity of Professor Andersen’s evidence when he was in the witness box. Every theory that the tribunal had was comprehensively and decisively ripped asunder. Then the tribunal carried out the most cowardly act of all: it did not challenge him when he was in the witness box because it was simply unable or unwilling to do so. It refused and restricted questions interested parties wanted to ask him. It curtailed the time available and disallowed a whole sequence of questions that should probably have been put to 676 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

Professor Andersen. It is insidious of the Chairman to reject the evidence of such a competent and professional witness in his final report. Professor Michael Andersen is one of the world’s leading experts in mobile telecommuni- cation competitions processes. He acted in over 120 such competitions in over 50 countries around the world before he came to Ireland in 1995. One should remember that his advice, professionalism, standards and results were never challenged in that period in those countries. He was the only expert who testified in regard to the licence competition process in Ireland, yet the approach of the tribunal is to pretend he did not exist and that his evidence did not count. I will quote just a few paragraphs of Professor Michael Andersen’s sworn evidence to the tribunal:

8. I did not meet Michael Lowry either before, during or after the GSM 2 process. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues in AMI, had any contact whatsoever with Michael Lowry as part of the GSM 2 process or indeed otherwise. Other than very general public policy statements made by him as Minister, I was not aware of any directions, instructions, preferences or even opinions in relation to the GSM 2 process coming from [the then Minister] Michael Lowry. I certainly was never aware of any preference or apparent preference on the part of Michael Lowry for any particular applicant in the GSM 2 process. No such preferences were ever relayed or even intimated to me by any of the civil servants involved or indeed otherwise. As far as AMI was concerned, Michael Lowry was not part of the GSM 2 decision making process.

9. I should state that, based on my extensive experience worldwide, I would not regard direct involvement by a Government Minister in such bid processes as being highly unusual. However, I am certainly not aware of any such involvement and/or interference in the GSM 2 process on the part of the then Minister, Michael Lowry. Michael Lowry simply did not feature as part of the competition process. I am confident that if any such interference on his part existed, then I would have become aware of it as part of my central and critical involvement in the GSM 2 process.

10. I understand that the Tribunal has made allegations against a number of civil servants in relation to their involvement in the GSM 2 process; such allegations being based on an apparent preference for the Esat Digifone application in that process [ ]. I strongly believe that any such allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the civil servants involved are wholly without any substance or basis.

13. I am entirely satisfied, from my perspective, that all of the civil servants involved in the GSM 2 process carried out their work with the utmost integrity and without any element of favouritism for any applicant being brought to bear. I am also satisfied that if any such desire or preference to assist any particular applicant ever existed, then I would have quickly become aware of such a preference given my close involvement in the GSM 2 process [. . .].

14. I understand from my dealing with the Tribunal (particularly in my private meetings with the Tribunal legal team) that certain members of the Tribunal’s legal team had a strong view that Esat Digifone ought not to have won the second mobile phone licence competition and that the best candidate [in its view] was the Persona application. I would absolutely reject the justification of any such view. I am unaware of any qualifications or expertise on the part of the Tribunal’s legal team which would give their view any degree of justification. I am not aware of any evidence that would support such a view. Persona was the second highest ranked application according to the evaluation criteria; it was not the highest ranked. It is my view that certain members of the Tribunal’s legal team demonstrated a bias against 677 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Michael Lowry.] Esat Digifone and in favour of Persona. I have previously, together with Mr. Jon Bru¨ el (Co- leader in the AMI Team for GSM 2), written to the Tribunal regarding this matter and also evidenced this in relation to the Tribunal’s so-called provisional findings. I have not received a substantive response from the Tribunal.

15. Esat Digifone [ ] won the second mobile phone licence competition for the plain and simple reason that it submitted the best application in accordance with the criteria set down by the Irish Government [. . .].

19. During my numerous private meetings with the various members of the Tribunal’s legal team between 2001 and 2003, it was suggested to me that Persona’s application and credentials were superior to those of Esat Digifone. During these private meetings, certain Tribunal legal team members clearly sought to undermine Esat’s credentials and stress the relative merits of Persona. I recall, in particular, a remark made to me personally by Senior Counsel to the Tribunal, Mr. Healy, during one of these private meetings that Esat Digifone’s site options [previous] agreements/planning permission documentation as submitted in their application were not genuine. Indeed he used one of the most defamatory words you could use to describe that documentation, I found Tribunal Counsel’s approach to this matter (and indeed to their advocating of Persona’s position generally) to be troubling. It seemed quite clear to me that at least part of the Tribunal was operating under a pro Persona (and anti Esat Digifone) agenda.

I could go on and on but I will skip some of it. Any Member of the House who wants to establish the facts about the licence process should read the transcripts of the tribunal, in particular the evidence of the senior civil servants and by Mr. Michael Anderson, the international consultant.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: Who paid Mr. Andersen to attend?

Deputy Michael Lowry: This sworn statement speaks for itself. I had never met nor spoken to Professor Andersen before meeting him at Dublin Castle when he came to give evidence last November. Following this evidence, on top of the previous evidence relating to the Office of the Attorney General, it was absolutely expected that the Moriarty tribunal simply had no choice but to begrudgingly accept that there was absolutely no interference or wrongdoing in the process. I had understood this view to be generally accepted by everyone involved with the tribunal, including media personnel who closely followed events, but this is not what happened. Instead — and this is the important point — the tribunal went back to the drawing board. It rewired or re-engineered a completely new theory. It refused to inform me or any other party to the tribunal of this new theory. The first we learned of it was last Tuesday. What emerged is that the tribunal was going to damn the licence come hell or high water. The original theory fell apart — so what? It went back to the drawing board and just came up with a new theory. It seems to me that confirming the licence process was free of interference became the real “appalling vista” for the Moriarty tribunal. I firmly believe the Moriarty tribunal simply could not stomach facing the Irish public after spending €45 million on its own lawyers and confirm that it could not bring home the prosecution of the licence process. The new theory that has been presented in its final report finds no basis in evidence or fact. I will not put a tooth in it; the tribunal’s opinions on the licence process are a simple combination of malicious falsehoods crudely stitched together and unleashed at a time and in a manner designed to cause the maximum impact. The tribunal seemed to believe it was more important to try to protect its own reputation than it was to deliver a report based on evidence 678 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements heard clearing the licence process. The tribunal was determined that it would not be seen as an expensive failure. To justify the time and expense, the tribunal felt compelled to bring home the goods. In the publication of these opinions Mr. Moriarty has done a gross disservice. I will not apologise to anyone for saying this. He did not deliver his report as a High Court Judge and I am not obliged to treat the report as the outcome of a court process. The report has no legal standing and I will not respect it as though it has. In the fullness of time, the flawed logic and prejudiced reasoning permeating this biased report will be laid bare. I already mentioned the civil servants who gave evidence. Evidence was heard from 17 senior civil servants, five Ministers, two senior officials from the Office of the Attorney General, Mr. Richard Nesbitt, senior counsel to the Irish State, and Professor Andersen. Everyone involved in the process gave true and accurate evidence under oath that there was no involvement or improper behaviour by me or any officials in relation to the process. I am conscious, and this is why I looked for time and I appreciate the co-operation I received from the Government, that I have much more to say and I ask for the indulgence of the Acting Chair. I cannot say what I need to say in the 15 minutes that remain available to me but I will do my best.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): Just under eight minutes remain.

Deputy Michael Lowry: The new tribunal theory in the report of last Tuesday states that somehow or other I managed to get information from the civil servants, which I passed on to Denis O’Brien in some vague way, which assisted Esat Digifone. It also came up with the notion that I brought down a guillotine on the process once I learned that Esat Digifone was in the lead and that I railroaded the decision through colleagues in government and prevented proper scrutiny of the result. Mr. Moriarty delivered the little nugget and sprinkling of gold dust, obviously anxious to liven up the report, that “Michael Lowry delivered the licence” to Denis O’Brien. Let me make it quite clear that this is very offensive, hurtful, damaging and wrong. The project team, comprising officials from the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and the Department of Finance was mandated by the Government to make a decision. It was those officials who made a decision in accordance with the criteria. They conveyed that decision to me as Minister, and as Minister I conveyed it to the Government and the Taoiseach of the day. I make it clear that I took no step along the way without full consultation and without the full advice and approval of the then Secretary General of the Department, Mr. John Loughrey. Most Members of the House will know Mr. Loughrey as a very experienced, shrewd and cautious senior civil servant. Recently, I rang Mr. Loughrey to ask him how Mr. Moriarty could make a declaration such as he did in his report. I will put on the record what he said, which was that to him it was outrageous and that he would recheck his file and notes on it. He got back to me to tell me that everything that was done was in accordance with procedure and governmental policy. He completely rejected — and I reject — the notion that somehow or other we fast-tracked this process. The decision was made. I ask the politicians in the House whether they could imagine the appalling vista that would have arisen if we brought this report to Cabinet and the Cabinet decided to reject the decision of the project team and to jump Persona to the number one place. We would all be here today speaking about a decision that had gone horribly wrong because we did not accept the decision of a project team that acted independently of the Government of the day and of me as Minister. It is ludicrous and nonsense for Mr. Moriarty to state that we had that opportunity available to us. We simply had the decision conveyed to us, accepted it and gave it approval. Does any politician here believe that John Bruton, Dick Spring and Proinsias De Rossa would be so 679 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 29 March 2011. Statements

[Deputy Michael Lowry.] stupid as to allow the likes of John Loughrey and me to pull the wool over their eyes in someway or other? I can state as a practising politician that if they were that stupid they should never be in a position to hold any office in government or anywhere else. It is pure madness to suggest that we did what we did. The only reason he said it is that he had to hang something on me to bring home a result. I make it clear formally and officially that all this about me delivering a licence is complete nonsense. None of this has any basis in fact or evidence. I do not have time to explain the detail of it but I state that the proposition put forward by the tribunal is threadbare in its nature. I can state today with absolute confidence that none of the elements are supported by evidence and they are based on biased logic masquerading as reasoned opinion. I refer to an issue with which the media have run wild as have some Members of Fianna Fáil. This is the idea put forward by Mr. Moriarty that I manufactured a rumour and put it into the public domain about a former Member of the House, a former Taoiseach. I will deal with this. When I went into the Department and was asked to prioritise bringing 8o’clock competition to the mobile sector my officials called me and we met. They told me much of the groundwork for the competition had been done, that it had to be launched and that it was hugely important for the telecommunications sector and for bringing competitiveness to the economy. I was told one of the obstacles was that to have meaningful and true competition with everybody involved, a rumour circulating had to be dispelled. This rumour was that a former Member of the House had a nest egg and that one of the companies which would compete for the project, namely, Motorola, had been promised it. I did not manu- facture that rumour; it was brought to my attention by departmental officials when I went into the Department. The officials went about their business, contacting the big telecommunications groups in the world to tell them there would be an open, free and fair competition which the best bidder would win. Mr. Moriarty is wrong and if he checks the evidence he will see he is wrong in making that assumption. I also wish to deal with the issue regarding Ben Dunne. The Moriarty tribunal put this forward as political corruption on my part, a matter involving Ben Dunne and Mark FitzGerald. This opinion, more than any other, astounded me in its brazenness and vindictiveness. I would point out that, contrary to many media reports, the tribunal did not say that I was guilty of corruption. The tribunal has no power to make such findings in any event and this much is abundantly clear from decisions of the Supreme Court. That finding is more of a slur than an actual finding of any substance. This was another sprinkling of Mr. Moriarty’s gold dust designed to give the report legs in the media. I was absolutely open with the tribunal. I told the tribunal in my evidence that I did raise the matter of a rent review arbitration with Mr. Mark FitzGerald. The purpose of my speaking to him was to see if the saga could be advanced. What happened was very simple. Ben Dunne telephoned me. He knew I knew Mark FitzGerald and he asked me to give him a call to ask him “to shove this along”. He said he was disillusioned and annoyed at the length of time the arbitration process was taking. I telephoned Mark FitzGerald and I asked him to expedite the matter, nothing less and nothing more.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): The Deputy’s time has expired.

Deputy Michael Lowry: At the end of that process, one of the principals in Mr. FitzGerald’s office — I think it was a Mr. Gill — gave evidence to the effect that the decision with regard 680 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion to the arbitration was strictly based on merit and that there was no outside influence on his decision.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): I must ask the Deputy to conclude now.

Deputy Michael Lowry: I beg the indulgence of the House for ten more minutes.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): I am afraid not, Deputy. I have to implement the order of the Dáil which gave the Deputy a speaking time of 60 minutes. This debate will continue tomorrow and it is open to the Deputy to pursue the question of further time privately.

Deputy Michael Lowry: I will conclude by saying that I wish to return to the suggestions that I received money from Denis O’Brien through three property transactions. I wish to be crystal clear in this regard. I received no money from Denis O’Brien with regard to these or any other matters. No witnesses gave evidence to the tribunal in the past decade supporting the tribunal’s conclusions. The tribunal’s opinions in these matters are therefore based entirely on circum- stantial evidence and on unproven documents, many of which are unknown or of dubious origin. People in this House have told me I have had ample opportunity in 14 years to make my case. I have not had ample opportunity. I asked Mr. Moriarty to allow me to return to give evidence but he would not allow me to do so. I ended up at the tribunal because I had been waiting 14 years with a legal team who have been exceptionally good and who had no funds available to them from me. I ended up having to defend myself. I find myself here tonight defending myself. I have been given a slot of one hour while at the same time everybody will be able to have a pop at me over the next two days. My final comment is that I did nothing wrong with the licence process. I received no money from those involved. I welcome the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crimi- nal Assets Bureau, and anybody else, will investigate it. There will be no money trail coming back to Michael Lowry’s door because there never was money and there is no money. I say to the losing applicants and to the people saying there was something wrong with the licence to go to the courts, test it in the courts, put their money on the legal benches where it counts and they will get the answer from the courts because the courts will base their answer and their results on evidence and facts, not on innuendo and supposition.

Private Members’ Business

————

Universal Service Charge: Motion Deputy Pearse Doherty: I move:

“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; 681 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.]

— 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.”

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Gerry Adams, Sandra McLellan, Brian Stanley, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin agus Martin Ferris. Sinn Féin has introduced this motion to the House to move to address the grotesque situation where the burden of the worst financial crisis this State has ever seen has fallen on those with the lowest incomes. Those people who were hanging on by their fingertips last year are now struggling with the additional burden of the universal social charge which has resulted in serious cuts in the incomes of the lowest paid in society. The charge, introduced in last December’s budget, has proved Scrooge-like, as it effectively makes a supposedly temporary emergency income levy a permanent fixture of the tax system. By applying the universal social charge to the widest possible income base, with minimal exemptions, what was effectively done was to introduce an alternative tax system for those on low incomes. The universal social charge, therefore, is little more than a working poor tax. The new charge disproportionately affects certain sections of society. It hits low income workers by significantly shifting the tax burden away from high earners and onto those on lower pay. Yet there is no “inability to survive clause” available for low paid workers. There is no amnesty for the pain of cuts to income and increases in consumer prices. There is no stress test on households in order to determine what support they need from the State in order to survive. This charge is regressive in the extreme. As in the days of Charles Haughey, we are not all tightening our belts, just the lower paid and society’s poorest. The replacement of the income levy and health levy with the new universal social charge has increased the level of inequality in the earnings distribution. The universal social charge of 2% is borne by those earning incomes upwards of €4,004, that is, people earning just as little as €77 per week. Anyone earning as little as €1 per week above this limit will be liable to pay the universal social charge on all of their income. It is perhaps a measure of the dire straits into which we have been thrust that even teenage children doing the proverbial paper round or college students working at weekends will now be forced to pay tax on this pocket money income. The rate of the universal social charge increases to 4% at €10,037 and to 7% at €16,017. That is how progressive this measure is. A person on €308 a week is paying the same charge at the same rate as someone on €3,000 a week. Where is the fairness in that? These changes 682 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion have led to an increase in the numbers of the working poor and are less progressive than the combination of the health levy and income levy it is replacing. There was no consideration of ability to pay or how many thousands would be thrust into poverty and no impact assessment was carried out either before the measure was introduced or since to evaluate its real effects on thousands of people. Three weeks ago Fine Gael and the Labour Party set out their stall in their programme for Government. They have bought themselves some time by postponing a decision on the future of the universal social charge by proposing another review. They have also proposed at least 32 other reviews in the programme for Government for which no terms of reference have been decided upon. Ní bhfuil achoimre maith go leor do na céadta agus na mílte daoine atá faoi bhrú siocair an cáin lochta seo. Ní chuirfidh sé bia ar an mbord agus nííocfaidh sé na billí.Ní féidir leis na daoine atá faoi bhrú mar gheall ar an cháin lochta seo a fhanacht go dtí deireadh na bliana go dtí go mbeidh an achoimre seo réidh ag Páirtí an Lucht Oibre agus Páirtí Fhine Gael. The Government needs to make its intentions known now. Does it intend to abolish this tax, extend it or leave it? With the arrival of a new Government, there is a great opportunity to simplify the tax system. There is an opportunity to address the endemic imbalances in the system where those on low incomes are disproportionately shouldering the burden of taxation. When the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, introduced the universal social charge in his Budget Statement last December, he said he wanted “to move steadily in the direction of an income tax system that is fair, universal in its application and more easily understood.” However, he created an alternative tax system for those on low incomes. There was nothing fair about it. The only thing that was easily understood was the Government’s readiness to plunder the incomes of the poorest in society. PAYE and PRSI contributions are now accompanied by a new tax. The universal social charge is simply the consolidation of the nation’s bank debt into one weekly or monthly payment for the nation’s workforce. Of course, those on lower incomes who are more reliant on State services are also suffering the double whammy of cutbacks as part of the austerity drive. The universal social charge should be abolished and the previous tax regime — the income levy and health contribution levy — reinstated in the interim. We do not pretend that the introduction of levies on top of income tax was good and we opposed them. However, while the levies themselves were unwelcome, they were, at least, introduced in a progressive manner. The reason the wealthiest have gained from the universal social charge is that the income levy had a progressive rate structure, while the top rate for the universal social charge applies regardless of whether a person earns, for example, €20,000 or €200,000. During the general election campaign the two Government parties signalled that they would maintain the low tax model. However, a low tax model does not equate with a fair tax model. A low income tax model hides the high stealth tax structure central to the tax system. Instead Ireland should build a fairer tax system by creating a progressive tax base that would tax fairly and equalise wealth. In order to ensure income taxes are progressive, the system should consist of a minimum of three tax bands and possibly more. The key is to have a transparent, streamlined income tax system without levies, charges or stealth taxes. The first step in moving towards this system must be the abolition of the universal social charge and reverting temporarily to the previous system which included some progressive elements in its administration. It is from this system that a reform of the taxation system should stem. The people cannot afford to wait for a review of the universal social charge. During the debate on the Finance Bill 2011 Deputy Michael Noonan, now Minister for Finance, said, “The floor for the universal social charge — about €4,000 — represents a very low income, and the 683 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.] Minister should accept an amendment to raise this threshold, perhaps by €1,000.” According to the Minister for Finance and if the Government agrees that it is acceptable for somebody on €97 a week to pay tax, is this what we are to expect from the review? The universal social charge must be abolished. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I am somewhat disappointed that the Acting Chairman is the only Labour Party Member in the Chamber. While we can say what we want about Fine Gael, it is deeply disappointing that the Labour Party has aligned itself with the universal social charge. In December Deputy Shortall, now Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, described it as little more than a working poor tax. She said it was a blatant and unjustifiable attack on the poor. Throughout the general election campaign and since I have met many people in deep stress — people out of work, elderly people, people trying to rear young families, people in negative equity and in difficulties paying their mortgages. Other Teachtaí Dála — not just Sinn Féin Teachtaí Dála — have talked of having the exact same experience of meeting citizens in deep distress. One young mother told me she had a choice of either paying a bill or paying for food and, of course, she paid for the food. These are the people this tax hits the hardest. During the general election campaign we said Sinn Féin would campaign to have this tax abolished and we kick-started that campaign today. We should not have to do this; it should not be necessary to have such a campaign. In a republic it should not be necessary to table such motions in this Chamber. I ask members of other parties to represent their constituents. This is not just about the economy, it is also about the type of society in which we live and the political choices we make. A bad Fianna Fáil-led Government made bad decisions in support of or in deference to political and other elites. These decisions obviously favoured the elites, not citizens. This universal social charge is essentially, as Deputy Doherty said, a flat tax. Everyone with an income of more than €16,000 pays at the same rate of 7%. Even those who have as little €77 a week are brought into the tax net. Teachtaí Dála should consider living on such a meagre sum. It breaches the fundamental principle of progressive taxation that those who have the most should pay the most. The Government has promised a review of this tax and the Minister for Finance has said that it will be done in time for the budget for 2012, but a review is not good enough. Mar a dúirt an Teachta Doherty, ní chuireann sin bia ar an mbord. Labhair mé faoi na daoine bochta agus daoine eile. Tá siad faoi brú.Tá siad faoi strus ar fad. Tá sé an-shoiléir go gcaithfidh muid stad a chur leis an tax seo. Sometimes the question is asked, I believe simplistically, “Well, how would you raise revenue?” We proposed a third tax band for those earning more than €100,000. Coincidentally, that brings in €410 million which is almost as much as the €420 million that comes in from the universal social charge without the awful social consequences created by it. There has to be some way of starting to socially proof these matters and looking at the facts of the laws that are introduced. As far as I can see — I will be pleased if the Minister can prove the contrary — there is no evidence that this was even considered by the Government despite the fact that it was Labour Party policy until the middle of the general election. It then did a U-turn on the issue. It is also bad economics. The people who are burdened and oppressed by this charge cannot afford to save money. They have to spend what they have to get by. This will have a punishing effect on all of the small indigenous businesses which are absolutely vital to the regeneration of our economy, in particular the re-employment of our people that will be hardest hit by deflationary policies. 684 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

The need to focus on social and economic needs and the purpose of an economy is something which the Government, with some advantage, could cogitate upon. These people are being hit hardest. My take on this is that part of the EU and IMF deal which the Government has bought into comprises austerity packages like this. The Government is compliant and complicit in the further impoverishment of the poorest people, including those who would never have seen themselves as economically vulnerable until now. There is a better way to get the State out of recession, which we outlined in some detail. There is a better way of dealing with the IMF and the EU deal. I notice that the Government, whatever it does in Europe, is edging towards the Sinn Féin position. All of this comes back to political choices. There is a political choice to be made, namely, to get rid of this tax or maintain it. Society can divide and social consequences of the tax is that it creates socially disadvantaged, discriminated against, cynical and sceptical people who have no sense of themselves. Out of that comes abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, domestic abuse, low expectations, low educational attainment and all the rest. These are the seeds that this Government is sowing to once again widen the gap that the Taoiseach quite rightly proclaimed exists between Irish sections of citizens and the political establishment. The gap will not only deepen but will deepen with dire social consequences. One can be alienated from a political system and still be well educated, articulate and even wealthy but when one is at the very bottom of the ladder with no hope of getting up that is bad for Ireland, our people and the project we are trying to advance in this Chamber. I call for Deputies across all political parties to vote with their heads and their hearts and not on the basis of their party Whip. The Government Deputies should not be ushered like sheep into the lobbies because they have a majority in the Chamber. They should vote decently on this issue and vote to abolish this charge.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: The Sinn Féin Private Members’ motion is calling for the abolition of the universal social charge. We are calling on the Government to abolish this unfair tax and ensure that all taxes and social insurance contributions are raised progressively so that those who have the most pay the most. We must be clear on this. It is a flat tax. It breaches the fundamental principle of progressive taxation. It is nothing short of a scandal that anyone with an income of over €77 a week pays this tax and it is utterly immoral that anyone with an income above €16,016 is forced to pay the same rate of 7% as a person with an income of over €100,000. How can the Government justify this? When Fianna Fáil was in government, it chose to concoct a taxation policy that favoured the wealthy and those who were already bestowed with plenty by the Celtic tiger. When it fell apart, it brought in measures that specifically targeted those who are already on and below the bread line. Bankers and beneficiaries of tax breaks are untouchable. The people who are being penalised by the universal social charge are those who are already struggling to survive and those who can barely afford to put food on the table. How can any Government Minister or Deputy hold his or her head up in this Chamber and attempt to tell any person in this State that this is a fair system? Sinn Féin is asking all of those who have claimed in the past to be opposed to such an unjust flat tax and those who cam- paigned on a platform of change during the general election to remember the promises they made to the electorate and support this motion to abolish the universal social charge. People simply cannot cope any more. The Government cannot expect the poorest people to continue to pay for the economic catastrophe. One could not be criticised for describing the universal social charge as an indis- 685 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Sandra McLellan.] criminate mechanism of punishment for being poor. The Government should take heed of the democratic programme of the first Dáil to “secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing and shelter and that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training”. This would be far more meaningful and appropriate than vague aspirational commitments to review the universal social charge in the current programme for Government, followed by commitments to maintain the current rate of income tax together with bands and credits. The difference between the meaning of the words “review” and “abolish” is not lost on people. People cannot feed their children or pay their bills, their mortgages or their rent. They are going without food to pay for school books. I have heard from people in my constituency who are going without so that they can put €20 aside each week out of an already meagre income in order that they can eventually have enough money to emigrate. Ordinary working families who have less should pay less. The Exchequer deficit will not be closed by continuing the inequitable imposition of the universal social charge. Toxic banks should not be saved while people are being sentenced to lifetimes of poverty by a Government which is neglecting them. It is not good enough that the Labour Party and Fine Gael Deputies made no secret of their opposition to the universal social charge but now that they have their ministerial cars are refusing to get rid of it. I agreed with the analysis of the universal social charge by my Cork East constituency colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Sean Sherlock, who during the last Dáil described the tax as “woefully inadequate and inequitable” and a measure that “must be opposed”. I still share that analysis. The universal social charge has not changed. It is for this reason that I am calling on all of the Deputies who still oppose measures that reduce the pay of those already on low incomes to support the Sinn Féin Private Members’ motion to abolish the universal social charge.

Deputy Brian Stanley: As my colleagues in Sinn Féin have already outlined,the universal social charge is totally unjust, unfair and regressive. It amounts to nothing more than an attack on the working poor. The level of stress and anxiety that people are faced with, living from hand to mouth on a daily basis due to the penalties arising from the universal social charge, is shameful. My party is calling for the abolition of this tax due to its inequitable and regressive nature. The inequality involved is not good for the economy. It is wasteful and costly, not to mention plain wrong. The universal social charge is a mechanism to enforce poverty, which drains public resources. We would be far better off if everybody was enabled to make a full contribution using a progressive system of taxation where people are working and earning a decent income to spend money to support business and pay their fair share of tax, which will ensure the Government can provide services, social support and other infrastructure. The universal social charge is nothing more than a device that makes the position of the working poor worse. Those who are locked in precarious low-paid employment at risk of, and in, poverty are the ones who need protection. In my constituency of Laois-Offaly, which has one of the lowest rates of income per head of population in the State, this will bite hard. When will the Government realise that the working poor have nothing left to give? Previous Governments failed to manage the economy to the benefit of everyone and the chosen few who benefited during that time are still being looked after by this Government, which bent over backwards during the general election to talk of change. The most vulnerable, those with large families, low-income workers, older persons and persons with disabilities, were failed by bad policies and choices in the past, and wrong priorities. It is these bad policies and choices 686 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion and wrong priorities that are now being carried on to ensure it is still those who have least who are being compelled to bear the heaviest burden of paying the universal social charge. Where is the change that was promised? There is no balance, fairness or justice used in this system. Both Labour and Fine Gael — I welcome the fact that there is one Labour Deputy back now to hear me — refused to commit to abolishing the tax despite their protestations when it was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party. I note that the Government amendment to my party’s motion restates the programme for Government commitment to review the tax but, once again, fails to state the timeframe in which it will conduct this review. Flawed as the original income and health levies were, there was at least some small progressive element to them. The Fine Gael-Labour amendment to the Sinn Féin motion states that “the reinstatement of the income and health levies would bring poverty traps back into the system”. It may come as a shock to the Government, and Members on the Government benches, but poverty traps have not gone away. If anything, they are worsening. The Government amendment is meaningless for the 275,000 who are so poor that they lack some of the basic necessities of life, including adequate food, shelter, warmth and clothing. Eliminating poverty traps, not blindly pursuing and embedding policies that advance them, should be a national goal and a priority for the Government. Everyone is entitled to a decent quality of life and there is no reason this Government cannot scrap the universal social charge and replace it, as Sinn Féin has been calling for, with a higher tax band for those earning in excess of €100,000. From the Government’s perspective, the only reason to retain the universal social charge is to continue protecting those who are not vulnerable and at risk. I ask those in government, particularly those in the Labour Party who called for change during the election campaign, to support the Sinn Féin motion accordingly.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: This is the first time Sinn Féin, as a party in our own right, has had the opportunity to table a motion for Private Members’ business — it was a long time awaiting — and to have it debated in the Dáil. It is a measure of our progress at the general election that this debate is taking place. It is a welcome development. Sinn Féin has pledged to stand with those in Irish society who are being made to bear the brunt of this recession — those on low to middle incomes. We are fulfilling that pledge and we will continue to do so in this Dáil, in our constituencies and in communities across the State. In every one of those constituencies the people delivered a resounding verdict on the disastrous misrule of Fianna Fáil and the Greens and, before that, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. One of the chief results of that gross misrule, and one that reaches into nearly every household and into the pockets of the vast majority of workers, is the universal social charge. People are acutely conscious of the fact that they are being made to pay for the folly of a Government that refuses to require gamblers to pay their own debts. Sadly, that folly is being continued by the new Fine Gael-Labour Party Government. We pointed out before, during and after the general election that Fine Gael and Labour accept the basics of the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government economic strategy. Despite their rhetoric, they are fundamentally no different. The parties now in government were careful to give the people a very different impression. Both Fine Gael and Labour poured no end of condemnation on the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government — all deserved. They slammed the IMF-ECB deal, the budget and, in particular, the universal social charge. Let us remind ourselves of some of what Labour voices said. Deputy Burton, now the Minister for Social Protection, stated in January: 687 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.]

. . . the little people will carry the burden, as always, and will be squeezed under every possible heading. They are being squeezed by the universal social charge and the reductions in tax credits and the minimum wage.

Deputy Róisín Shortall, now Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, said, “The universal social charge is little more than a working poor tax”, and a blatant and unjustifiable attack on the poor. The electorate were clearly labouring — no pun intended — under the impression that the so-called parties of change, Labour and Fine Gael, had the universal social charge in their sights. They were going to blow it out of the water, or maybe not. When the smoke of the general election cleared, the programme for Government did not propose to abolish the charge. It proposes a review. A review is not good enough. The universal social charge is an attack on the poor. It squeezes those least able to afford it and is regressive. Why not scrap it instead of wasting time on a review? What are the timeframe and terms of reference of this review? That has never been explained. The Government could have indicated the terms of reference and the timeframe for the review in its amendment to the Sinn Féin motion. Instead this minimalist amendment states, quite unbelievably, that the reinstatement of the income and health levies would bring poverty traps into the system. Surely the universal social charge is one big poverty trap. An economist who is, I believe, close to the Labour Party has shown that if the previous levies were reinstated, low income earners could benefit by up to €10 per week while higher income groups would lose out. This would help economic growth since low-income earners spend their additional income, while high-income earners have the option to save. As we clearly state in our motion, the reintroduction of the former levies would be an interim measure, pending root and branch reform of taxation. This debate again exposes the consensus for cuts. The phoney Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, will troop in behind Fine Gael and Labour when the division is called tomorrow evening. That may provide political ammunition for the rest of us but, be assured, we would much rather see the universal social charge removed. That should happen now. If it does not happen now, then it can be the only just and fair outcome of the so-called review taking place. As my colleagues did earlier, I appeal to all Deputies to recognise that the substantive motion presented by Sinn Féin is worthy of their support.

Deputy Martin Ferris: In her speech on budget day, the Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall, correctly described the universal social charge as a tax on the working poor. It is another tax on the working poor. For many of those working poor, it is literally the difference between being able to make ends meet or not. During the course of the election I had the experience of going to the house of a woman, a single parent who has a low-income job in the public service and is paid €760 a fortnight. She told me her target was to have €5 left over every Monday morning so she could have enough petrol in her car to drive her daughter the few miles to school in Tralee. Her daughter is 17 years of age, is in her leaving certificate year and hopes to get a place in Mary Immaculate College and become a primary school teacher. The mother does not drink, smoke or socialise. In another house I visited I met a couple and what struck me when I entered their house was how cold it was. That was because they did not have enough money to pay for oil for heating. They could only buy oil in five or ten-gallon drums and could not fill their oil tank. These examples demonstrate the state the country is in and the state in which the working poor are living. The working poor are penalised by the political establishment. I cannot fathom how no 688 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

Government has the guts to challenge the wealthy and elite of this country. How is it that when the Government needs finance and must impose taxes it targets the weakest and most vulnerable in society? In the past few hours, we have debated the Moriarty report, Denis O’Brien and what went on at the time. Now, once again the elite have managed to compromise the political establishment and the House. That is what the universal social charge is about. The Labour Party is in coalition with and supports the Government. The Labour Party gave commitments during the election that it would introduce a third rate of tax and abolish the universal social charge. However, it has moved away from that position. Why is that? Is it because we take it for granted that the working poor will accept their lot? It is time for our politicians here to be prompted by their social conscience and for our elected representatives to stand up for those most in need. They must bring a conscience back into this Chamber, a conscience that will deliver for working people throughout the country. It is time and not before time for the trade union leadership, which expressed its opposition to the universal social charge and supported the Labour Party during the general election, to use its influence on the elected Labour Party representatives. It must use its influence to bring a conscience back into the Labour Party, a conscience that will deliver for the poor in society and for those who are marginalised, discriminated against and damn well blackguarded by the political establishment of this island and House. I challenge every Deputy on the Government side of the House to state categorically that they will abolish this unjust and unfair tax on the poor in our society. They must come out and stand by workers and ensure they will do all in their power to ensure that those who have most will pay most in order to get us out of this mess. We must not continue to penalise the poor. Sinn Féin will stand by the working poor and will be there to represent them and be a voice for what, in many instances, is a voiceless community. The Labour Party should stand by its roots and James Connolly. Would James Connolly be proud of a Labour Party in government with a right wing party that is imposing further tax on the poor? The Labour Party needs to ask that question. It should stand up for the poor in society and not get into bed with right wing politics that has contaminated the political system and the State. When we vote on this issue tomorrow night, the Labour Party Members should remember that if they vote for the so-called review, they are voting to push the issue down the road and forget about it. They are voting for shoving it down the road so that the people forget about it because once it has been implemented the people get accustomed to it. If they vote for that, the Labour Party Members are voting for the universal social charge as implemented, further penalisation of the working poor, a continuance of everything that has been done before they came into power, and voting to protect the likes of Denis O’Brien and his cohorts. They will perpetrate an awful injustice on the people if they go down that road.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): I move 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

689 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Brian Hayes.]

— the appropriate time to make any amendments to the universal social charge is after the review.”

I wish to share time with Deputies Paschal Donohoe and Kevin Humphreys.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ciarán Lynch): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue in the House. I am not sure whether Deputy McLellan was making her maiden speech, but I listened intently to what she said and congratulate her on her speech. She referred to the democratic programme in the first Dáil. She was right to highlight the aspirations of that democratic programme. However, she did not refer to another inimical part of the programme, which established, particularly by the then Minister for Finance, the view that we must have balanced budgets. It suggested that the only way Ireland could express its independence in that fledgling Government and first Dáil was through the ambition that the country could stand on its own, have balanced budgets and was prepared to pay its way in the world and would not kick down to another generation the appalling legacy of previous British rule at that time, or in the case of our generation, that Fianna Fáil legacy. We make no apologies for our Government in addressing that issue today. Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to the consensus for cuts. In Northern Ireland, where Sinn Féin is in government, it has had no difficulty in signing up to and subscribing to a budget which, effectively, introduces cuts across many key public services.

Deputy Gerry Adams: That is not true.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I find it difficult to stomach that a party can lecture the two parties of the Government about austerity when, in terms of its Administration in Northern Ireland, it is very good at austerity. It is very good at challenging the notion of James Connolly, as suggested by Deputy Ferris. What would James Connolly do in the case of budgets in Northern Ireland being opposed with such ferocity by Sinn Féin Ministers in charge of that Government. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, applies here.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Deputy should get his facts right.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ciarán Lynch): Deputy Hayes, without interruption, please.

Deputy Brian Hayes: The Government makes no apology in setting out its ambitious programme for Government. The first aim of the Government is to renegotiate the terms of the IMF-EU deal. We believe the deal is not working for Ireland and that it must be renegotiated so that we have a path to growth that will get the country back on its feet. We believe the issue of interest rate payments on the package of funds must be renegotiated. We also believe in the renegotiation of a bank restructuring scheme across the European zone and in renegotiation of the terms of the debt that applies in this country. We stand by this first principle, which is contained in the programme for Government. Second, we make a clear commitment that we will get the deficit down to 3% by 2015. It is because of our belief that we must pay our way in the world and resolve the historical legacy we face from our immediate predecessors that we want to address that issue. We have made difficult choices. For example, we have said that in terms of the aggregated adjustment for 2011 and 2012, we will stick by the general parameters set by the previous Government. I remember the election campaign in my constituency. I have not been elected by any elite and will not accept that cheap jibe from anyone. I was elected by ordinary people in Dublin South-West, 690 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion ordinary people concerned about the fiscal position of the country who want to address that position and get us out of the cycle of no growth and an utter dependency on an international package that is not delivering for the country. We want to ensure that this country gets back onto a growth path. However, if we are serious about addressing this issue, we must confront the fundamental fiscal reality that faces this country right now due to the mismanagement of the previous Government. Sinn Féin seeks the immediate abolition of the USC and the reinstatement of the income and health levies, as outlined in its motion. I believe this would be a foolhardy action in advance of a full and proper review. The terms of reference for the review of the USC are being finalised and the Minister has already invited Sinn Féin and any other interested parties to make submissions. I reiterate that view. If people believe there is a better way than what has been put in place by the universal social charge——

(Interruptions).

Deputy Brian Hayes: ——they should bring forward their own proposals.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Tax the wealthy.

Deputy Brian Hayes: Let those proposals be costed in a fair and independent way to see exactly whether or not they reach the parameters set. The call for the immediate abolition of the USC and reinstatement of the income and health levies is entirely impractical. First, it would not be either simple or straight-forward to reintro- duce the income and health levies. For example, the legislation governing the health levy has been repealed and no longer exists in law. So even if it were considered desirable, and I believe it is not——

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: We just need a repeal Bill.

Deputy Brian Hayes: ——the Government could not simply abolish the USC, and the system would default back to the old regime. Second, changing the tax system during the tax year presents significant problems. In this case, there would be a mixture of charges where the USC would apply on income for the first three months of the year and the income and health levies would apply for the following nine months. It is difficult for me to assess what the impact on individuals would be at this stage but I believe we would have a situation where there would be significant overpayments and underpayments of tax. These would require end of year reviews by Revenue and in some cases would result in very painful additional charges being imposed on some taxpayers. We argue that this is not practical in current circumstances. Third, such an approach would impose a significant cost and administrative burden on employers and payroll companies. None of this would be in the interest of business or employment prospects for the economy. Finally, it has to be recognized that the USC is expected to raise €4 billion in a full year. We cannot afford to jeopardize that by abolishing the charge in a haphazard manner. It has been claimed by the Deputies opposite that the USC is a regressive charge. This is not correct. It is a fact that the more one earns, the higher the percentage of one’s income is paid under the USC. When the USC is considered in the broader context of how we tax income generally, the overall effect is highly progressive. According to a recent European Commission publication, Monitoring Tax Revenues and Tax Reforms in EU Member States 2010, Ireland has the most progressive taxation of income of 691 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] EU member states in the OECD. The data shows that almost all EU countries have progressive taxation systems. On a rating system where less than 100 is regressive and above 100 is progressive, most other EU countries have a progressivity rate of between 120 and 130. By comparison, Ireland has a progressive rate of 174. The independent commentators who compare the taxation systems of different countries do not accept the charge that our taxation system is not progressive. Examples are given of the USC charge on someone earning €16,016 compared with someone earning €100,000 per annum. It is important that we are honest about this issue, look at the total tax liabilities and not just one part of them. An individual earning €16,016 in 2011 will be expected to pay €440 over the entire year in taxes. An individual earning €100,000 in 2011 will be expected to pay €40,867 in taxes and charges. It is absolutely clear that the greater a person’s income, the greater the amount he or she pays. Given the stated position of the party opposite, I find it difficult how it would oppose this based on the argument of whether or not this is a progressive system. If we want a genuine debate in this country, as opposed to the Punch and Judy gombeen politics that have been served up for too long, then we must be honest about this and not play to the gallery, saying one thing to the public but another thing behind their back.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Are you addressing the Labour Party?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ciarán Lynch): The Deputy should refer his comments through the Chair. I call on Deputy Donohoe, who has ten minutes.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I second the Government’s amendment to the motion. I would like to begin by acknowledging that nobody wants to pay tax. In particular, nobody wants to pay higher rates of tax. We do not want to find ourselves in a situation where we are asking people to pay more tax at a time when they have less money. If we look at what our economy has gone through, there are two points that are pertinent to our debate this evening. The first point is that since 2007, the national income has declined by 19%. Across the same time period, the tax take in our economy has declined by 33%. The rate and the amount of tax revenue coming into our economy is declining at a far faster pace than the economy itself is declining. That is related to the fact that until the middle of 2010, about one in two people did not pay any income tax. If we want to make our State secure, make it sovereign, and to ensure that the aspirations of the first Dáil are delivered this year, we must find a way for the income raised in this country pays for the expenditure that goes out. While that does not happen, there remains the core of our fiscal bankruptcy and the core of the political bankruptcy that we are also enduring. Before any cost of banking recapitalisation is endured, the deficit for this year is €14.5 billion. The continuation on that path for the State will mean that the ordinary people that I represent will suffer the most, such as the working poor, the poor who are not working and everybody in between. In his contribution, the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, touched on one figure that is at the core of the debate. The universal social charge will raise €3.3 billion this year, €4.1 billion next year, €4.3 billion in 2013, €4.5 in 2014. However, we continually hear Sinn Féin Deputies say that the universal social charge is bringing in €400 million. Deputy Adams claimed this on the floor when I was seated, but the reality is that it is bringing in tenfold that amount.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: It is bringing in €400 million more than the levies which existed before that.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ciarán Lynch): Deputy, please. 692 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: That is a point of order.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ciarán Lynch): That is not a point of order.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: In checking this out, I took time to view Sinn Féin TV, which is embedded in the party’s website. It contains some fantastic hits. On 7 February 2011, I watched Deputy Doherty say on the channel that the universal social charge brings in €420 million per year. That is exactly what Deputy Adams said a few moments ago on the floor of the House. That is not true. The reality is that this charge will bring in €4 billion per year, which is ten times as much as that claimed by Sinn Féin.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Deputy is still misleading the Dáil.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: They are the figures.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The reference was to €400 million over and above the existing levies.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: We need to consider from where the figure of €400 million might have come.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: If the Deputy had read the motion, he might understand.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I will be generous to Sinn Féin by attempting to explain from where the figure came. The figure relates to the additional income that would be brought in by the universal social charge if the health and social levies were rolled out.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: We have said that all along.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I will examine that. During the general election campaign, Sinn Féin said again and again that it would abolish the universal social charge and pay for it by introducing a third rate of income tax. According to figures published by Sinn Féin — in fairness, they were costed by the Department of Finance — the third rate of 9o’clock income tax would bring in €400 million per annum. The Department estimates that the universal social charge will bring in €4 billion each year. The reality is that the claim peddled by Sinn Féin during the general election campaign had a black hole of €3.6 billion.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The Deputy should read the motion and be honest.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The motion that is on the floor of the House has changed to some degree.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The motion calls on the Government to revert to the existing system.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Where is the reference in the motion, which has changed since Sinn Féin peddled their claims during the general election, to the third rate of income tax?

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Where was this speech when Deputy Donohoe was trying to get elected?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: We now see the realisation dawning on Sinn Féin that its figures do not add up. 693 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: If the Deputy had listened to us, as he said he did, he would know this was mentioned.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: It is now proposing to reinstate——

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The real Fine Gael is exposing itself again.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: ——the health and income levies that were brought in by the last Government.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Right-wing Fine Gael is back.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: We should examine those levies and the detail of what Sinn Féin is proposing. The detail of the income levy is that somebody who earns between €15,000 and €75,000 pays 2% of their income. The detail of the health levy is that somebody who earns between €26,000 and €75,000 pays 4% of their income. The cumulative total is 6%. That is the total that needs to be paid when the two levies are combined. Sinn Féin is now proposing to get rid of one charge, which involves the imposition of a levy of between 6% and 7% on somebody on the average industrial wage, and replace it with two old levies, the combined effect of which would be the imposition of a levy of 6%. Is Sinn Féin being clear? I do not see such clarity in its motion or on its website, on which this proposal is advertised.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Deputy needs to go to Specsavers.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: If this programme were implemented, Sinn Féin would be reintro- ducing the old income and health levies which were abolished when the universal service charge was introduced.

Deputy Brian Hayes: They were poverty traps.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The cumulative effect of those levies would be to require somebody on the average industrial wage to pay 6% of his or her income. How can that be reconciled with the Sinn Féin rhetoric of abolishing the universal social charge and taxing the rich so the working poor do not have to pay? The reality of what Sinn Féin is proposing is not the abolition of the universal social charge — it is the renaming and rebranding of the charge. That is all it would mean to the average person who is paid an industrial wage in this State. That is the reality of the matter. There is a stark difference between what Sinn Féin says in this motion and what it said during the general election campaign. I never heard anyone from Sinn Féin say during the campaign that the party wanted to reinstate the health and income levies.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: We did. The Deputy was not listening. That was the problem.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: He did read our documents.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The reason Sinn Féin did not want to say it then, and the reason it is saying what it is saying here tonight, is that its figures do not add up.

Deputy Brian Hayes: Correct.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I heard Deputy Adams say on the floor of this House that the universal social charge brings in €400 million. That is wrong.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: He said our approach to it would bring in an additional €400 million. 694 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: This year, the universal social charge will bring in €3.2 billion.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Where was the Deputy’s right-wing rhetoric when he was trying to get elected?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Next year, the universal social charge will bring in €4 billion.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The cloak has come off again.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, spoke about the regular references to the representation of elites and ordinary people. I do not represent any elite.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: You do.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I am not from an elite.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: What is this speech about then?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I came into politics by choice. I am proud to represent the people of Dublin Central. I will represent them with dignity and honesty.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: It is a different speech now.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I will tell Deputies what those people want. They do not want to pay the universal social charge any more than it needs to be levied on them. They want their schools and hospitals to be open.

Deputy Brian Hayes: Hear, hear.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: They do not want the bond holders to be bailed out.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: They want this State to be able to exit the arrangement that has been opposed on us, which means that our fate is being determined by other people. Honesty is needed if that is to be possible. The people need to be told from where the figures will come. They need to have it explained to them. There is a better way, but it is not the Sinn Féin way.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The Minister for Finance admitted last week that he got all his election figures wrong.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I heard representatives of Sinn Féin clearly explain that party’s proposals.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, was sitting there listening to him.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: They were proposing to ask members of the public to send post- cards to the Department of Finance to outline their opposition to this measure.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The Minister admitted that he had miscalculated.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: It is an appropriate image because the sum detail of Sinn Féin’s economic policy would fit on the back of a postcard. We need honesty.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: We will not get it on that side of the House. 695 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: We need politics that is based on meeting people’s needs, rather than their wants.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: They want food.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: That is what our amendment does.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: They want to feed their children.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: We need to find a way to make our State secure. We need to find a way of making it sovereign. We need to find a way of making sure we can pay the wages of the people who provide our public services. We need to put in place a tax system that meets the aspirations and needs of the people who serve it.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It is now clear why Deputy Lowry was a member of Fine Gael.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The party that has brought this proposal before the House claims it involves the abolition of a tax that is generating €400 million per annum, but the reality is that it is generating €4 billion.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: If one repeats a lie, it does not become the truth.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The party in question has no credibility in this debate, which is why this motion will be defeated by people of conscience.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Deputy has changed his song now that he is in government.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I have not changed anything.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: He has been converted, like Paul on the road to Damascus.

Deputy Brian Hayes: Gombeenism has been defeated.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: As this is my maiden speech, I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank the voters of Dublin South-East for entrusting me with their votes and electing me to the 31st Dáil. It is a great privilege that I do not take lightly. This is a difficult time for the people of Ireland. As a Government, we have a responsibility to ensure we fix our economy and rebuild our society, which should be anchored in the principles of equality of solidarity. I listened to this debate in my office throughout the evening. I would like to make a commitment not to heckle speakers in this House.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Hear, hear.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: I will take the time to listen to the contributions of others. I have watched Dáil debates from my home over the years. Far too often, I have been reminded of college debates in which students heckle and criticise each other.

Deputy Brian Hayes: Hear, hear.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: We need to listen to each other. Everybody in this House has a mandate. Each of us has been elected by ordinary working people who want us to work together to fix this economy. I am giving a commitment to the Members of this House that I will take the time to listen to their contributions. I will heed what they say and consider the suggestions they make. No one Deputy in this Chamber has all the solutions. We need to take 696 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion the time to stop heckling and talking over one another. Instead, we should really listen. The voters of Pearse Street, Ringsend and other parts of Dublin South-East have asked me to listen to others in this Chamber and to do my level best in an honest manner. That is what I will try to do. Everybody has a viewpoint. I listened to the contributions of the Deputies who have been elected to represent Sinn Féin. There were some good points in what they said. We need to listen to one another. We should get over the idea that members of other parties are wrong in every respect and need to be criticised and heckled. If we are to fix this economy, we have to learn to work together. I listened to Deputy Ó Caoláin when he said this is the first time Sinn Féin has been in a position to table a Private Members’ motion. I welcome that, just as I welcome the constructive nature of much of what has been said this evening. It has been a positive debate. It shows us a way of going forward. I welcome the Minister of State’s confirmation that this measure will be reviewed. All of us must work and act together to get the best deal possible for the Irish people. Too often, Members assume that Members on the other side of the Chamber are automatically wrong, or that the manner in which the Government is proceeding is wrong. We made it clear in the programme for Government that there will be a review. This evening, the Minister of State asked for submissions in that regard. Like many Deputies in this Chamber who have definite views and beliefs, I intend to make such a submission. I am one of those who said that a review of this charge was badly needed. It has to be changed. It is not good enough for anybody here to massage the figures or argue about whether a change would bring in an extra €400 million, or cost an extra €1 billion. We all know how this is affecting the economy and ordinary working people. We have done the biggest of consultation exercises over the past several weeks. We have to listen to the people who realise there is going to be pain but who need to see light at the end of the tunnel. We share a responsibility to work together on building a progressive taxation system. The motion Sinn Féin proposed is welcome but it is premature. Less than two weeks ago we voted on a strategy which included a review of the charge. I will work within my party in Government to ensure the views of all Members are taken into consideration because we owe that to the citizens of Ireland, including the people in Tralee to whom Deputy Ferris referred and the people in Ringsend who cannot afford to send their children to college. This suffering is not of our making, however. I will support the amendment proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, because it represents a constructive engagement. I look forward to the establishment of the committee system because, by working together as a House, we can develop strategies that will fix this economy. We should not be jumping in so quickly to make political points. Deputy Ó Caoláin stated that he would prefer to see change in terms of winning the motion than to score points but the way forward is to work with the review to make the submissions and sit down with the Government to work out solid proposals that will allow this country to recover. We saw what the banks did with their speculative activities. Their gamble did not pay off but this country must repay the debts. We will be required to impose taxes. There is going to be hardship. When I knocked on doors, people asked me to assure them there would be light at the end of the tunnel. The next two years will be hard but the programme for Government shows hope for the future and the review of the universal social charge will result in positive changes. On one road I visited during the election campaign, every second household was affected by the forced emigration of friends or family members. They had to emigrate because there is no work. These are our best people and significant sums of money were invested in their education. Among their numbers were skilled trades people and university graduates.

697 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Kevin Humphreys.]

This Government has worked extremely hard. Within four weeks of the election we are debating real policies in this Chamber. Every previous Dáil was in adjournment four weeks after its election. Urgency is needed but we must also consider measured proposals. The motion proposed by Sinn Féin is a mature one and the contribution by that party’s Members have been useful. I look forward to working with all Members on resolving the problems for the future. This charge has to be reformed. When I met voters at the doors, I stated it would be reviewed because we did not have instant answers. I will be proactive in that review and I look forward to making major changes as a result.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Táim sásta go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo ar siúl anocht mar is deis é tosú ar phlé faoin gcineálcóras cánach ar mhaith linn. Goilleann sé orm nuair a cheapann páirtí polaitíochta sa Teach seo gur aige atá an ceart morálta faoi chuile ceist. Tá daoine ar chuile thaobh den Teach gur cúis leo gnáthphobal na tíre. Is minic go bhfuil dea-rud déanta, mar shampla, ag Sinn Féin, mar a chonaic mé féin san am a chaith mé ar Bhóthar Gharbh Eachaidh, ar Bhóthar an Fhuaráin Mhór, ar Bhóthar na bhFál, ar Bhóthar Bhaile Andarsan, i mBaile Uí Mhurchú, i dTaobh an Bhogaigh, agus le pobal an Droichid. Ní raibh aon bhuntáiste ann seachas do ghnáthphobal na tíre. Creidim go bhfuil mé agus mo leithéid chomh dáiríre faoin bpolaitíochta agus atá Sinn Féin. Ní chreidim go bhfuil an ceart morálta ar fad ag Sinn Féin agus tá lochtanna ar chuid dá pholasaí. Tá mé sásta éisteacht agus breathnú ar gach moladh a chuirtear chun cinn. Tá sé tábhachtach go mbrathnófar ar na ceisteanna seo ar fad. B’fhéidir go bhfuil cuid de mhíniú an rúin ann i ngeallúint a thug Sinn Féin go gcuirfeadh sé deireadh leis an muirear sóisialta uilíoch; tuigeann an páirtí anois nach féidir leis sin a dhéanamh, agus mar sin, caithfidh sé na sean-dleachtanna a chur ar ais. Má táimid dáiríre faoin gceist seo, tá dhá rud ann: an córas féin agus an leibhéal ag a mbain- tear cáin ó dhaoine éagsúla. Dhá rud difriúil ar fad iad. Tá Sinn Féin ag iarraidh dul ar ais chuig an seanchórasabhíodh ann. Duine a bhíonn ag plé le duine atá ar pháíseal atá ag iarriadh tuairisceáncánach a chur isteach, tá a fhios aige go bhfuil an córas faoi láthair bun os cionn agus nach dtuigeann an gnáthphobal é. Is iomaí uair nach gcuireann daoine isteach tuairisceáncánach mar ceapeann siad go bhfuil an scéal ró-chasta. An chaoi go bhfuil cúrsaí go dtí deireadh na bliana, tá ceithre asbhaint á ndéanamh as pá chuile duine —ÁSPC, an tobhach sláinte, an tobhach ioncaim agus cáin ioncaim. Rud ar bith a laghdaíonn líon na ndleachtanna sin, is ar son an phobail atá sé. Éinne atá ag iarraidh dul ar ais chuig an seanchóras, is siar atá siad ag iarraidh a dhul. Ceann de na rudaí a chuir mise romham nuair a chuaigh mé isteach sa Roinn Coimirce Sóisialaí ná go ndéanfaimid laghdú ar líon na rátaíÁSPC atá sa taobh seo tíre. Ag an am sin, bhí thart faoi 36 ráta ÁSPC ann. Ní dócha gur thuig éinne ar thalamh an domhain cén chaoi a raibh sin ag oibriú. Ba cheart go mbeadh chuile duine, féin-fhostaithe nó fostaithe, ag íoc ÁSPC ag 4%. Ba cheart freisin deireadh a chur leis an teorainn ioncaim ag a n-íocann daoine ÁSPC; ní raibh daoine ag íoc ÁSPC thar ráta áirithe ioncaim go dtí an bhliain seo. Mhol mise don Aire Airgeadais go gcuirfí deireadh leis sin agus ar gach ioncam a bheadh ag duine, go n-íocfaí 4% ,féin-fhostaithe nó fostaithe. Tharla ansin go mbeadh buntáiste le fáil ag duine as ucht an ÁSPC a íoc. Tá an leasú sin curtha i bhfeidhm agus creidim gur fearr a thuigeann an pobal córas mar sin ná córas le 36 ráta éagsúil.

698 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

Tá roinnt obair bhreise le déanamh. Ní thuigim cénfáth nach bhfuilimid ag íoc an ghnáthchó- rais ÁSPC sa Teach seo, táimid ag íoc an 4% anois ach ba cheart go mbeadh chuile fostaí sa tír, agus chuile duine féin-fostaithe, ag íoc 4% ar ioncam saothraithe. Ansin, bhí an coras tobhaigh shláinte agus an córas tobhaigh ioncaim ann. Bhí sin casta mar bhí an tobhach ioncaim curtha isteach leis an ÁSPC; bhí daoine ag íoc tobhaigh shláinte ach go minic cheap siad go raibh siad ag íoc ÁSPC ach ní raibh aon bhuntáiste dá bharr agus, dar liom, dearmad a bhí ann. Tá sé thar am againn leasú adhéanamh ar an gcóras ó bhun go barr. Is rud é sin a thógfaidh roinnt mhaith de bhlianta, mar tá sé deacair leasuithe a dhéanamh gan mhíbhuntáiste a bheith ann do dhuine ar bith. Ó thaobh an fhostaí de, ba cheart breathnú ar an iomlán: ÁSPC, tobhach ioncaim, tobhach sláinte, nó mar atá anois, an MSU, agus cáin ioncaim, agus breathnú ar thionchar an iomláin ar an duine, ní ar cad a dhéanann aon cheann acu faoi leith. Sin mar a bhreathnaíonn an duine air, cé mhéid a baineadh as an phá ag an Stát. Is cuma leis cén lipéad atá air, sin atá sé ag iarraidh a dhéanamh amach. Ba cheart an córas cánach a dhéanamh níos simplí. Go fad-téarm- ach, d’aontóinn le Sinn Féin, ní ceart go mbeadh ann ach an córas cánach agus an córas ÁSPC agus ba mhaith liom dul ar ais go dtí an pointe sin. Maidir leis an gcóras cánach, ba cheart fáil réidh leis na faoisimh bheaga ar fad. Thosaigh muid ag déanamh sin le blianta beaga anuas, mar shampla, an faoiseamh a bhí ann do bhruscar agus an faoiseamh a bhí do ranníocaíochta le haghaidh ceardchumann. An fáth nár aontaigh mé leis na faoisimh sin ná an dream ba mhó abhí ag fáil buntáiste mar thoradh orthu ná an dream a bhí eolach faoin gcóras agus a thuig leis an bhfoirm a líonadh agus na liúntais ar fad a tharraignt. Is minic a tháinig daoine agus an iomarca cánacha íoctha acu mar bhí faitíos orthu tuairisceáncánach a chur isteach. Bhí siad ar ioncam íseal, agus mar sin, níor tharraing siad na liúntais ar fad a bhí ag dul dóibh. B’fhearr liomsa, agus leis an bpobal, go mbeadh liúntas saor ó cháin maith ann agus go bhfaighfaí réidh leis na faoisimh bheaga nach bhfuil ann ach anró do dhaoine agus go bhfuil formhór an phobail ina dteideal ar aon chaoi. There is much I could say on this. There is much more we could say about reform, which we will have an opportunity to discuss. The Government says it will carry out a review of the universal social charge. We need fundamental reform of income tax, PRSI, the USC and all levies taken from people’s wages. I hope one of the first things that will happen is that committees will be set up and the Govern- ment will ensure we have an opportunity to discuss these issues in detail. Because of my time as a co-op manager when I dealt with wages manually, I have strong views on the tax system. During most of the period that Fianna Fáil was in Government, from 1997 to 2008 or 2009, we managed to take many low-income people out of the tax net. I was in favour of that. I could not understand the logic of paying family income supplement to a person while in the same week taking income tax from him or her. I do not go along with the idea that during our years in Government we did not do much to take the low-paid out of the tax net. In fact, we did an unprecedented amount. If any Deputies were doing wage slips back in the 1970s and 1980s and manually taking off tax, as I had to do every week, they would have seen the major change that occurred in recent years when low-paid workers were taken out of the tax system, to the extent that 45% of people with an income were not paying tax. Another thing I do not agree with is an automatic exemption from levies, income tax or any other tax for those receiving social welfare payments. There are many people receiving social welfare payments who have astronomical incomes. The case of widows and widowers is always cited. Because everyone, self-employed or employee, pays PRSI, a person could be on an income of €150,000 per year while receiving a widow’s or widower’s pension. This is quite legitimate. Such people do not pay a levy on their pensions. When one looks at it in the cold 699 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

[Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.] light of day, one must ask why such people should be exempt from paying the USC, the income levy or the health levy. The exemptions should be based on income and not on whether, due to some circumstance, a person is receiving a social welfare payment. There is no relationship between one’s income and one’s entitlement to a social welfare payment in the PRSI system. There is another issue on which we must move carefully, and we amended the provisions in this regard in the Finance Bill. I did not agree with the connection between medical cards and income tax, health levies and other wage deductions. What happens in practice, as we all know, is that if the medical card is linked to income tax, it inhibits people from improving themselves or their wages. When a person loses his or her medical card, he or she must start paying all the income levies and health levies ab initio, which results in a loss of money. This means that people do not want to take overtime or improve themselves. It is regressive. It is much better to link all reliefs to people’s actual income. This results in a much fairer system, because all the money goes towards giving relief to people on the lowest incomes. The other system creates all sorts of poverty traps and irrationality — particularly that of the medical card — which have held many people back. I suggest that the money saved by not using the medical card as an income test be put back into adjusting the income limit. I would have had much more sympathy for the Sinn Féin motion if it had been more upfront. It is a bit of a cod. The Minister pointed to an inconsistency in the motion. If Sinn Féin wanted to be transparent, it would have said that nobody should have to pay the USC on a certain portion of their income, but people should pay 2% on the next portion, 4% on the next portion, or whatever. It should not have recommended that we revert from the USC, which is at least a combined single system, to the old dual system with all its levels and traps, which was totally flawed. One can argue about the level at which the USC kicks in — we would all much prefer if the level was higher — but there are challenges involved in raising the money required. I would love to have access to the computer again. I was trying to get information from the Department of Finance yesterday. I was told to table a parliamentary question, but that was not much good for tonight.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I will get the information for the Deputy.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is quite simple. The USC is better than the combined system. However, none of us likes to take money from the low-paid — I certainly do not like it. If we are unhappy about how much is being taken from the low-paid, then we must come up with a system in which, for example, the first €10,000 is exempt, 2% is paid on the next €10,000, 4% on the next €10,000 and so on. What level would have to be chosen to obtain the same income? How many minutes do I have left?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Six minutes.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Good, because there are many more things I want to say. That brings me to the point that we now have a better system. Sinn Féin’s problem with this — it wants to go back to the income levy — is that the USC is applied to incomes that are too low. If that is its argument, it must explain what kind of USC it wants and where it would pitch it. It must then tell us where it will make up the missing money. That is the challenge.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: What missing money?

700 Universal Service 29 March 2011. Charge: Motion

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The problem with wages is that there is a pyramid. In other words, when one starts working up through salary levels, one finds that — despite popular myth — there are not many people at the €100,000 level, so large amounts of tax must be paid to raise the required amount of money. I will come to that issue shortly. It is important for us to recognise — the penny dropped for the Government when it got into the hot seat — that if we do not reach our fiscal targets, it is not just a question of being €400 million, €500 million or €600 million short. Not only would we fail to be in a position to borrow that extra €400 million or €500 million, the other €16 billion could not be borrowed with it either. That is our dilemma. While I do not like it any more than anyone else in the House, the fact is we are borrowing as much as we can this year. There is no easy answer such as taking the low-paid out of the tax system and borrowing another €500 million. It simply cannot be done because no one will give such a loan. To follow the logic of such a scenario, we would really be in cutback territory because one third of the State’s income would disappear overnight. The €16 billion borrowed to keep services going would not be available anymore. This would mean cutbacks in the health, education and social welfare budgets because 80% of the spend goes on them. The other argument is to target the top-end of the tax system. I subscribe to the 1932 Fianna Fáil theory of not paying people too much.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The previous Government did not.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: As a pragmatist, I know if one goes beyond a certain tax threshold it may become economically regressive. Instead of helping increase returns, it could actually diminish them. A debate is needed in which people can state what they believe to be the top rate that can be charged on the combined figure of PRSI, levies and tax without it becoming regressive. It is an argument many of us heard on the doorsteps during the recent election. Last year pensioners, such as retired teachers, engineers, informed me they paid 60% and 70% tax rates on modest incomes in the 1970s and 1980s. Fortunately, I never paid such high tax rates as I never had the income to pay them. Middle Ireland will not accept paying over a certain tax threshold, a fact which we must be realistic about when debating this matter. While not justifiable, in the past we saw such high tax rates lead employers to pay three- quarters of their employees’ salaries through the books while the remainder was slipped under the table. I do not want to go back to that world. It is one reason I believe taxes should not be too high. High taxes tempt people to cheat paying them which they then start to self-justify. In the past I saw straight businesses put at a serious disadvantage by their competitors who were not entirely in the black or white economy but the grey economy. These are the issues we must address when resolving our economic challenges. Rather than Members slamming those on the opposite side with ex cathedra statements, it must be agreed there are huge issues facing us if we want to make a better, fairer and understandable tax system. A person should not need to have a computer to work out their tax. I would like to be part of a detailed debate on income tax, the universal social charge and PRSI from which a much better package than the existing one could emerge. We must also examine how we can ensure people are not penalised disproportionately by the tax and levy system. The challenge is to see, in a time of tight public finances, how one can move people to a more equitable, transparent and understandable system while ensuring one does not take a disproportionate amount from one sector, particularly from the low paid who have always been my concern.

Debate adjourned. 701 School 29 March 2011. Transport

Adjournment Debate

————

School Transport Deputy Michael Creed: I thank the Ceann Comhairle’s office for facilitating an Adjournment debate on this matter. Changes to the school transport system will always be a contentious issue. Any interference with it can have a ripple effect, affecting not just pupils but the schools concerned. Rural schools tend to be affected more as well. The value for money review of the school transport system provided some interesting facts. In 2009, 125,000 pupils were transported every day by the schools transport system compared to 157,000 in 1997. In 2009, however, the service cost €196 million, an increase of 300% on the 1997 cost. While I agree the State must carry out value for money reviews on such services, it is also important it consults those affected by any proposed changes. For example, the average annual cost of transporting a primary school pupil comes to €1,020 and €958 for a post-primary student. The associated extras, such as escorts and a longer service time into July, for transporting children with special educational needs means the actual cost for those pupils can be in excess of €9,000. Another interesting fact that emerged in the review is that it is 20% cheaper to have the service operated by the private sector rather than Bus Éireann. I am, however, concerned the school transport review group had no representatives from school patrons, teacher or parent organisations, the very people who will be directly affected by any changes. It is also regrettable that on 8 March 2011, the day before the 31st Dáil met, the Department of Education and Skills published the VFM report, which had been in its possession for several months, on its website and which outlined charges to be introduced from next September. I am not opposed to charges per se, that is not why I am raising this matter. I am particularly concerned about changes proposed to central or closed school rules. Schools that closed in the past, perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, were merged into a central school. As a consequence, the children in the closed school catchment area had an entitlement to free school transport to the central school for many years. Now, at the stroke of a pen, that agreement entered into by the Department and the patrons of the school has been torn up without consultation with parents, patrons or teachers. The consequence of this is that each child will be considered in terms of the nearest school and whether the child meets the new criteria for transport. Many who have free transport to existing schools will find they no longer have that entitlement but may have an entitlement to transport to another school. Over the intervening years, education infrastructure has been invested in all schools but more so in the central school. We may now witness a movement away from the central school to smaller, peripheral schools where there is not adequate classroom provision, etc. In being pennywise — that is questionable — the Department may be pound foolish because it will incur additional expenditure to accommodate students in other schools, classrooms and prefabs. That has not been considered. The circular from Bus Éireann——

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Deputy Creed’s time is up.

Deputy Michael Creed: This is a complex issue and I appreciate the attendance of the Mini- ster of State. I will conclude on this point. The circular indicates that the child already enrolled in the school will continue to have those transport arrangements by virtue of the fact that the child has commenced school, whereas the brother or sister starting next year will not have the 702 School 29 March 2011. Transport entitlement. Instead, he or she may have an entitlement to transport to another school. Families will be split and sent in different directions. This will make for a long, hot summer in rural Ireland. School transport is an emotive issue and I ask the Minister to withdraw the circular the Department issued to schools through Bus Éireann and to sit down in consultation with parents, teachers and interest groups.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): Iam replying to this matter on behalf of the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills. The reply is substantial. This is a complicated and emotive issue. I will convey the Deputy’s pleadings to the Minister. If I do not complete my contribution within five minutes, we may take it that it will be read into the Official Report. I thank Deputy Creed for giving me the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon. Before I address the issue of the changes to the primary school transport scheme, I would like to give Members of the House an outline of the extent of the school transport service. The Deputy has attempted to do this and it is quite complicated. School transport is a very significant operation managed by Bus Éireann on behalf of the Department and covering over 82 million km annually. Some 123,000 children, including more than 8,000 children with special needs, are transported in approximately 4,000 vehicles on a daily basis to primary and post-primary schools throughout the country. Children eligible for transport may use scheduled public transport services including the DART and LUAS although I assume that is rare in Deputy Creed’s constituency. A number of changes to the school transport scheme were announced in Budget 2011 by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan and the former Minister for Education and Skills, Mary Coughlan. The changes regarding the primary school transport scheme derive from recommendations in the recently published value for money report of the scheme and relate to the introduction of charges, changes to the closed school rule, changes to the minimum numbers required to establish or maintain a service and new arrangements to be put in place with Bus Éireann on a phased basis for the operation of the scheme. I will give a brief outline of the changes. With effect from the 2011-12 school year a transport fee of €50 per annum will be introduced for eligible primary school pupils, with a maximum family charge for eligible primary pupils only, of €110. Eligible children who hold a valid medical card are exempt from paying the charge. Approximately 26,000 pupils, or an estimated 58% of eligible pupils, will be liable to pay the charge. Evidence suggests school transport charges compare very favourably with the charges being levied by the private sector. While the charges vary, in the private sector some parents are paying between €20 and €25 per child per week which equates to about €730 and €915 per child per school year at primary level. The Department’s charge for the 2011-12 school year is €50 per eligible primary child per annum with a family maximum of €110 for eligible primary children per annum. As a consequence of the introduction of charges, parents will now have to apply directly to Bus Éireann, which operates the school transport scheme on behalf of my Department, for school transport for their children. This charge is being introduced to ensure that school transport provided for eligible primary pupils is fully utilised in a cost effective manner. The closed school rule for school transport eligibility purposes was introduced in the 1960’s in circumstances where a primary school was closed and amalgamated with another. Under this closed school rule, where a primary school is closed and amalgamated with another, pupils residing in the closed school area are eligible for transport to the school of amalgamation even though they may reside less than 3.2 km from the school. 703 School 29 March 2011. Transport

[Deputy Kathleen Lynch.]

There is also what is called a central school rule resulting from the amalgamation of a greater number of schools. In these instances transport is provided for children residing not less than 1 mile or 1.6 km from the new central school. No time limit has been applied to the closed school and central school rules. In some cases the primary schools in question were closed up to 40 years ago and amalgamated with another school. In some instances, a newer school has subsequently been built in the general area of the original closed school. Under the current primary school transport scheme, however, the transport provided will be to the amalgamated school only, even in circumstances where there is actually a newer school closer to the pupil’s home. A pupil in these circumstances is not eligible for free transport to the newer school. I accept that it is a complicated issue. I will convey the Deputy’s concerns and I appreciate that Deputy Creed brought this to the Minister’s notice. I hope we can resolve this.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House In the 2009-10 school year, transport services under the closed school rule operated to more than 800 primary schools with almost 26,000 children, 54.4% of mainstream tickets issued, deemed eligible for school transport under this rule. In the majority of cases where such transport has been provided pupils in fact attend their nearest primary school. While the application of the CSR is referred to in these cases, it does not mean that they are not travelling to their nearest school. The transport of such a significant number of children, some of whom would not qualify for transport on the basis of the distance criterion alone, involves a cost. The specific changes announced in relation to the closed school rule are as follows. From the commencement of the 2011-12 school year, the distance criteria will be applied to all pupils attending primary schools and the exemption under the closed school rule will cease. This means that children who reside less than 3.2 km, or two miles, from the school of attendance and who are availing of free transport to that school under the closed school rule will lose their transport eligibility; from the 2012-13 school year, eligibility based on the closed school rule, CSR, and the central school rule will cease for all new children entering primary schools. Existing primary pupils availing of transport under the CSR will retain transport eligibility for the duration of their schooling, provided the requisite distance is met. The practical consequence of these changes is the principle that using the distance criteria as the key eligibility criterion, having regard to language and ethos, will be applied equitably nationally; transitional arrangements for a period of seven years will be required to cater for the eligible primary cohort attending the amalgamated school to allow them complete their schooling at the school; in the case of all future primary school amalgamations eligibility will be based on the distance criteria applying at that time and attendance at the nearest school; and from 2012-13, pupils residing in a closed school area, for whom the amalgamated school is not their nearest but who enrol in their nearest school, will be eligible for school transport provided the requisite distance of 3.2 km is met. Bus Éireann is undertaking a detailed assessment of pupils attending each school concerned. Parents affected will be notified by Bus Éireann of changes to their transport eligibility with effect from the 2011-12 school year. In regard to the minimum numbers required to establish or maintain a service, the changes mean that services under the minimum numbers, either single services or which are part of double tripping arrangements, will be discontinued. A pick- up density of pupils in a distinct locality on a particular route — increasing from the current minimum of seven to ten eligible children — will be required to establish or retain services. 704 Arts 29 March 2011. Funding

All services transporting less than the minimum number of eligible children, either single services or which are part of double tripping arrangements, will be discontinued with effect from the 2011-12 school year. This brings the minimum numbers required to establish services back to 2002 levels. For the past two school years, under the terms of the school transport scheme, single run services transporting less than the minimum numbers have been discontinued. Bus Éireann will undertake a detailed examination of all such services to establish the routes in question. Parents and guardians of pupils affected will be notified of changes. It should be emphasised that eligible pupils for whom a service is being withdrawn, will be eligible to apply for the remote area grant. This is paid directly by the Department on submission of a certificate of school attendance. The amount payable is based on distance up to a maximum of 9.7 km or a maximum grant of €5.10 per day per family which equates with €933 per school year based on full attendance. New arrangements will be put in place with Bus Éireann on a phased basis for the operation of the scheme. These will include arrangements for an increasing proportion of routes to be provided by private operators. From the 2012-13 school year, Bus Éireann will have full responsibility for the operation of the school transport system including responsibility for processing all applications for school transport or grants. Synergies between school transport, rural transport and Health Service Executive services will be further developed. Finally, I wish to advise that all families served by school transport and indeed all schools served with school transport received an explanatory advance notice from Bus Éireann outlining all the relevant changes to the primary school transport scheme in particular for the school year 2011-12 and also 2012-13 school year. The communication also included an application form and contact details where families or schools could have any aspect of the changes clarified. The main purpose of this advance notice was to explain the changes coming on stream and to give parents and schools advance notice in this regard. I again thank the Deputy for raising this matter.

Arts Funding Deputy Brian Walsh: Seo é an chéad ócáid dom cupla focal a rá sa Dáil nua agus sa Teach stairiúil, tábhachtach seo. Tá mé thar a bheith bródúil a bheith anseo mar Teachta Dála nua ar son muintir na Gaillimhe agus ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le chuile duine a thug cabhair agus tacaíocht dom i rith an olltoghcháin, go mórmór mo chlann, muintir na Gaillimhe agus mo chairde. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter and I think the Minister of State for attending. I refer to the funding for the only national Irish language theatre in the country, Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe, which has been displaced since its premises were badly damaged by fire in 2007. Plans for the restoration of this historic building were prepared some time ago. A commitment was made by the previous Government that it would match a contribution of €300,000 provided by Galway City Council and the theatre company. The contribution by Galway City Council was made conditional on the provision of equal funding by the Government. That funding never materialised and, as a result, the only Irish language theatre in the country remains idle to this day. That Government left office without fulfilling the commitment it made on the project. That broken promise can be counted among the litany of broken promises on which that Administration has already been judged by the electorate. It is a shame that the landmark theatre, which has been an epicentre of culture and the arts both locally and nationally for more than 80 years, has been allowed to remain derelict since 2007. Its board has been gallant in its efforts to continue staging productions at other locations 705 Arts 29 March 2011. Funding

[Deputy Brian Walsh.] since then, but it has done so at considerable cost at a time when it is striving to raise funds to assist it to return to its rightful base. Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe has a rich history as the national Irish language theatre and since 1928 has showcased, nurtured and helped develop the talents of many legendary names of Irish screen and stage. It was there that the curtains were first raised on the illustrious careers of Walter Macken, Siobhan McKenna and Máirtín Ó Direáin and where the likes of Sean McClory and others tread the boards before they took their first steps on their way to greater achievement. It was there, too, that actor Mick Lally first came to prominence. His sad passing last year was marked with warm tributes from Members of this House, rightly so. There could be no more fitting tribute to him, with the first anniversary of his death approaching, than for provision to be made to secure the future of the theatre to which he owed some of his success and through which he gave so much enjoyment to many people not just in Galway but across the country. Questions have been asked in recent times about my party’s policy on the national language. I can think of no clearer signal to demonstrate our commitment to Irish as a vibrant, living language than to support the national Irish language theatre in its efforts to return to its traditional home. The Irish language has been independently calculated to be worth more than €136 million to the local economy in Galway and supports more than 5,000 jobs in the area. Galway is a thriving centre of excellence for the arts, music, theatre, literature and language. The Irish language is a unique selling point in Galway’s image and cultural identity, and failure to support it would ultimately be counterproductive from the perspective of Exchequer finances. In the current economic climate, we must look towards our strengths in order to emerge from the economic crisis. Among the strengths we possess are the arts, culture and tourism. Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe plays an important role in all three areas. It is with a sense of urgency that I ask the Minister to provide the necessary funding for the restoration and renovation of the theatre. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to make a statement.

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Dinny McGinley): Ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis an Teachta Walsh as a chéad óráid anseo sa Dáil agus as gur thógséábhar chomh tábhachtach le Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe. Tuigfidh éinne a bhfuil aon eolas ar dhrámaíocht nó litríocht na Gaeilge aige nó aici an tábhacht atá le Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe ó 1928 nuair a bunaíodh é. Tuairim pearsanta atá sa mhéid sin, mar go bhfuil suim agam sa dhrámaíocht. Tá amharclann lán-Ghaeilge sa cheantar ar as mé féin, Gaoth Dobhair, a bhfuil clú agus cáil air. Tá a fhios sin ag an Teachta ar an taobh trasna, mar is dóigh go raibh sé in amharclann Ghaoth Dobhair. Nuair a bhí mise i mo bhuachaill ó, cosúil leis an Teachta, ba ghnáth liom anois agus arís, a bheith ag aisteoireacht sa Damer, i bhFaiche Stiabhna anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath. B’shin an t-amharclann a bhí ag Gael Linn, ach faraor, nílsé ann anois. Is mór an trua é nach bhfuil. Caithfimid a dhéanamh de go mbeidh Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe againn bliain i ndiaidh bliana. At the outset, I recognise the work undertaken by Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe, as the national Irish language theatre, in promoting Irish language theatre. Since 1928, An Taibhdhearc has undertaken pioneering work which has contributed to the theatrical tradition in Ireland through the Irish language plays produced in An Taibhdhearc and throughout the country. An Taibhdhearc’s fundamental objective is to develop and promote plays in Irish through the provision of a platform for new dramas produced professionally. In addition, An Taibhdhearc supports and nurtures a positive environment for the Irish language theatrical arts by providing training opportunities of the highest quality to young people in the theatre. 706 Care of the 29 March 2011. Elderly

My Department makes an annual grant towards the running costs of An Taibhdhearc to enable it to fulfil its work programme. The grant consists of €323,920 for the current year. Following a major fire in November 2007 which seriously damaged the fabric of the theatre building itself, the management of An Taibhdhearc sought assistance from my Department with the refurbishment costs. In a letter to Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe in May 2010, my Depart- ment informed An Taibhdhearc that it was willing to grant €300,000 in principle for refurbishment works, subject to a number of conditions being fulfilled by 31 December 2010. These conditions included written confirmation from Galway City Council that it would provide co- funding of €300,000 for the project; written confirmation from An Taibhdhearc that the balance of costs would be met by An Taibhdhearc; agreement that the refurbishment of the theatre building would be an interim arrangement until the new proposed centre for the Irish language would be built in Galway city and that An Taibhdhearc would be willing to move to this centre in due course. With regard to the co-funding condition, my Department was informed in December 2010 by An Taibhdhearc that Galway City Council had approved funding of €50,000 per annum over a period of six years. While my Department recognises the need for funding for refurbishment works at An Taibhdhearc, I wish to inform the Deputy that the capital funding available this year to my Department under the Irish language support schemes is very limited. The capital funding under this subhead consists of €100,000 for 2011. However, my Department is willing to examine the feasibility of providing some funding to An Taibhdhearc to enable it to begin to carry out the refurbishment works over a period of time. Notwithstanding this, the Deputy will appreciate that before any final decision is made, my Department will need to satisfy itself that An Taibhdhearc is in a position to carry out the refurbishment works within the resources available to it. Molaim an Teachta as an cheist seo a thógáil ar an Athló agus geallaim dó go gcoinneoidh mé i dteagmháil leis maidir leis an cheist thábhachtach seo.

Care of the Elderly Deputy Brendan Smith: This is the first chance I have had publicly to congratulate Deputy Kathleen Lynch on her appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children and, similarly, to congratulate Deputy Dinny McGinley on his appointment as Aire Stáit comh maith. In the past decade there has been a major investment in the provision of new facilities for the elderly in County Cavan. That investment resulted in the provision of new nursing units for the elderly in Ballyconnell and Virginia with bed capacity, respectively, of 30 and 50. Along- side those units new primary care centres were developed as well. The third HSE nursing unit in County Cavan is St. Joseph’s at Lisdaran on the campus of Cavan General Hospital. I know many of the staff working in all the units and, similarly, over the years I have known many patients availing of the services in those units. Likewise, I know and have known many families who very much appreciate the excellent and professional care and attention their loved ones received in those units. I strongly commend and appreciate the work of all HSE staff involved in providing services for older people in Cavan-Monaghan. There is widespread concern in County Cavan about the future use of the Lisdaran unit. There are currently 44 patients in the unit and six of the beds are used for respite care. With State investment it has been possible through upgrading of facilities to provide additional patient comforts and enhance the quality of patient care. The Lisdaran unit plays a critical role in the care of the elderly in my county. It is necessary to make maximum use of the unit. There can be no reduction in the level of service provided in the nursing unit. I seek an assurance 707 Care of the 29 March 2011. Elderly

[Deputy Brendan Smith.] from the Minister that there will be no reduction in the level of services or bed capacity of the Lisdaran unit. Making the maximum use of the nursing unit will contribute to the HSE’s own goal of optimising the provision of quality care. The families who have loved ones being cared for to a very high standard in the Lisdaran unit seek an assurance on its future and the level of services to be provided there. Similarly, all the staff deserve to know the exact position. I commend all involved on delivering a highly professional and excellent standard of care to patients in the nursing units to which I referred. I reiterate the importance of the unit for so many patients and their families in County Cavan.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I thank the Deputy for raising the issue of Lisdarn Centre for the Older Person, County Cavan. Government policy is to enable older people to live in dignity and independence in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. Where this is not feasible, the health service supports access to quality long-term residential 10 o’clock care. We continue to develop and improve health services in all regions of the country to meet this objective and to ensure quality and patient safety. The Health Service Executive has operational responsibility for the delivery of health and social services, including those at facilities such as Lisdarn Centre for the Older Person. The centre is located on the grounds of Cavan General Hospital. There are 44 occupied beds in Lisdarn — 38 long-term care beds and six respite beds. In addition, there are ten assessment beds, which are not occupied for a number of reasons, including a reduction in people requiring this type of assessment and the current suspension of discharges from Cavan General Hospital due to an outbreak of Norovirus. These beds are utilised in the event of emergency respite being requested from the community. I understand there have been local concerns recently in regard to the future of the Lisdarn unit. However, the HSE does not foresee closure to Lisdarn or any other residential care facility for older people in Cavan-Monaghan. Since the introduction of the nursing home support scheme in October 2009, older people are now free to choose the nursing home, public or private, in which they wish to live. The level of occupancy of long-stay beds at Lisdarn is being monitored to establish the ongoing demand for these services. The HSE in Cavan-Monaghan is examining bed utilisation in long- stay residential care facilities. One of the options being considered is a reconfiguration of services, including the balance between long-term care beds and a more responsive short-term service, including respite and convalescent care, to meet the demand from the community. The HSE is committed to optimising the provision of quality care and maximising efficiencies. The examination in Cavan-Monaghan is expected to be concluded by 21 April this year and is led by the director of nursing and heads of services. The HSE stresses that any future changes to the services at the Lisdarn centre will be communicated, in the first instance, to the residents, their families and the staff. In addition, the HSE will keep members of the public and public representatives informed of developments. The HSE has indicated there are no plans or proposals to close any beds in Lisdarn this year. It should be noted, however, that with the introduction of the recruitment moratorium in the public service, nurses or care staff who leave, retire or are absent on maternity or sick leave are not replaced. The HSE must maintain appropriate staffing levels to meet the needs of residents. Should staffing levels at Lisdarn drop below these levels, beds may need to close to ensure a safe level of care for the residents. The Department of Health and Children is reviewing the provision of public long-stay care in the light of the need to meet national standards and regulations, local demographic pressures and public and private provision. The review will inform the development of an overall strategy 708 Hospital 29 March 2011. Services on how the HSE should continue to provide this service in future in view of current budgetary and other pressures. It is expected that the review will be completed in the middle of the year. Following his appointment as Minister for Health and Children, my colleague, Deputy Reilly, requested that the HSE suspend any current plans to close or withdraw residential care beds until he has had an opportunity to review the position. He has requested a full report from the HSE on this matter and will examine this issue carefully upon receipt of this information. However, providing quality and safe care for long-stay residents will have to remain at the heart of these considerations. I thank the Deputy for raising this issue.

Hospital Services Deputy Gerry Adams: Táim buíoch don Aire Stáit as ucht fanacht anseo linn chun páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo. The public health care system in Louth and east Meath is in crisis because of the Fianna Fáil- led Government pursuing a policy of privatisation. This has stripped Louth County Hospital of its essential services. The children’s ward was the first to go, followed by the maternity ward and the gynaecological unit. We were told the maternity unit was to be closed temporarily but it never reopened. The midwife-led unit was to be put in its place but this never happened. In June 2003, we were told that the building identified for use as a midwife-led unit would require some modification. This work was to have been completed in 2004 but we are still waiting. The domino effect of cuts led to the withdrawal of accident and emergency and acute medical services last July. This is a very serious and life-threatening situation that the Fine Gael-Labour Government can reverse if there is the political will to do so. The stripping away of services in Louth County Hospital has a knock-on effect on Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. It is now unable to cope with the demands being made on it. Two months ago, I visited the accident and emergency unit in the latter hospital and was appalled at the number of patients lying on hospital trolleys, chairs and even the floor. While these distressed, sick and, in some cases, very elderly women were in a very modern building, they were really in Third World conditions. The front-line staff in the hospital, as with the staff in Louth County Hospital, are doing their very best and wonderful work. They have insufficient resources and there has been very bad planning by the HSE and the previous Government. The staff are committed to the care of the sick and injured. Patients are clearly victims of the two-tier health system and the staff are frustrated because their vocation is one of caring. They are not being given the resources necessary for them to fulfil their duties. According to the previous Government, the rationale for stripping away Louth’s services was that these services would be transferred to a new regional hospital. Even if we buy into that logic, we must realise the new regional hospital should have been put in place before any services were removed from another. Sinn Féin’s policy is to have local services available to people at the closest point of access. The Save Our Hospital Services campaign group has written to the Minister seeking a meeting. I appeal to the Minister of State to pass on this request to the Minister in order that there will be a meeting with the campaign group to discuss the future of Louth County Hospital. Tá sé tuillte go maith acu agus caithfidh saoránaigh seirbhísí ospidéil éifeachtúla a bheith ar fáil acu ina ndúiche. Sinn Féin supports the campaign to restore accident and emergency services in Louth County Hospital. As a first step, we would like to see the services put in place, like dominoes, after which we would proceed to acute medical, intensive care and emergency services. 709 The 29 March 2011. Adjournment

[Deputy Gerry Adams.]

There should be a midwife-led unit in Dundalk, as was promised. The provision of such services would have a very positive effect on citizens and also on the health services available in both Our Lady of Lourdes and Navan hospitals. The people of Louth and east Meath and of the rest of this island deserve a health service that treats them with respect, looks after the elderly and provides public nursing home beds, effective community care facilities and home care. There should be proper funding for mental health provision. The mental health service is the Cinderella of the health service. I ask the Minister of State to reinstate the accident and emergency service, acute medical beds and intensive care unit at Louth County Hospital and to provide a midwife-led unit.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The Deputy will be glad to know that this is the shortest reply of the night; nonetheless it is important. I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy James Reilly. I thank the Deputy for raising it. In recent years the HSE has been working to reorganise services in the Louth-Meath hospital group. Louth County Hospital has continued to play an important and expanding role in the provision of health services in the north-east region, with a particular focus on diagnostic and day services. A minor injuries unit and additional ambulance services were put in place to support the plan. Stroke rehabilitation, day surgical, day medical, step-down, gynaecology and radiology services remain in Louth County Hospital. In addition, the care of the elderly service has transferred to the hospital from Drogheda. General and orthopaedic rehabilitation services are being developed in Dundalk. A dedicated venesection service has been established and a new colposcopy unit opened at the hospital. Louth County Hospital has also been selected by the National Cancer Screening Service as one of the 15 candidate screening colonoscopy units to provide the colonoscopy requirements for the colorectal cancer screening programme. It is important to stress that patient safety has been central to all decisions taken regarding the operation of health services in the region as well as nationally. The Minister is committed to ensuring acute hospital services at national, regional and local level are provided in a clinically appropriate and efficient manner. In particular, he wants to ensure that as many services as possible can be provided safely in smaller local hospitals. In order to fully consider the issues involved, he is being briefed by the Department and the Health Service Executive on the organisation of acute services in each region and the important clinical programmes being developed by the executive. These interrelated programmes aim to improve service quality, effectiveness and patient access and ensure patient care is provided in the service setting most appropriate to individual needs. I will pass on the Deputy’s request for a meeting to the Minister. This is a new Government which will look at matters differently.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Go raibh maith agat.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 30 March 2011.

710 Questions— 29 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 10, inclusive, answered orally.

Questions Nos. 11 to 28, inclusive, resubmitted.

Questions Nos. 29 to 38, inclusive, answered orally.

Question No. 39 answered with Question No. 34.

Intellectual Property 40. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the way he will support the development of an international content services centre as per the programme for Government; when this centre will be developed; when the national intellectual property protocol will be developed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5867/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Government for National Recovery Programme commits to examine how an International Content Services Centre could be developed to make Ireland a world leader in managing intellectual property. The concept of the International Content Services Centre involves establishing Ireland as a centre for funding, trading and distributing content and arranging the back office fulfilment for global traders in this field. It would require a sound regulatory environment, matched with appropriate infrastructure, technology and professional support. Ireland has significant competitive advantages that make us well placed to develop such an International Centre. These strengths include:

• Through the IFSC we have established a base of relevant skills and support services;

• A large number of US MNCs already have operations in Ireland;

• A modern statutory framework for IP;

• A recently updated IP taxation regime;

• We provide an English language location within the EU. 711 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

I plan to assemble key stakeholders to sketch out the steps needed to develop a robust proposition that would pass the necessary cost benefit tests required by the Programme for Government. The attainment of a predictable, consistent and speedy intellectual property regime in Ireland is another, complementary goal. The main output to give effect to this aim will be the National Intellectual Property Protocol which provides clarity around expectations and terms and ensures efficient processes for the commercialisation of IP from publicly funded research. To that end an Intellectual Property Implementation Group chaired by Dr. Jim Mountjoy and comprising technology transfer practitioners and industry representatives from various sectors is operating under the aegis of my Department, charged with the task of developing proposals for a more user-friendly system for industry to commercialise State-funded intellectual property and give Ireland a competitive advantage over many other countries. The desired outcome of the work of this group will be to ensure that all enterprises, from small businesses to multinationals, get appropriate access to intellectual property arising from Government funded research and can then use it to create jobs and drive our economic recovery.

Commercial Rent Reviews 41. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he, in conjunction with the Department of Justice and Law Reform will examine ending upward only rent reviews for existing leases; when they will meet to discuss same; the envisioned timeframe for the introduction of this legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5866/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Rental costs are an important factor for the competitiveness of businesses in the economy. Over recent years, upward-only rent reviews kept rents for many businesses at an artificially high level, despite the fall in property values and open market rental trends. Under the Land Conveyancing and Law Reform Act 2009, upward-only rent reviews were abolished for all new leases signed on or after 28th February 2010. Under Section 132 of the Act, rents can now decrease, remain the same, or increase if appropriate, on review. The Land Conveyancing and Law Reform Act 2009 does not apply to the review of rent on contracts entered into prior to 28th February 2010. However, the Programme for Government expresses our intention to legislate to end upward-only rent reviews for existing leases. The question of legislating in respect of upward-only rent reviews comes within the remit of the Minister for Justice and Law Reform. I intend to have an early engagement with the Minister for Justice and Law Reform on this issue in advance of any legislative proposals.

Work Permits 42. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he will ratify the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families; if he will change the employment permits system to grant permits to workers within designated job categories with the right to freely change employer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5880/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The UN Conven- tion to which the Deputy refers comes within the remit of a number of Departments including Justice, Equality and Defence as well as Foreign Affairs and Trade. I understand that Ireland has not signed, nor has it any immediate plans to ratify the UN International Convention on 712 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, adopted in December 1990. I understand also that, to date, no EU Member State has ratified this Convention. However the Deputy may wish to put down a separate question on this specific issue to the relevant Minister. In response to the Deputy’s question on the employment permits regime and the right to freely change employer, I would point out that such a change would represent a fundamental policy change in that, a core and crucial element of the current employment permit system is that it is vacancy-driven and job specific. Given the prevailing challenges in the domestic labour market, permits are issued only if the vacancy cannot be filled from within the EEA in respect of highly paid and highly skilled jobs. Prospective employers are required to carry out an extensive and expensive labour market needs test to justify the issue of permits to non-EEA nationals and it would be unfair if, having invested the time and expense involved, shortly after arrival that person were to take up employment with a different employer where no identifiable labour market shortage has been approved. I believe that the current arrangements for changing employers after the initial 12-month period is, given the employment rights protections that apply, sufficiently flexible. A properly controlled employment permit system requires that permits be issued to a specific employee for a specific job with a specific employer. Although employment permits are employer and location specific, it is the case that my Department currently makes best efforts to facilitate those who encounter difficult situations and who wish to change employers. In 2010, for instance, almost 1,200 new employment permits were issued in respect of employees changing to new employers. These permit applications were issued without regard to the normal requirements of advertising the position in daily newspapers and with FÁS. Additionally, where individual instances are brought to the Department’s attention, my Department considers such applications sensitively on a case-by-case basis. In such cases, the normal labour market economic needs test is dispensed with. That gives those individuals full and free access to all sectors of the labour market and to all employers. In 2010, a total of 92 such applications for new permits of this nature were received of which 70 were granted.

Enterprise Support Services 43. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the steps he will take to support enterprise development in the midland and western regions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5767/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The role of Government is to create the conditions where enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation can flourish and quality employment opportunities can be grown and maintained. Two Industrial Development agencies under the aegis of my Department, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, together with the relevant County Enterprise Boards (CEBs) support enterprise development in the regions in question. The primary role of IDA Ireland is the attraction of high quality Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to Ireland. An integral and fundamental element of this role is the agency’s mandate to promote sustainable and balanced regional development. One of the high level goals of IDA’s strategy “Horizon 2020 “ is that in the period to 2014, 50% of new FDI projects will be located outside of Dublin and Cork. To date in 2011, of the ten investments announced, four are located outside of Dublin and Cork. Three of these are located in the West Region and one in the Midlands. These announcements alone have the potential to create 190 jobs. 713 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

The marketing of individual areas for FDI and jobs is a day-to-day operational matter for the agency. While I may give general policy directives to the agency, I am precluded under the Industrial Development Acts from giving directives regarding individual undertakings or from giving preference to one area over others. However, I can say that the agency has invested heavily in the provision of property solutions tailored to meet the needs of investors and has developed a network of high-quality Business Parks in locations throughout both regions. Considerable success has been achieved in attracting high quality investment to both regions. At present, there are a total of 115 IDA supported companies employing over 18,000 people between both regions. The key sectors of focus are life sciences, information and communications technologies and high value services activities. IDA has a good pipeline for 2011 and is hopeful of securing further investments across a number of locations. Enterprise Ireland has a wide range of programmes to address the multi-disciplinary demands of entrepreneurship and the diversity of business types. The agency supports companies to achieve productivity gains, internationalisation and export growth. It assists with research and development, management skills acquisition, market information and seed and venture capital. Between the two regions, the agency has almost 700 clients employing over 17,000 people. In 2010, Enterprise Ireland-assisted companies created 457 new full-time jobs in the Midlands region and 786 in the West. In addition, over €23m was approved for the agency’s client companies in the two regions. During 2010, the CEBs in the two regions paid out over €2.3m in grant assistance to 207 clients. Of this, €1.1m was paid out to 101 client companies in the Midlands Region comprising counties Laois, Offaly, Longford and Westmeath. €1.2m was paid out to 106 client companies in counties Galway, Mayo and Roscommon which make up the West Region. This year, the CEBs are continuing to support enterprise development through the provision of both direct financial assistance (in the form of capital, feasibility and employment grants) and through indirect or “soft support” assistance such as management development, capability support and the development and delivery of activities to highlight and promote enterprise. I am satisfied that the policies and initiatives being pursued by the Industrial Development agencies and the County Enterprise Boards will continue to bring about industrial development and employment opportunities for the regions.

44. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the way he will promote the development of the social enterprise sector as per the programme for Govern- ment; the role enterprise agencies will be given in encouraging the development of social enterprises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5876/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The enterprise agencies under the aegis of my Department do not have a role in the provision of supports to social enterprise. The agencies are focussed on assisting enterprises in the commercial sphere to create employment through export led growth. In terms of promoting community activity and social enterprise, the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs has responsibility for the Rural Development Programme 2007 –13 and the Local and Community Development Programme. Responsibility for the Community Services Programme, which supports local community activity that addresses disadvantage, transferred from the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs to the Department of Social Protection in 2010.

45. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the way community employment and enterprise support functions are to be transferred from agen- 714 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers cies to local government as per the programme for Government; the form this will take; the way these services will be administered; if the ultimate responsibility and accountability rest with him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5863/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): As Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation one of my main priorities is to ensure that the manner in which State support for enterprise activity, entrepreneurship stimulation and job creation is delivered, is properly targeted and is effective and coherent. I want to ensure that it is cost effective and that the resources available to the State are used to maximise business activity and sustainability across all sectors and to drive economic recovery. Apart from the principal Enterprise Development Agencies i.e. Enterprise Ireland and the County and City Enterprise Boards, who report directly to my Department, there are other State Bodies, and organisations, providing a range of enterprise type supports. Notwithstanding the fact that each of these Bodies and organisations has a distinct client base the Programme for Government recognises that there is a multiplicity of enterprise and job support functions being carried out by various local, regional and national agencies. Therefore there is a need to streamline such functions, to increase shared knowledge capability and resources while saving on administration costs to ensure that duplication and overlap is avoided. However in progressing any such streamlining it is essential that we do not compromise on service delivery to the end user. While unnecessary overlap or duplication must be eliminated, as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, it is my priority to ensure that, above all else, there is a coherent and cohesive delivery of State support to the indigenous business sector based on clear enterprise policy principles laid down by my Department and to ensure that any structural or institutional changes do not compromise the State’s support for indigenous businesses. I am engaging with my officials and other Government colleagues to determine the best way forward.

Employment Rights 46. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his plans to strengthen the protections available for domestic workers against abusive employers; his plans to criminalise forced labour; if he plans to opt into Directive 2009/52/EC which provides protection for undocumented third party nationals against exploitative employers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5881/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I wish to advise the Deputy that Ireland’s body of employment rights legislation protects all workers employed in Ireland in a contractual employer-employee relationship. This includes entitlement to applicable wages and conditions as well as the right to legal redress for possible infringements of employment law. Specifically, Section 20 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time) Work Act, 2001 provides that all employee protection legislation applies to a person, irrespective of nationality or place of residence, who has entered into a contract of employment that allows them to be employed in the State. For domestic workers, a voluntary Code of Practice for Persons Employed in Other People’s Homes was developed under the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Code seeks to set out certain employment rights and practices for persons employed in other people’s homes and encourages good practice and compliance with the law in such employment situations. The Code has been cited by the international community, in the context of the current development of international labour instruments such as in the case of the preparation of an International 715 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] Labour Office Convention and accompanying Recommendation on Decent Work for Domestic Workers, as an example of good practice in this area. In terms of compliance with employment rights in the domestic work sector, Ireland is to the fore in that currently, the National Employment Rights Authority is undertaking a pilot programme to assess the level of compliance in the domestic work sector. This is being conducted in full consultation and with the positive co-operation of non-governmental organisations. As regards the issue of forced labour, unlike employment law that is based on a contractual and consensual employer/employee relationship, forced labour is in the category of indentured labour, trafficking and slavery. These are offences that violate basic human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. At national level, such protections fall to be dealt with by my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence in the context, inter alia, of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008. As regards Directive 2009/52, this falls also within the realm of the Justice and Home Affairs pillar of Community law. I am not in a position to respond to the Deputy in relation to these aspects of the question and I would suggest he put down a separate question to the Minister for Justice and Law Reform on the subject.

Official Engagements 47. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he has met with his counterpart in the Assembly; if he will be seeking a meeting with his colleagues in the Assembly in advance of and after the Assembly elections to discuss an all-Ireland enterprise policy; if he will be prioritising co-operation with his Northern counterparts to sell Ireland as a place for business; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5883/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): As the Deputy is aware, the Northern Ireland Assembly was dissolved on 25 March, and elections to the Assembly are to be held on 5th May. It is of course my intention to meet with whoever is subsequently appointed as my counterpart in the Executive. I particularly look forward to my first formal working meeting in the context of the North South Ministerial Council in its Trade and Business Development format, which I will be chairing. This is likely to be held in June. In this format the Council oversees and develops the work of InterTradeIreland and encourages co-operation between enterprise agencies North and South. InterTradeIreland was established under the Good Friday Agreement to exchange information and co-ordinate work on trade, business development and related matters in areas where the two administrations specifically agree it would be in their mutual interest. InterTrade Ireland’s remit is focussed on the indigenous enterprise sector, small and medium-sized companies, North and South. Its programmes and activities are unique in that they are implemented across two jurisdictions on an all-island basis. Its programmes cover All-Island Business Net- works, Cross-border Trade, Micro Enterprise Support, Private Equity Awareness, Science, Technology and Innovation, All-Island Benchmarking, and Business and Economic Research. The enterprise development agencies North and South of the Border have for many years co-operated where this has added value to their activities, and this collaboration has greatly increased in recent years. Enterprise Ireland, which stimulates the development of indigenous enterprise, has extensive contact with its Northern counterparts and works with them on a range of programmes. IDA Ireland collaborates with Invest Northern Ireland, for example, in the Northwest Now initiative. More recently, there have been very positive developments where a wide range of agencies and institutions now co-operate on science and technology issues, including participation in the EU Research Framework Programme. 716 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

The Government, along with the enterprise development agencies, will work diligently with the Northern Ireland Executive and its agencies to increase the economic benefits accruing from cross-border co-operation and the work of the North South Bodies.

Credit Availability 48. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he will implement the temporary, partial credit guarantee scheme as provided for in the programme for Government; the time scale for the implementation, duration and cessation of this scheme; if there will be a cost of providing this insurance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5411/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Government has published a comprehensive programme setting out its goals over the full range of policy concerns. The Government will address this programme over its term of office in a measured and prioritised way. The introduction of a temporary, partial credit guarantee scheme as provided for in the Programme for Government is currently under consideration. My officials are working with their colleagues in the Department of Finance, the Credit Review Office, Enterprise Ireland and Forfás to address access to credit issues for viable SMEs, including the option of a loan guarantee scheme to assist their working capital. It is important, however, that any new initiatives complement, rather than substitute, the main banks’ lending commitments and activities under the 2010 recapitalisation package and that they would represent value for money from the taxpayer’s perspective. When the necessary detailed assessment work has been done, the Government will be in a position to decide on the cost and time scale for the implementation, duration and cessation of any proposed temporary, partial credit guarantee scheme and determine whatever legislative backing is required for any such scheme.

Job Creation 49. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the sectoral initiatives that will be implemented in the domestic economy as per the programme for Government; the funding that will be dedicated to these sectoral initiatives; the time line for rolling out these initiatives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5875/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Restoring confidence to the economy and facilitating the creation and retention of jobs will require a range of strategies, as set out in the Programme for Government. In addition to increasing our exports and continuing to attract investment from overseas, the Government recognises the importance of supporting companies trading in the domestic economy. In this context, the Programme for Government includes a commitment to develop initiatives in a number of sectors that will encourage job creation in the domestic economy. These include initiatives in the retail and SME sectors, ICT, agri-food, tourism, and green enterprise. The initiatives will be developed and implemented across a range of Government Departments. For my own part, I intend to develop initiatives to target particular sectors where there is greatest opportunity to capitalise on the strengths of our enterprise base and our people. I have already started working with the enterprise agencies under my Department’s remit to develop a Jobs Programme that will include the detail of these initiatives. The resources required for the sectoral initiatives which I am progressing will be considered in the course of their development. However, the initiatives will not necessarily require significant increases in public fund- 717 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] ing. There are ways in which we can do things better across Government to support businesses, reduce their costs, and restore consumer confidence. My objective is to bring the detail of these initiatives to Government within the Govern- ment’s first 100 days in office. Collectively, the actions taken across Government will stimulate the economy, facilitate enterprises and encourage job creation in both the domestic economy and the internationally trading sector.

50. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when the 2011 jobs programme and the jobs fund will become operational; when businesses will be expected to be able to access the measures contained within the jobs fund as per the programme for Government; the way the many jobs envisioned will be created out of these measures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5858/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Programme for Government outlines a number of measures which the Government will take to resource a Jobs Fund which will facilitate jobs growth and sustainable enterprise. Key elements of the approach will include:

• providing resources for an additional 15,000 places in training, work experience and educational opportunities for those who are out of work;

• cutting the 13.5% rate of VAT to 12% up to end 2013 to help labour-intensive economic activity;

• halving the lower 8.5% rate of PRSI up to end 2013 on jobs paying up to €356 per week;

• implementing a number of sectoral initiatives in areas that will create employment in the domestic economy;

• initiating a long-term strategy to develop new markets in emerging economies;

• securing additional resources for the national housing energy retrofitting plan, which will create jobs in the construction sector;

• expanding eligibility for the back to education allowance; and

• accelerating labour-intensive capital works, including in respect of schools and secondary roads.

The Taoiseach has indicated that the Government will introduce a Jobs Budget within its first 100 days in office to give effect to these, and other, growth strategies. These measures will be implemented across a number of different Government Departments. For my own part, I intend to develop initiatives to target particular sectors where there is greatest opportunity to capitalise on the strengths of our enterprise base and our people. I have already started working with the enterprise development agencies under my Department’s remit to develop a Jobs Programme that will develop the detail of these initiatives. I will also be working with my Government colleagues to address the cost of doing business and to further reduce the administrative burden on firms. Collectively, the actions taken across Government will stimulate the economy, facilitate enterprises and encourage job creation.

Public Procurement 51. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation 718 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers the way public procurement will be reformed to support innovative Irish firms and to allow greater access to Irish small and medium enterprises as per the programme for Government; the recommendations he has made to the Department of Finance on the reform of public procurement in order that contracts are tendered to allow SMEs greater access; when public procurement will be reformed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5870/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Programme for Government includes a commitment to reform public procurement to support innovative Irish firms and to allow greater access to procurement by Irish small and medium sized businesses. While responsibility for public procurement policy is a matter for the Minister for Finance, my Department has a particular interest in this area because of the potential for SMEs to win a share of the public procurement market which is valued in the region of €14 billion per annum in Ireland. In 2008, my Department established a Procurement Innovation Group, comprising representatives of industry, academia, Government Departments and State agencies to identify ways through which public procurement could be used to stimulate demand for innovative goods and services and ensure a level playing field for all innovative companies wishing to participate in public tendering. The Group reported in July 2009 and also published The 10-Step Guide to Smart Procurement and SME Access to Public Contracts. The Guide provides practical advice to public bodies on measures which could boost the involvement of SMEs in public procurement. In August 2010, new guidelines were issued by the Department of Finance to public contracting authorities, aimed at ensuring that their tendering processes operate in a manner that facilitates increased participation by SMEs, while ensuring that all purchasing is carried out in a manner that is legal, transparent, and secures optimal value for money for the taxpayer. The guidelines also highlight practices that can unintentionally hinder small businesses in competing for public contracts. The Department of Finance’s 2010 guidelines reflect many of the recommendations made in the report of the Procurement Innovation Group. My Department has recently engaged with the National Procurement Service (NPS) in relation to the availability of data on public procurement in Ireland, in particular in relation to quantifying the numbers of contracts which are being competed for, and won by, SMEs. The NPS is currently in the process of undertaking an overhaul of the eTenders portal system and has agreed to capture additional data as part of its upgrade to the system. As part of its engagement with my Department, the NPS has also agreed to carry out surveys in the coming months to ascertain the success rate of SMEs which apply for public contracts, and to identify some of the issues which may be a barrier to winning such contracts. In parallel with the activity that has been taking place at Departmental level, Enterprise Ireland has established a Public Procurement Team to focus on procurement opportunities in Ireland and abroad for indigenous companies, and to accelerate knowledge within contracting authorities in the public service of the potential of these Irish companies. I have asked my officials to review the current status of the recommendations made by the Procurement Inno- vation Group and to report to me on any outstanding issues that need to be addressed to further facilitate access to public procurement contracts by Irish companies within the parameters of EU procurement rules. I will consult with the Minister for Finance — and other colleagues as necessary — on foot of this review.

Question No. 52 answered with Question No. 34.

National Minimum Wage 53. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when the 719 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Gerry Adams.] cut in the minimum wage will be reversed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5884/11]

56. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he has engaged with the retail and hospitality sectors on the issue of the minimum wage; and when he will legislate for the increase in the wage as per the programme for Government. [5787/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 56 together. There is a commitment in the Programme for Government to reverse the recent cut in the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage was reduced with effect from the 1st February 2011 by order made pursuant to section 11(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, as amended by section 13 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2010 which required that the Minister, by order, declare a national minimum hourly rate of pay of €7.65. The commitment to reverse the recent cut in the national minimum wage will require primary legislation. To this end, I intend to publish Heads of a Bill to give effect to this commitment before 31 May next. The wage rates applicable in the retail grocery and hospitality sectors are governed by the Joint Labour Committee system rather than the national minimum wage. In this context, an independent review of the JLC and REA mechanisms was initiated on 8 February 2011 last and is being undertaken jointly by Kevin Duffy, Chairman of the Labour Court acting in an ad hoc capacity and Dr Frank Walsh, School of Economics, UCD, under specific terms of reference. The review is a commitment under the EU/IMF programme, which provided not only for agreement on the terms of reference but also the programme of actions arising. I understand that submissions were received by the review team from representative bodies for the retail grocery and hospitality sectors. The Terms of Reference for the review provide, inter alia, that the review shall provide an assessment of whether and to what extent the function played by Employment Regulation Orders in ensuring protection of minimum wages and conditions overlaps with that of the statutory national minimum wage system.

Job Creation 54. Deputy Seamus Kirk asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the steps he is taking to create employment in County Louth. [5827/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Job creation is central to our economic recovery and the Programme for Government has job creation at its core. The role of my Department is to ensure that we have the right policies in place that will support and grow our enterprise base in order to facilitate both job creation and job retention. The programmes supported by my Department and its agencies will be critical in achieving economic growth through promoting the export potential of enterprise in Ireland and driving our Smart Economy. The allocation of €508 million in funding for 2011 will ensure that the core programmes of the enterprise agencies are sustained and targeted as well as driving investment in research and development. This investment in the enterprise development agencies will drive recovery in the economy by facilitating the winning of foreign direct investments, the growth of indigenous exports and the creation of sustainable jobs. Enterprise Ireland will continue to support job creation through a number of interventions, such as supporting the establishment and growth of high potential start-up companies and 720 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers supporting companies to target new opportunities in overseas markets. In 2010, Enterprise Ireland paid €6.4m to companies in Co. Louth in the Engineering, Food, Consumer Products and ICT sectors. At present, there are 181 Enterprise Ireland client companies in Co. Louth employing over 4,200 people. The agency has approved funding for six Community Enterprise Centres in Co. Louth, under the Community Enterprise Centre Scheme, amounting to €1.97m to date. Recently, Enterprise Ireland was involved with Louth County Enterprise Board in the recent ‘Enterprise Week’ which was held in the first week in March. Co. Louth has the largest concentration of IDA supported companies in the North East Region with more than 1,600 people employed in 23 companies. IDA Ireland is actively marketing Co. Louth for new inward investment, particularly the Gateway Town of Dundalk and also Drogheda. The region is being targeted by IDA for new investment in the Pharma, Clean Technologies, Globally Traded Businesses and Financial Services sectors. IDA has developed a major land bank at Mullagharlin to the south of the town of Dundalk. This extends to 150 acres in two parcels of 110 acres and 40 acres respectively and is particularly targeted at Bio Pharma type activities for which the town is being actively marketed. In addition, there are two other business parks: the 20-acre Finnabair Business Park in Dundalk which has, in recent years, undergone major site development works to bring it up to “flagship”- standard, as well as the 63 acre Business & Technology Park in Drogheda. IDA is also working closely with Dundalk Institute of Technology in the development of programmes for the changing needs of the overseas sector. Since its inception in 1993 to end 2010, Louth County Enterprise Board has issued over €5.2m in grant assistance to almost 600 clients. In addition, there were more than 4,600 participants in CEB supported training programmes. At present, there are nearly 900 people employed in CEB-assisted companies in Co. Louth. I am satisfied that the policies and initiatives being pursued by the enterprise agencies and Louth CEB will continue to bring about industrial development and employment opportunities for Co. Louth.

Commercial Debt 55. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when the legally binding voluntary commercial debt plan structures will be introduced as per the programme for Government; the way these structures will work; the persons responsible for overseeing these structures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5872/11]

Question No. 56 answered with Question No. 53.

Grocery Industry 57. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when legislation to ban unfair trading practices in the retail sector will be introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5874/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I expect to shortly receive the report of the facilitator appointed to engage with the various stakeholders to 721 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] explore the possibilities of agreeing a Voluntary Code of Practice to regulate relationships and practices in the Grocery Goods Sector. As soon as I have considered the report a decision will be made on any legislation that might be introduced.

Enterprise Support Services 58. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he will be conducting an examination into allowing entrepreneurs or business start-ups access to vacant or under-utilised public property as incubation centres; the persons who will be responsible for rolling out this programme; the conditions attached to this for persons or businesses seeking premises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5865/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The enterprise agencies under the aegis of my Department currently have a range of initiatives for the provision of space for start-up companies. These include incubation centres, community enterprise centres and business innovation centres. There are currently 26 campus incubation centres facilities that are operational, including 5 bio-incubator facilities. At present, there are over 250 companies in incubation units in these centres, employing over 1,000 people and providing shorter-term hot-desk space for emerging entrepreneurs. The Community Enterprise Centre Scheme has provided significant funding to facilitate the development of community enterprise centres, which are aimed at providing a physical and human support network for emerging entrepreneurs and micro-industry. Since the launch of the first scheme in 1989, €61.4 million has been approved for the development of Community Enterprise Centres and the schemes have aided the capital investment and management development of 134 centres, of which 105 have been completed. The remaining centres are either under construction or are recent approvals. In addition, Business Innovation Centres located in Dublin, Galway, Cork and Waterford develop and manage incubation space to assist fledgling businesses start, establish and then to move on so that vacated space can be used for other new start-up businesses. The enterprise agencies keep the need for space of this type under review. Implementation of the actions in the National Recovery Plan are currently being considered.

Proposed Legislation 59. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he will introduce legislation to protect all small building subcontractors that have been denied payments from bigger companies; if this legislation will be supplementary to the Con- struction Contracts Bill 2010 or if it will replace same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5869/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Government has published a comprehensive programme setting out its goals over the full range of policy concerns. The Government will address this programme over its term of office in a measured and prioritised way. In accordance with the Programme, consideration will be given to the introduction of new legislation to protect all small building contractors that have been denied payments from bigger companies. The Deputy will be aware that the Construction Contracts Bill 2010 which was introduced by Senator Feargal Quinn passed Committee and Remaining Stages in the Seanad on 8 March. I understand that the Seanad debate highlighted a number of matters relating to the Bill that require further consideration. It would also be imperative that the full regulatory impact of such a piece of legislation be fully assessed. The Minister for Finance will now be examining the Bill and will then decide how best to proceed. It is important that a solution to this problem 722 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers must not place an unnecessary regulatory or cost burden on the parties to the dispute, other parties involved in the project, or the State. 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. Legislation relating to prompt payments is within my responsibility. The issue of late payments in respect of contractors and sub-contractors is addressed by the European Communities (Late Payment in Commercial Transactions) Regu- lations 2002 (S.I. No. 388 of 2002). Regulation (2)(1) of the Regulations defines a “purchaser” as follows:

“(a) an undertaking which contracts with a supplier for the supply of goods or services to or on the directions of the undertaking, or

(b) an undertaking (“the main contractor”)—

(i) which obtains goods or services from another undertaking to supply to, or

(ii) contracts with another undertaking for that undertaking to provide goods or services on behalf of the main contractor to an undertaking;”

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 refinancing 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.

Question No. 60 was answered with Question No. 34.

Departmental Bodies 61. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when the business inspection and licensing authority will be set up as per the programme for Government; the persons who will be responsible for overseeing this authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5871/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I intend to have proposals for the establishment of BILA developed by the end of May. While the concept of a single licensing and inspection authority spans the remit of a number of Government Depart- ments, I intend to initiate arrangements within my Department in the first instance and to build from there. I am currently appraising the core objectives, activities and structures of the Department and its Offices and Agencies with a view to putting in place a new strategy for the Department. It is my intention that structures would reflect this new strategy. Businesses interact with regulatory authorities in several ways including requests for information, inspections, investigations and various forms of licensing. In the area of business regulation, one of the key aims of Government is to make compliance easier, simpler and less costly. Streamlining inspection and licensing services is one potential strand in an overall strategy to 723 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] achieve this aim. The proposal for a business inspection and licensing authority provides a vehicle for imaginative and more effective resource sharing in this area. I believe that there are considerable gains to be made on the business licensing issue. The ideal for small and large enterprises alike would be a common portal for licences and permits of various kinds. We are a long way from that ideal, not least because of the structures and the proliferation of agencies that have been put in place, particularly over the past decade. However, there may be practical and tangible things that can be done in the meantime and I will be looking at these. If necessary, I will establish new arrangements on an interim basis in order to deliver benefits as soon as possible to businesses that are struggling to stay afloat, let alone cope with undue administrative burdens.

Innovation Fund 62. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he will continue to support the innovation fund established by Fianna Fáil in government. [5794/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Innovation Fund Ireland is part of a suite of policy initiatives to position Ireland as a Global Innovation Hub. The overall objective of the Innovation Fund is not just to increase the availability and diversity of smart capital for start-up and scaling firms, but also to transform the market by attracting top tier fund managers to Ireland and support the further development of the venture capital sector. The objectives of Innovation Fund Ireland are consistent with the commitments laid out in the Programme for Government for the development of a more dynamic venture capital industry in Ireland by seeking to attract top tier venture financing and investment companies to Ireland. The €250 million available under the Fund will run along two parallel tracks. The first comprises a €125 million pool of funds provided by the Exchequer and managed by Enterprise Ireland. Successful applicants who receive an investment from Enterprise Ireland will have to commit to investing an equivalent amount in Irish companies or companies with substantial Irish operations over the lifetime of their fund. The second is for a similar amount, and is designed to allow Ireland’s National Pension Reserve Fund (NPRF) to make a similar level of commercial investments assuming its criteria are met. The first call for expressions of interest in Innovation Fund Ireland closed on the 26th November 2010. At present, Enterprise Ireland and officials from the National Pension Reserve Fund (NPRF) are in the process of concluding the evaluation of the 32 expressions of interest received, with a view to making a number of commitments to Venture Capital fund managers in the near term. The funds will invest in Europe with a focus on Ireland. Over the lifetime of the funds, it is envisaged that the State will make a return on its investment. In terms of economic growth, where the Funds invest in Irish start-ups, scaling companies or companies with operations in Ireland, the State can expect to see an increase in employment; an increase in the number of high potential start-ups; the attraction of high potential start up and scaling European technology and life science companies requiring growth capital investment to Ireland and increased commercialisation of the ideas and R&D coming out of the Universities and Institutes of Tech- nology. All of this will position Ireland as a centre for technology, life sciences and venture capital investment within Europe through multiple fund iterations.

Company Law 63. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his 724 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers plans to update the current partnership law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5766/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Company Law Review Group (CLRG) gave in-depth consideration, over a period of 4 years, to the reform of partnership law, in particular to the possibility of introducing Limited Liability Partnerships for accountants and solicitors. In general, the CLRG did not find any strong tide of opinion running in favour of introducing Limited Liability Partnerships. However, the Group did say that the issue warranted some further consideration and recommended that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and the Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform should establish a committee, made up of representatives of both Departments and of the CLRG, the Irish Accountancy and Auditing Supervisory Authority and the Courts Service, to consider whether accountants and solicitors should be permitted to form Limited Liability Partnerships or companies. I understand that this committee will meet shortly. In the meantime, there have been some changes to the overall position on liability. Section 44 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 provides that a solicitor may contract with a client to limit his/ her liability to that client. Furthermore, S.I. 220/2010, European Communities (Statutory Audits) (Directive 2006/43/EC) Regulations 2010, provides, among other things, for the removal of the prohibition on auditors incorporating as a limited liability company.

Census of Population 64. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach the role of CACI (UK) in the current census of population; the financial value of the contract; and the protection that exists for citizens regarding the data collected. [5942/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): The census is a major undertaking for the CSO and contractors have been employed to assist with specialised parts of the work. For 2011 the contract for the design and print of the census forms, and the provision and on-site support of the hardware and software required for the scanning, capture and coding of the census forms was awarded to a UK company CACI (UK) Ltd. This company was first awarded the contract for the processing of the 2002 and 2006 censuses and more recently won the contract for Census 2011. Of the proposals assessed by CSO for 2011, CACI (UK) Ltd provided best value for money for the Irish taxpayer. EU rules do not allow bidders to be excluded because they are foreign companies. The printing of the census forms was sub- contracted by CACI (UK) Ltd. to a Dublin-based printer. The CSO is aware of abuse allegations against the American parent company of CACI (UK) Ltd, namely CACI International. CACI (UK) Ltd. states that the allegation against CACI International was not substantiated by any evidence or proof at the time it was made, and subsequent investigations by both CACI International and the US Government could not confirm it. CACI International have stated publicly that they take this allegation extremely seriously, that they do not condone, tolerate or endorse any illegal behaviour by its employees in any circumstances or at any time and they have held in the past, and always will hold, themselves to the highest ethical standards. As a public body the Central Statistics Office is clearly fundamentally committed to ethical and proper conduct in all matters and would never consider having any dealings with a company convicted of human rights abuse. EU procurement rules allow bidders to be excluded if they have been convicted of certain criminal or other offences but none of these exclusions apply to CACI (UK) Ltd. or indeed to its US parent. Regarding the protection of census data, confidentiality is the cornerstone of all work conducted by the CSO. All information collected in the census is treated as strictly confidential by 725 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Paul Kehoe.] the CSO and will be used only for statistical purposes. This confidentiality is guaranteed by law. CACI (UK) Ltd’s American parent company is not involved in any way in the preparation or delivery of systems for the Irish Census. All Census 2011 forms will be processed in the CSO census office located in Swords where all information is stored on a dedicated closed CSO network which is wholly owned by the CSO. At no time will any of the detailed census information be copied or otherwise removed from this network. All staff who are employed to work on the processing of the 2011 census data are signed-up as Officers of Statistics under the Statistics Act 1993 which legally prohibits them from divulging confidential statistical data of any sort. The penalty for breach of this provision of the Act is set at €25,000. The CSO is the only organisation that will have access to identifiable census information relating to individuals or households. The CSO is justifiably proud of its unblemished record in protecting the confidentiality of data. It is one of their top priorities to maintain this record.

65. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach if he will furnish a breakdown of the employment status of those recruited to undertake the present census of population. [5943/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): A total of 5,536 people have been recruited to assist with the field work on the 2011 census. 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. The field staff can be divided into two separate types of contract, the field managers and supervisors, and the enumerators. The 490 census field managers are all employed full time on the census. Some 4,866 census enumerators are engaged in a part-time capacity; on taking up employment as enumerators 3,074 people indicated that they were not in employment and 1,777 indicated some form of other employment. However 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 those in existing employment are working part-time elsewhere. Again it was not open to the CSO to exclude people on this basis. 734 enumerators indicated at interview that they were on the Live Register representing 15% of all enumerators.

Departmental Functions 66. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities and activities in his Depart- ment for which he is responsible to Dáil Éireann and which may be the subject of Taoiseach’s questions. [5803/11]

The Taoiseach: I am responsible to the Dáil for the general activities of my Department and parliamentary questions addressed to me must relate to public affairs connected with my Department, or to matters of administration for which I am officially responsible. However, there are specific activities undertaken by officials of my Department for which I do not have official responsibility e.g. decisions made in relation to freedom of information applications or matters concerning release of files under the National Archives Act. I am also accountable to the Dáil in a limited way in respect of a number of State offices, for example, the legal offices of the State and the Central Statistics Office. By and large, I answer questions in the House in relation to matters of administration connected with those offices. Similarly, the nature of my responsibility to the House in respect of any Tribunal 726 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers or Commission established “under the aegis” of my Department is confined primarily to the arrangements relating to their establishment and ongoing administration. The specific nature of my accountability in respect of my Department and those bodies operating within its policy area has long been established by precedent in each case.

Census of Population 67. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the reason the unemployed were not given priority for census jobs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5581/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): All of the recruitment for the census field operation is 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. In making preparations for the recruitment of enumerators for the census, the possibility of giving preference to persons on the Live Register was actively examined by the CSO. However, in light of the need to conduct this recruitment within the strict recruitment principles that apply to all public sector appointments, in practice it has not been open to the CSO to discriminate in favour of any one group of people over another, be they on the Live Register or otherwise. In selecting candidates for the positions of census enumerator, the CSO called over 15,500 people to interview and all applicants were assessed on the basis of their skills, abilities, and suitability for the post in question. The jobs were ultimately offered to the most qualified candidates. In excess of 700 census enumerators now working on the census indicated they were on the Live Register.

Official Engagements 68. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the United States for St. Patrick’s Day; the number of persons he met during the visit; the number of officials who accompanied him on the visit; and the cost of the visit to date. [5919/11]

The Taoiseach: I was in Washington from 15-18 March to attend the traditional St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. During that time I met with a large number of groups and individuals from the worlds of politics, business and culture. 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, 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 was accompanied by my wife, as she was invited to the formal functions hosted by the President and the Vice President. My delegation comprised a senior official from my Department, my special adviser, the current Government Press Secretary and his successor, my private secretary, my personal assistant and a security officer. The estimated costs of the visit are as follows: 727 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[The Taoiseach.]

2011 Sub-total Total

Hotel 4,944 Car Hire 3,519 Other Costs 4,020 Gifts 1,776

14,259 Note: Other costs include: delegation office; photography; equipment and catering.

Passport Applications 69. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the passport for a person (details supplied) in County Kildare will be considered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5655/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): An Irish passport is valid for travel up until the date of expiry. However, some countries require a minimum validity on passports to enter their jurisdictions. The Spanish Embassy in Dublin has confirmed that an Irish passport is valid for travel to Spain and the Canary Islands until the date of expiry in the document. On the basis of the information provided the passport holder should have no difficulty in undertaking this trip.

Official Engagements 70. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent visit to the United States for St. Patrick’s Day; the number of persons he met during the visit; the number of officials who accompanied him on the visit; and the cost of the visit to date. [5926/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): St. Patrick’s Day offers a unique opportunity to raise Ireland’s profile, promote our interests overseas, to strengthen bilateral relations, provide support for Irish communities abroad and to deepen the connection with our Diaspora. This year St. Patrick’s Day was a particularly valuable opportunity to begin the process of rebuilding Ireland’s reputation overseas. I travelled to New York for a two day visit for St. Patrick’s Day events before travelling on to Washington D.C. for a bilateral meeting with the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. My programme was heavily focused on economic promotion. I addressed a business audience at the Ireland-US Council. I attended and addressed a joint Bank of America/Enterprise Ireland event focused on leading Irish portfolio technology companies and had an opportunity to brief senior executives in Bank of America on the Irish economy and the Government’s plans for recovery. I also met with a range of Enterprise Ireland client companies. I also took the opportunity to deliver a strong economic message to large gatherings hosted by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo. I availed of several media opportunities throughout the visit to focus on delivering Ireland’s key economic messages and outlining the policies of the new government. I did interviews with Fox Business News and with NBC, the Adrian Flannelly Show, Out of Ireland (TV show on PBS) and I also met with journalists from the visiting Irish media. While in New York, I met with various community groups including representatives of the Community Advice Centres from New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. 728 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

I had a constructive meeting with representatives from the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) and assured them of the Government’s commitment to work on the bilateral E3 proposal. I welcomed the opportunity to work with the Irish American community to move forward together on the issue of immigration. I had a very a useful meeting with representatives from the Irish American Lesbian and Gay community about a range of issues of concern to them. It was agreed by that we would stay in touch regarding these matters as well as the ongoing effort to resolve issues surrounding participation by the Gay and Lesbian community in the New York St. Patrick’s Day parade. I met with representatives of the GAA and was briefed by Larry McCarthy, President of the New York GAA, on the expansion of the game in the New York area and the wonderful success of individual clubs like Rockland GAA. I was pleased to join New York City Speaker Christine Quinn to launch a partnership initiative between the Irish Arts Centre, Imagine Ireland, Speaker Christine Quinn and the New York City Council, aimed at promoting Irish writing. I travelled to Washington DC for a bilateral meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 18 March. We discussed a broad range of foreign policy issues, including the ongoing situation in Japan and Libya as well as the wider situation in the Middle East. We also discussed the scope for co-operation on development issues. Ireland and the US have a shared priority in combating hunger and we have been able to work together in developing a strong partnership in the area of food security. I also raised the issue of immigration reform with Secretary Clinton and briefed her on the current situation in Northern Ireland. I was accompanied on the visit by two officials from my Department. Details of costs, available to date, incurred by my Department in respect of official travel for St. Patrick’s Day are set out in the following table. The total cost of the visit to date is €4,788.05.

Members of the delegation Travel cost Subsistence Accom. Other costs

€€€€

Tánaiste & Minister for Foreign Affairs & 264.63(1) N/A(2) 393.00 (3) Trade, Mr. Eamon Gilmore PSM, Mr. Aidan Cronin 1,043.47(4) N/A 393.00(6) 264.63(5) 207.00(7) DG Anglo Irish Division, Mr. Niall Burgess 999.81(8) N/A 623.35(10) 119.00(9) 232.00(11) Delegation Costs 157.16(12) N/A 125.00(13)

Total 2,848.70 1,814.35 125.00 (1) Internal Flight from New York-Washington. Tánaiste travelled by Government Jet to and from US. (2) Travel Claims not yet processed. (3) 2 nights accommodation in NY. (4) Flight Dublin — New York. (5) Internal Flight New York — Washington. (6) 2 nights accommodation in NY. (7) 1 night accommodation in Washington. (8) Flight Dublin — Washington. (9) Train from New York to Washington. (10) 3 nights accommodation in Washington. (11) 1 night accommodation in New York. (12) Car hire for Washington only — Consulate Car used in New York. (13) Gift.

729 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Register of Lobbyists 71. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Finance the instructions he has given to Ministers or officials regarding recording of lobbying activity or to limiting the lobbying access to Government of any persons or groups. [5728/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Government has committed to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists and to establishing rules concerning the practice of lobbying. The Government will advance these matters as part of its implementation of its other undertakings on Open Government, including corporate donations and whistleblowers provision and the creation of a new Electoral Commission. It will be necessary to consider the introduction of legislation to underpin these initiatives.

Industrial Sites 72. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 97 and 140 of 12 January 2011, if the report of the working group on the future uses of Haulbowline, County Cork has been finalised and received by him; his plans to publish same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5845/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): The Working Group, established by Government, to develop a structured and coherent approach to the future management and development of the former Irish ISPAT site at Haulbowline, County Cork, is concluding its deliberations. A draft report is being circulated and it is expected that the final report will be available by early May 2011. It will be a matter for Government to decide whether to publish this report.

Tax Code 73. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide details of the steps being taken to address the issue of coal originating in Northern Ireland being distributed in the Republic without payment of the relevant taxes. [5656/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that there are no taxation restrictions on businesses registered for tax in one EU Member State transacting business with customers in other EU Member States. As the Deputy will be aware, Value-Added Tax is a European Community wide-tax governed by the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC and all Member States must ensure their domestic VAT legislation complies with this Directive. The VAT treatment of cross-Border sales of goods depends on the VAT status of both the supplier and the customer. Where a UK VAT-registered supplier sells goods, including coal, to a VAT-registered customer in this State the transaction is not subject to UK VAT and the Irish customer must self- account for Irish VAT at 13.5%. Where the total value of supplies by a UK supplier to unregis- tered customers in Ireland exceeds €35,000 in a year the UK supplier must register and account for Irish VAT on all such supplies. The VAT Directive provides that VAT-registered persons must lodge periodic VIES State- ments of their intra-Community supplies of goods and services showing the total value of goods and services supplied in the period analysed by each VAT-registered person in each EU- member State. Member States, including Ireland, use the information on the VIES statements to check compliance in relation to self-accounting for domestic VAT. Council Directive 2008/8/EC provides for the more frequent filing of VIES Statements (quarterly or monthly) and

730 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers the increased frequency of filing the VIES Statements provides better real-time information to counter instances of potential evasion of VAT. The distribution of coal by UK suppliers to Irish customers has been the subject of compliance enquiries in Revenue Regions and is subject to periodic review. Where the circumstances indicate significant evasion the matter is passed to Revenue’s Investigation and Pros- ecutions Division for investigation with a view to possible prosecution. Revenue liaise on an ongoing basis with their counterparts in HM Revenue and Customs Northern Ireland in relation to cross-Border activities where there is the potential for tax evasion.

Financial Services Regulation 74. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance when he will establish the promised commission to review the future of the credit union movement and make recommendations in relation to the most effective regulatory structure for credit unions, taking into account their not-for-profit mandate, their volunteer ethos and community focus, while paying due regard to the need to fully protect depositors’ savings and financial stability. [5659/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Programme for National Government 2011-2016 sets out the Government position with regard to the credit union sector. The Govern- ment recognises the important role of credit unions as a volunteer co-operative movement and the distinction between them and other types of financial institutions and will establish a Commission as described by the Deputy. The Deputy will be aware that, under the EU/IMF Programme of Support for Ireland, we have certain commitments in relation to the credit union sector. The Commission on Credit Unions will have the role of building on the strategy to secure the future of the movement which will be in place by end-April 2011 and I would wish to establish the Commission in due course.

Tax Clearance Certificates 75. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he will support the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 3 regarding a tax clearance certificate. [5661/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that they have written to the taxpayer in question advising him to contact his local tax office so that an agreement can be reached regarding the payment of the arrears outstanding. The issue of the Tax Clearance Certificate will then be considered.

Public Sector Staff 76. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Finance when he expects to be in a position to offer a voluntary redundancy scheme to employees in the civil and public service, including local authorities, and in the Health Service Executive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5682/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Government is committed to reducing public service numbers by up to 25,000 by 2015, subject to there being no compulsory redun- dancies and to the protection of front line services. The measures necessary to give effect to these reductions are being developed by the Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, taking account of the existing projections for staff numbers over the coming years.

Civil Service Staff 77. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Finance his policy regarding staff employed

731 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.] from temporary panels in the Civil Service; if all of these temporary contracts are for fixed periods; if there is a policy of rotation of work between persons on the panels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5695/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Vacancies for Temporary Clerical Officers arise, from time to time, in various Government Departments and Offices throughout the country. Such vacancies are filled by way of recruitment campaigns undertaken by the Public Appointments Service (PAS). The most recent campaign was announced on 24th February 2011 and closed on 2nd March 2011. In excess of 13,500 applications were received. A selection process to put in place panels to fill temporary clerical positions is currently under way. The competition will provide a ready supply of qualified candidates who will then be available throughout the country to the civil service and other public sector bodies wishing to draw from these panels. This competition was initiated primarily in response to demands from the civil service. Experience shows that while the bulk of these temporary vacancies arise during the summer period to cover Term-Time needs, vacancies may arise at various times during the rest of the year. The duration of the contracts will vary from post to post and according to the needs of the appointing Department/Office. Appointments from the panels are made in order of merit.

Proposed Legislation 78. Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance his plans to introduce legislation to give equal tax status to persons who entered civil partnership agreements overseas who have legal recognition here but yet are treated as strangers under the tax code; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5699/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The position is that legislation to provide the same tax treatment for civil partners as that provided for spouses is currently in preparation. It is intended that the legislation will have effect for the tax year 2011 and subsequent years. As the Deputy is aware the shortened timescale for this year’s Finance Act meant that it was not possible to include the legislation in that Act but it is intended that the legislation will be put before the House shortly as part of Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011. Persons who entered into civil partnerships overseas which are recognised in the State and who have tax obligations or entitlements here will, under the legislation that is currently being prepared, be treated for tax purposes in the same way as civil partners who enter into civil partnerships in the State.

Universal Social Charge 79. Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Finance the way the universal social charge is being applied to persons in receipt of a pension from the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5776/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The position is that the Universal Social Charge (USC) does not apply to social welfare payments or payments of a similar nature made by any other state or territory. Therefore, an individual in receipt of a UK pension, which is of a similar nature to payments made by the Department of Social Protection, will not be subjected to USC on that payment. However, if that individual is in receipt of an occupational pension paid by a UK pension provider or former employer that income will be liable to the USC.

732 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Natural Heritage Areas 80. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Finance if the Office of Public Works will extend the permit for boatmen (details supplied) to cover from the beginning of April to the end of October 2011; if the permit will be issued in respect of the boat and not the operator; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5780/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): Skellig Michael is officially open to visitors during the season when a guide service is provided on the island by the Office of Public Works. The season, which in previous years was normally from mid-May to the end of September, was extended to the end of October in 2010 on a once off basis. The length of the 2011 season is currently under review.

Licensed Premises 81. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide a full list of licensed premises in the Dublin region. [5925/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that a register of renewed licences (up to 1st March 2011) is available on the Revenue website at the following link: http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/excise/index.html

Tax Reliefs 82. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Finance if the terms and conditions governing eligibility for the tax credit scheme for the upgrading of existing housing stock has been finalised; if he has had consultations on this matter with the Department of Finance and if he will ensure that the scheme will cover replacement of windows and doors in view of the significant potential heat loss in these areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5928/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Section 13 of the Finance Act 2011 provides for income tax relief at the standard rate for expenditure incurred by individuals on a range of works that are carried out to improve the energy efficiency of residential premises situated in the State. Relief will be available for qualifying expenditure of up to a maximum of €10,000 for single individuals, or up to a maximum of €15,000 per qualifying property. The scheme will be operated primarily by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners. The maximum amount of expenditure that will qualify for relief in any one tax year is €150 million. Relief will be given by way of repayment in the tax year following that in which the work was completed and the expenditure incurred. I will determine the list of approved works under the scheme in consultation with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Discussions are currently ongoing between my officials, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland on those works that will qualify. At this stage it is envisaged that the replacement of windows and doors, where these meet certain standards, will be included in the scheme. Due to the truncated timetable for the Finance Bill 2011, it was not possible to consider a number of potential legislative amendments to the scheme. These will be addressed in the forthcoming Finance Bill. In addition, a commitment was made to the House to publish an Ex- Ante Economic Impact Assessment of the scheme before commencing it via Ministerial order. My officials are currently working on this assessment and it will be published as soon as it has been completed.

733 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Banks Recapitalisation 83. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Finance in relation to the capitalisation of Irish banks and options outside of the European Union and International Monetary Fund programmes, if he approached any other countries or bodies to seek financial assistance outside of the above named institutions; did the State ever contemplate approaching the United States or China with a view to banking institutions in those states investing in banking institutions in our State. [6047/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The NTMA stands ready to engage in discussions with potential investors in the banking system, has done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. In this respect, the NTMA has worked closely with the institutions and others to explore possibilities.

Departmental Schemes 84. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding the labour market activation fund; the funding available in 2011 to an organisation (details supplied) which has previously been funded under this scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5930/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Labour Market Activation Fund was launched in March 2010 in order to support the creation of training and education programmes for specific priority groups among the unemployed. It is intended that the €32 million Fund will enable the provision of education and training programmes for up to 12,000 unemployed people. All funded programmes must be completed by 30th June 2011. I can confirm that I have asked officials in my Department to make contact with the organisation in question concerning funding arrangements for the continued provision of training and work placements until the end of June 2011 within the context of the parameters of the 2010 Fund.

Special Educational Needs 85. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Education and Skills if an additional special needs assistant will be allocated to a school (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5662/11]

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.

School Staffing 86. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will make changes or withdraw circular 0019/2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5710/11]

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

734 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers 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. It is necessary therefore, for my Department to ensure this year that all permanent and fixed term positions are in the first instance made available to those surplus teachers with either permanent contracts or contracts of indefinite duration and are to be redeployed. This means that until further notice no school can be given authority to commence recruitment until my Department is in a position to assess the number of these teachers, if any, that remain to be redeployed. It is the intention of the Department to restore recruitment from fixed-term teachers on the main panels, supplementary panels or public advertisement at the earliest possible opportunity, after all the surplus permanent teachers have been redeployed. The Government will endeavour to protect frontline 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 afford as a country. We all have to understand the legacy of economic mismanagement which the last government gave to this country.

Schools Accommodation 87. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Education and Skills if a school (details supplied) will qualify for inclusion in the 2011 temporary accommodation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5725/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I can confirm that the school to which the Deputy refers has recently applied to my Department seeking funding to provide additional accommodation. This application is currently being assessed and officials in my Department will convey a decision on the application to the school authority when the assessment process has been completed.

Capitation Grants 88. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding funding of secondary schools (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5733/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department provides funding to secondary schools by way of per capita grants, which affords schools considerable flexibility in the use of these resources to cater for the needs of their pupils. My Department provided capitation funding in the sum of €186,477.25 to the school in question in respect of recognised enrolments for the school year 2009/10. Capitation funding for schools was reduced by 5% as part of the most recent budget. The current financial situation and Ireland’s reliance on external funding through the EU/IMF Support Programme means inevitably that the funding situation for schools will be extremely difficult in the period ahead. I would be misleading the Deputy if I pretended otherwise. The Government will do its best to prioritise education spending and protect front line services but the reality is that my Department will have to bear its share of the Government’s overall effort to cut public spending in order to deal with our fiscal crisis. It is a fundamental principle of the Free Post-Primary Education Scheme that schools participating in the scheme do not charge parents in respect of:

735 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.]

• instruction in any subject of my Department’s programme for Secondary Schools;

• recreation or study facilities where all the pupils are expected to avail themselves of these as part of the school programme;

• any other activities in which all pupils are required to take part.

Voluntary contributions by parents or charges for optional extras over and above what is provided for in the general school programme are permissible under the scheme, provided it is made absolutely clear to parents that there is no question of compulsion to pay, and, that in making a contribution, they are doing so of their own volition.

Special Educational Needs 89. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Education and Skills when a special needs assistant will be appointed for a child (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5771/11]

Schools Refurbishment 90. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Education and Skills if additional funding will be provided to a school (details supplied) in County Kerry for a required extension; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5786/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The school referred to by the Deputy applied to my Department for additional accommodation for resource teaching last October 2010 and I am pleased to advise that in November 2010 the school was approved for a devolved grant to build a resource room. The school authority has recently submitted a request to my Department seeking additional funding in connection with meeting planning requirements. The Department has requested additional information from the school in relation to this request. On receipt of this information, the request can be considered further and a decision on the matter will issue to the school authority.

Schools Provision 91. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will allay the fears of the boards of management, the teachers, the parents and pupils of our small national schools throughout the country by reassuring them that their future is not under threat by any proposals that may arise in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5804/11]

736 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): A review was initiated in October 2010 by the then Fianna Fáil/Green Party government in order to establish the value for money being achieved from state funding of small primary schools. This value for money review is part of the normal review processes undertaken by Departments on an annual basis on selected areas of expenditure. I do not have a predetermined view on the outcome of the review. Educational quality for the pupils must be one of the main criteria in any consideration of primary school size and organisation, taking into account both the needs of local communities and wider social and cultural factors. Decisions on school provision and reorganisation must be widely perceived to be cost-effective, equitable and reasonable. These decisions need to be based on a rigorous evaluation of requirements and needs, not just at a local level but also at both regional and national levels. The review should be completed by the end of this year and I plan to consider the review’s outcomes when they are finalised.

Departmental Schemes 92. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Education and Skills if a school (details supplied) in County Kerry will qualify for funding under the summer works scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5805/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I can confirm that the school referred to by the Deputy has submitted an application for works under the 2011 Summer Works Scheme. Applications for funding under the scheme are currently being processed in my Department, as outlined in the Circular governing the operation of the Scheme, and the school authority will be notified of the decision on the application shortly.

School Patronage 93. Deputy Simon Harris asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on recognising Educate Together as a patron body for second level schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5834/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Programme for Government gives a commitment to move towards a more pluralist system of patronage at second level, recognising a wider number of patrons. It is my intention to address this policy over the lifetime of this Government. My immediate priority has been to establish a National Forum on Patron- age and Pluralism in the primary school sector. This will take a multi-dimensional approach involving consultations with the key education stakeholders, including parents over the course of this year. I will turn my attention to the issue of the patronage at second level in due course and I will consider the role that all patron bodies, including Educate Together, can play in ensuring our education system caters for a pluralism of choice which reflects the needs of Ireland today and into the future.

Special Educational Needs 94. Deputy Simon Harris asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on the provision of special needs assistants in schools; and if he envisages any further cutbacks in the numbers of SNAs in schools. [5835/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Programme for Government clearly states that education will be a priority for this Government and that we will endeavour

737 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] to protect and enhance the educational experience of children, young people and students. To that end, we will endeavour to protect frontline services in education. However, the fiscal position is extremely difficult. This 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. However, I cannot re-visit the previous Government’s decision to place a cap on the number of posts available under the Special Needs Assistant (SNA) scheme. This number is 10,575 whole time equivalent (WTE) posts. This is a significant number of posts and unlike other areas of the public sector vacancies are being filled up to this number. It also represents continual increases in the number of SNAs over recent years. It is considered that with equitable and careful management and distribution of these resources that 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 Departmental criteria. 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. The NCSE has issued a circular to all schools advising of the allocation process for the 2011/2012 school year. A key feature of the amended scheme will be to provide for an annual allocation of Special Needs Assistant support to eligible schools. 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 established. In this regard I am committed to making whatever improvements are possible to the resource allocation system. We all have to understand the legacy of economic mismanagement which the last government gave to this country.

Departmental Schemes 95. Deputy John McGuinness asked the Minister for Education and Skills if funding allocated to schools in County Kilkenny under the water conservation scheme has been awarded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5837/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Forty two Primary Schools and ten Post Primary Schools in County Kilkenny were allocated funding under my Department’s Water Conservation Scheme. The Management Authorities of the schools in question were informed of the terms and conditions of the scheme in an approval letter issued in October 2010. To date 25 schools have drawn down funding under the scheme and the balance of funding allocated will be paid out as soon as the remaining schools meet the drawdown criteria.

Special Educational Needs 96. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Education and Skills, further to Parliamentary Question No. 41 of 7 December 2010, if a person (details supplied) in County Clare will be facilitated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5852/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): As the Deputy will be aware, 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

738 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Needs Assistants (SNAs) to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support. In considering applications for teaching and SNA support for individual pupils, the SENOs take account of the needs identified in the professional reports and decide whether the circumstances come within the Department’s criteria. They then consider the resources available to the school to identify whether additionality is needed or whether the school might reasonably be expected to meet the needs of the pupil from its current level of resources. 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. I understand from officials in my Department that the NCSE has now issued a response to the Deputy in relation to the matter raised by him.

97. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Education and Skills, further to Parliamentary Question No. 24 of 7 December 2010, if a person (details supplied) in County Clare will be facilitated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5853/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): 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, Special Needs Assistants and making recommendations on the provision of assistive technology to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support. I wish to advise the Deputy that my Department sanctioned a grant to the pupil’s school for a laptop and computer software for the pupil in question on 6th January 2011.

Schools Building Projects 98. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding funding for a school (details supplied) in County Meath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5857/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I am pleased to advise the Deputy that a project to provide improved accommodation for the school to which he refers has been announced as one of the projects to commence the process of appointing a design team under my Department’s 2011 Multi-annual School Building and Modernisation Programme. Officials in my Department are in ongoing contact with the school authority with regard to progressing the project. The next stage in the process includes a visit to the school site by my Department’s professional and technical staff and this is due to take place shortly.

Special Educational Needs 99. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will give consideration to an application for special needs assistance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; when a determination will be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5888/11]

739 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] warded 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 100. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of applications for capital projects awaiting approval for schools in Cork North Central; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5895/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Information in respect of the current school building programme along with all assessed applications for major capital works, is available on my Department’s website at www.education.ie. For the Deputy’s convenience, details of the major capital applications from schools in the area specifically referred to by him are in the following tabular statement.

Roll School Name Major Capital Band Current Status Address Number Application Rating

14198D Naomh Eoin Easpal Extension 2 Application Old Youghal Road, Mayfield, Cork 18217B Scoil Padre Pio N S Extension/Refurb 1 Design Team to be Churchfield Terrace appointed West, Churchfield, Cork 18587L Scoil Mhuire Banrion Extension 4 Application Boherboy Road, Lotabeg, Mayfield 18786R Scoil Iosagain Extension/Refurb 2 Progressing To Tender Knockpogue Avenue, Farranree, Cork 19909M Gaelscoil Peig Sayers New school 2 Application North Point Business Park, New Mallow Road, Cork 19993E Gaelscoil An Ghoirt New school 2 Application Murmont Road, Alainn Mayfield, Cork 19714U Mhuire Ar Chnoc Extension 2 Application Courtown Drive, Haoine Knocknaheeny, Cork 62730N Saint Patrick’s Girls Extension/Refurb 2 Application Gardiner’s Hill, Cork Secondary School 91400F Mayfield Community Extension/Refurb 4 Application Old Youghal Road, School Cork 62690E Scoil Mhuire Extension/Refurb 2 Progressing to tender 2 Sidney Place, Wellington Road 62530F North Monastery Cbs Extension/Refurb 2 Application North Monastery Road, Cork 62640M Saint Angela’s College Extension/Refurb 2 In Architectural Saint Patrick’s Hill, Planning Cork

Schools Refurbishment 101. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Education and Skills if a school (details supplied) in County Kerry will qualify for a grant under the summer works scheme and for emergency funds for pipe work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5934/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I can confirm that the school referred to by the Deputy has submitted an application under the 2011 Summer Works Scheme. Applications for funding under the scheme are currently being processed in my Department, 740 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers as outlined in the Circular governing the operation of the Scheme, and the school authority will be notified of the decision on the application shortly. An application under the Emergency Works Scheme was also received from the school in question. The purpose of the Emergency Works Scheme is solely for unforeseen emergencies or to provide funding to facilitate inclusion and access for special needs pupils. An emergency is deemed to be a situation which poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or the environment which is sudden, unforeseen and requires immediate action and, in the case of a school, if not corrected, would prevent the school or part thereof from opening. As the scope of works for this project is outside the terms of the Emergency Works Scheme it cannot be considered for emergency funding. The school was recently notified of this decision by my Department.

School Staffing 102. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of teachers in a school (details supplied) in County Meath in 2010; the number of same in 2011; the proposed number for the academic year of 2011/12; the reason for a change in staffing levels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5936/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department’s Teacher Allo- cation Section is currently focussed on the initial work for the allocation of staffing for the coming school year and I do not propose to divert them from this work at this key time in the allocation process. The standardisation of the staffing schedule for Gaelscoileanna so that it is the same as that which applies to primary schools generally is one of a number of measures introduced in Budget 2011 by the previous Fianna Fáil/Green Party government to control and reduce teacher numbers. These changes are effective from September 2011.

Special Educational Needs 103. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if his attention has been drawn to discrepancies between results from tests carried out in schools on students by the National Educational Psychological Service psychologists and results from tests carried out by other psychologists as part of a full educational assessment on students, such discrepancies arising from use of the WRAT and WIAT2 tests, both of which are recognised by his Depart- ment; the way he plans to deal with this discrepancy which is resulting in some students being discriminated against as the results they have measured from the full tests are being ignored, even though they are based on the test which is required for entry into third level under DARE. [5937/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I can inform the Deputy that my Department’s National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) provides a range of psychological supports to pupils and teachers in first and second levels schools nationally. In common with many other psychological services and best international practice, NEPS encourages a staged assessment process, whereby each school takes responsibility for initial assessment, educational planning and remedial intervention. Only if there is a failure to make reasonable progress in spite of the school’s best efforts, will a child be referred for individual psychological assessment. This system allows the psychologists to give early attention to urgent cases and also to help many more students indirectly than could be seen individually. It also ensures that students are not referred unnecessarily for psychological intervention. In second level schools, in addition to providing direct and ongoing supports, including full psycho-educational assessment of students, NEPS psychologists make recommendations to the

741 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] State Examination Commission (SEC) on applications under the Reasonable Accommodation for State Examinations scheme (RACE). Under this scheme students with specific learning difficulties may be afforded additional supports or accommodations while sitting their Leaving Certificate examinations. As part of these RACE responsibilities, NEPS psychologists must take into account the results of a range of psychometric tests, including the WRAT and WIAT2 tests mentioned by the Deputy, and including any previous psychometric assessment data available. They must also consider information supplied by school authorities on the applicant’s educational history, attainments and current performance in reading and writing as part of the process of recom- mending the granting of accommodations. My Department’s NEPS service is satisfied that, based upon criteria as set down by the SEC, the process put in place under this scheme appro- priately and fairly identifies candidates for receipt of such accommodations. Any, or all, of the above assessment information can be submitted by the student in support of an application under the DARE scheme for entry into third level.

State Examinations 104. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will support the application of a leaving certificate student (details supplied) for a spelling and grammar exemption. [5938/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The State Examinations Com- mission has statutory responsibility for operational matters relating to the certificate examinations including organising the holding of examinations and determining procedures in places where examinations are conducted including the supervision of examinations. I can inform the Deputy that the Commission operates a scheme of Reasonable Accommodations in the Certifi- cate examinations. Applications for such accommodations are submitted by schools on behalf of their students. A range of accommodations are provided to enable students with special needs to access the Certificate examinations. For example enlarged print, Braille translation, modified questions, use of a scribe, a reader, a personal assistant, a tape recorder or word processor, or exemptions from areas of assessment, may be allowed depending on needs. In view of this I have forwarded your query to the State Examinations Commission for direct reply to you.

Schools Recognition 105. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he plans to recognise a school (details supplied) in County Dublin and if he will make a statement regarding the issue in view of the urgency for a second level Gael Coláiste to serve students across north County Dublin. [5939/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department has recently announced plans to open at least 13 new post-primary schools over the next five years to cater for increased demographics in a number of locations including the North County Dublin/South County Louth area. Decisions on the patronage of any new school will be taken in line with the Programme for Government which gives a commitment to move towards a more pluralist system of patronage at second level, recognising a wider number of patrons. This will have also have regard to all-Irish provision. It is my intention to address this policy.

742 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

School Staffing 106. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to remove gaelscoileanna from the provisions of Circular 19/2011. [5940/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The standardisation of the staffing schedule for gaelscoileanna so that it is the same as that which applies to primary schools generally is one of a number of measures in Budget 2011 by the previous Fianna Fáil/Green Party government to control and reduce teacher numbers. These changes are effective from September 2011. This change will result in a reduction of the order of 50 posts in Gaelscoile- anna. There are currently a total of over 1,500 teaching posts in these schools. The actual impact at individual school level is determined as part of the allocation process for 2011/12 school year and schools are being notified in the normal manner. This 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 back into line with what we can afford as a country. All areas of Government, including gaelscoileanna, will have to manage on a reduced level of resources. The challenge will be to ensure that the resources that are being provided are used to maximum effect.

School Accommodation 107. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will expedite an urgent technical assessment, as recommended in his Department’s area development plan for north Dublin, in respect of a school (details supplied) in County Dublin in view of the school’s urgent accommodation needs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5946/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department is aware of the situation at the school referred to by the Deputy. The Forward Planning Section of my Depart- ment is finalising its analysis of all areas in the country in order to determine the level of additional school provision which will be required at both primary and post-primary level up to 2017. Overall post-primary requirements in the area referred to by the Deputy are being considered in this context. My Department will then identify the means by which the need in the area will be met commensurate with demand and site visits will be arranged if deemed necessary.

School Staffing 108. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding a teaching post in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Mayo. [5956/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The correspondence provided by the Deputy raises a number of issues regarding a teacher’s terms and conditions in the context of the Department’s policy in this area. I will arrange for my officials to contact the correspon- dent directly to address the issues raised.

Schools Refurbishment 109. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will consider meeting the shortfall in funding in respect of a school (details supplied) in County Cork. [5963/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I can confirm that the school referred to by the Deputy received approval from my Department for a devolved grant to

743 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] provide an additional classroom and an additional resource room in April 2010. One of the conditions of the grant was that the school would manage the project in order to ensure that it would be delivered successfully without the need for additional funding from the Department. Since then, my Department has received requests on behalf of the school in question for additional funding to meet planning requirements and to replace existing temporary structures on the site. Officials in my Department are currently assessing these requests and will convey a decision on the matter to the school authority when this assessment process is complete.

Primary Schools 110. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he is including schools of a Protestant ethos in his review of small schools, given there are large distances between schools of a Protestant ethos in rural areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5980/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): A review was initiated in October 2010 by the then Fianna Fáil/Green Party government in order to establish the value for money being achieved from state funding of small primary schools. All primary schools with a total enrolment of less than 50 pupils come within the terms of reference of this review. Educational quality for the pupils must be one of the main criteria in any consideration of primary school size and organisation, taking into account both the needs of local communities and wider social and cultural factors. Decisions on school provision and reorganisation must be widely perceived to be cost-effective, equitable and reasonable. These decisions need to be based on a rigorous evaluation of requirements and needs, not just at a local level but also at both regional and national levels. I do not have a predetermined view on the outcome of the review. The review should be completed by the end of this year and I plan to consider the review’s outcomes when they are finalised.

School Transport 111. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide free school bus transport for a family (details supplied) in County Cork. [5994/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): Bus Éireann, which operates the school transport schemes on behalf of my Department, has advised that the family referred to by the Deputy is eligible for school transport to the school in question. The €50 charge, introduced by the previous Fianna Fáil/Green Party government in the 2011 Budget, will apply to all eligible primary pupils availing of school transport services for the 2011/12 school year. This charge is being introduced to ensure that school transport services provided are fully utilised in a cost efficient manner. The maximum family charge to be levied for eligible primary pupils will be €110 per annum; eligible pupils holding medical cards will be exempt from paying the charge.

112. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will ensure that school transport is in place in a region (details supplied) in County Cork. [5996/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): Under the terms of my Department’s Post Primary School Transport Scheme, pupils are eligible for school transport if they reside 4.8 kilometres or more from and are attending a post primary school within their catchment area. The pupils referred to by the Deputy are not attending a post primary school within their catchment area and are therefore not eligible for school trans-

744 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers port to their school of attendance. The service withdrawn was a Bus Éireann public passenger service which does not come under the remit of my Department.

Schools Refurbishment 113. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding a summer works scheme in respect of a school (details supplied). [6038/11]

Enterprise Support Services 114. Deputy Simon Harris asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his plans to help self-employed persons struggling in this economic recession; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5831/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): In the current economic climate entrepreneurship, and the growth and development of small Irish businesses, is central to economic recovery, and it is essential that Irish enterprises continue to be supported. The Programme for Government includes a number of key issues to assist SMEs in the current environment and we are committed to introducing a Jobs Fund within the first 100 days. This Fund will contain a number of measures to support our SMEs. We have committed to:

• Cut the 13.5 per cent rate of VAT to 12 per cent up to the end of 2013.

• Halve the lower 8.5 per cent rate of PRSI up to the end of 2013 on jobs paying up to €356 per week.

• Reverse the cut in the minimum wage.

• Implement a number of sectoral initiatives in areas that will create employment in the domestic economy.

• Initiate a long-term strategy to develop new markets in emerging economies.

• Secure additional resources for the national housing energy retrofitting plan, as part of a plan to phase out subsidies in this area by 2014.

• Accelerate capital works that are ‘shovel ready’ and labour intensive, including schools and secondary roads.

In addition, the County and City Enterprise Boards (CEBs) play a key role, acting as a valuable first point of contact for general business advice and information, as well as through their provision of both financial (grants) and non-financial (business advice, mentoring and a range of training programmes) supports to eligible micro-enterprises. The CEB network’s priorities for 2011 are to assist owner/managers in enhancing the survival and sustainability of their businesses in these difficult economic times and to assist people wishing to start their own business including those made redundant. The CEBs can support individuals, firms and community groups provided that the proposed projects have the capacity

745 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] to achieve commercial viability. They must give priority to manufacturing and internationally traded services. My priority is to ensure that both the business environment in Ireland and the assistance available from the Enterprise Agencies continue to be supportive of enterprise and encourage growth in all areas of the economy.

Ministerial Responsibilities 115. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the precise functions that have been allocated to the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry; the budget that has been allocated and the initiatives he will undertake to support small business in the next 100 days. [5974/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Mr John Perry, T.D., has been assigned responsibility for the Small Business portfolio. The appointment of a Minister for Small Business reflects the importance the Government attaches to the sector and the contribution the sector can make to our overall economic recovery and growth. The detailed range of duties and associated legislative provisions that will accompany this portfolio are currently being finalised within my Department. It is the aim to have the necessary Del- egation Of Functions Orders drafted and presented to Government for approval in early April. A notice will be published in Iris Oifigiúil once the Orders have been made by the Government. Budgets have already been allocated to my Department and the relevant enterprise support agencies under the 2011 Estimates process. The Programme for Government sets out a comprehensive range of initiatives which will assist the small business sector. The Minister for Small Business, together with Cabinet colleagues, will prioritise action in relation to these initiatives.

Social Welfare Appeals 116. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will issue regarding the refusal of carer’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5843/11]

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 22 March 2011. It is a statutory requirement of the appeals process that the relevant Departmental papers and comments by the Social Welfare Services on the grounds of appeal be sought. When received, the appeal in question will be referred to an appeals officer for consideration. The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Departmental Correspondence 117. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will respond to an issue raised in correspondence in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork regarding the social welfare system. [5654/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The jobseeker’s benefit and jobseeker’s allowance schemes provide income support for people who have lost work and are unable to find alternative employment. It is a fundamental qualifying condition for these benefits that a person must be available for full-time work. Under the current system, a working week is considered to be six days. Sunday is not considered to form part of the working week and any work done on a Sunday is not reckoned when entitlement to a payment is being determined.

746 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

The benefit is only payable in respect of days of unemployment and it is not, therefore, payable in respect of any day during which the person is engaged in insurable employment, irrespective of the extent of the employment (number of hours worked) or the remuneration. Where a person is employed for up to three days in a week, they may claim jobseeker’s benefit or allowance in respect of the remainder of the week, subject to being available for full-time work. It is recognised that a changing labour market has resulted in a move away from the more traditional work patterns, with a consequent increase in the number of atypical workers. In response, the Department conducted a ‘Review of the Application of the Unemployment Benefit & Assistance Schemes Conditions to workers who are not employed on a full-time basis’ which examined the application of the jobseeker’s benefit and allowance scheme conditions to workers who are employed part-time, casual or systematic short-time basis. The review made a number of recommendations including broadening jobseeker’s scheme conditions to provide compensation for loss of employment in the case of part-time and other atypical workers. The report is under active consideration within the Department.

Social Welfare Benefits 118. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will support the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 5 regarding benefits. [5660/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive has advised that there is no record of an application for rent supplement from the person concerned. If the person concerned wishes to make an application for rent supplement then he should contact the community welfare officer at his local health centre.

Social Welfare Appeals 119. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding benefits in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9. [5708/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that the appeal from the person concerned was referred to an appeals officer who proposes to hold an oral hearing in this case. The person concerned will be informed when arrangements have been made. There was a 46% increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office in 2009 when compared to 2008, which in itself was 27% greater than the numbers received in 2007. There was an increase of a further 25% in the number of appeals received in 2010. These increases have caused delays in the processing of appeals. In order to be fair to all appellants, oral hearings are arranged in strict chronological order. The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Social Welfare Benefits 120. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Social Protection when jobseeker’s allowance will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5724/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The person concerned is currently in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance at the weekly rate of €73.80. This is the maximum rate payable in his case. His spouse is currently in receipt of illness benefit and where one member of a

747 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] couple is claiming jobseeker’s allowance and the other is in receipt of illness benefit, their combined payments cannot exceed the amount which would be payable if only one person made a claim.

121. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding child benefit in respect of a person (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5746/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The social security rights of people moving around the EU are governed by EU Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009. These regulations, which have been in existence in one form or another since 1959, 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 and there are specific rules governing the payment of these 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 that 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 it is intended 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 so it is something which must be approached in a cautious and sensitive manner. The normal procedure for amending EU legislation is that a formal proposal is put forward by the EU Commission and this 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. In order to make progress on the commitment in the programme for Government it will be necessary to enlist the support of other countries and the EU Commission. I am at present considering the best way of initiating this process.

Social Welfare Appeals 122. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will be made on a social welfare appeal in respect of a person (details supplied). [5749/11]

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 3 March 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 March 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

748 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

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 123. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason mortgage interest supplement has been suspended in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5754/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive has advised that following a routine review payment of mortgage interest supplement ceased as the person concerned had sufficient income to meet his mortgage interest costs.

124. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Social Protection if a review of entitlements will be carried out in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5779/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The person concerned has not made an application for any social welfare payments. If he wishes to make an application for a jobseeker’s payment he may do so by calling to his local social welfare office to complete the necessary forms and a decision will be given on any application made as soon as possible.

National Carers’ Strategy 125. Deputy Simon Harris asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will prioritise the publication of a national carers’ strategy after the failure of the last Government to publish such a strategy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5832/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): 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 Services 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.

Social Welfare Benefits 126. Deputy Simon Harris asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will examine the delays being experienced by persons applying for domiciliary care allowance; if she will provide figures on the number of DCA applications received in 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011; the

749 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Simon Harris.] number of applications that have been granted, denied, appealed and successfully appealed in each of these years. [5833/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): This Department has been accepting new claims for domiciliary care allowance (DCA) since April 1st 2009. Statistics relating to the period prior to April 2009 are a matter for the Health Service Executive (HSE). The average processing time for DCA applications is currently eight weeks. There can be occasional exceptions to this, for example, where the applicant is waiting for detailed medical reports or is obtaining documentary evidence to satisfy the habitual residence condition. In the period 1st April 2009 to 31st December 2009 a total of 3,389 DCA applications were received by the Department. Of these, 2,823 were fully processed that year, with 1,031 deemed to satisfy the criteria for the scheme. The balance of 1,792 did not satisfy the criteria. There were 836 appeals registered in 2009 of which 183 cases were allowed on review by the deciding officer based on additional information received. A total of 11 DCA appeals were decided by the Appeals Office in 2009 with six allowed. In 2010 a total of 5,457 DCA applications were received by the Department, with a total of 5,333 applications processed that year. Of these a total of 2,058 were deemed to satisfy the qualifying conditions for the scheme while the remaining 3,275 applications did not satisfy the criteria. There were 1,848 appeals registered in 2010 of which 477 cases were deemed to be qualified when reviewed by the deciding officer based on additional information received. There were 622 DCA appeals decided by the Appeals Office in 2010 with 224 cases allowed. A total of 1,520 DCA applications have been received to date in 2011 with 1511 applications processed this year to date. Of those cases decided 550 were deemed to satisfy the criteria for the scheme, with 961 having failed to satisfy the criteria. Some 526 appeals have been registered to date in 2011 of which 68 cases were deemed to be qualified on review by the deciding officer based on additional information supplied. To date in 2011, 163 appeals have been processed by the Appeals Office with 58 cases allowed.

Social Welfare Appeals 127. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Social Protection when a determination will be made regarding an appeal in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork to have disability allowance re-instated in view of the circumstances; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5886/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that the disability allowance claim of the person concerned was disallowed following an assessment by a Medical Assessor who expressed the opinion that she was medically unsuitable for the allowance. An appeal was registered on 11 March 2011 and in accordance with the statutory procedures, the relevant department papers and the comments of the Department on the matter raised in the appeal have been sought. In that context, an assessment by another Medical Assessor will be carried out. The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Social Welfare Fraud 128. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will deal with a matter regarding social welfare fraud (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5889/11]

750 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The control of social welfare fraud and abuse is a priority for the Department which has abroad-ranging and comprehensive control strategy. The objective is to minimise risks of fraud and eliminate incorrect payments. The matter has been referred to the Department’s special investigation unit for investigation.

Social Welfare Appeals 129. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Social Protection if domiciliary allowance will be made available in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5901/11]

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 12 January 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 21 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.

130. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding an appeal for carer’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; if she will expedite a response; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5909/11]

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 15 October 2010. It is a statutory requirement of the appeals process that the relevant Departmental papers and comments by or on behalf of the Deciding Officer on the grounds of appeal be sought. These papers were received in the Social Welfare Appeals Office on 28 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 131. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will issue on an application for domiciliary care allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5966/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): An application for domiciliary care allowance was received on the 11th February 2011. This application has been forwarded to one of the Department’s Medical Assessors for their medical opinion on the case. Upon receipt of this opinion a decision will issue to the customer.

132. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of returning Irish citizens who have applied for means tested social welfare schemes; the number that have been refused on the grounds of not satisfying the habitual residence condition and further in the case of applications being refused, the number of these decisions that are being

751 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.] made by the deciding officers in social welfare and the number by the community welfare office. [6030/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): All applicants for a means tested social welfare payment must satisfy a habitual residence condition test. My department does not hold statistics for the number of returning Irish citizens who have applied for a means tested payment and therefore undergone a habitual residence condition test. I have attached a table which shows the number of Irish Nationals disallowed on the grounds of the habitual residence condition by scheme type from 2006 to 2009. It should be noted that the figures for 2010 are not available because of industrial action during that year. The Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme (SWA) is the “safety net” within the overall social welfare system in that it provides a basic income support payment to eligible people in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their needs and those of their dependants. The main purpose of the SWA scheme is to provide immediate and flexible assistance for those in need who do not qualify for payment under other State schemes. The scheme is administered by the community welfare service which has now been seconded to the Department. The SWA scheme is delivered locally by community welfare officers. A community welfare officer interviews applicants for a payment under the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme when they first present in order to determine if they satisfy the statutory qualifying conditions for the scheme. They also ensure that all the documentation required to make a decision has been provided. Claim details are recorded electronically in cases where it is established that an entitlement exists. However, given the pressure on the community welfare service, claim details are not always recorded electronically where no entitlement has been established. For this reason, reliable statistics are not available on the total number of people who applied for and were refused a payment under the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme.

Number of Irish Nationals disallowed on Grounds of Habitual Residence Condition by Scheme Type.

Scheme Type 2006 2007 2008 2009

Jobseeker’s Allowance 438 351 879 530 State Pension (Non-Con) 8309 Blind Pension 0000 Widow/er’s & Orphan’s Non-Con Pensions 0000 One-Parent Family Payment 4 16 37 23 Carer’s Allowance 24 6 7 33 Disability Allowance 17 3 40 98 Child Benefit 6 2 22 45 Domiciliary Care Allowance n/a n/a n/a 0

Total 497 381 985 738

Social Welfare Offices 133. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Social Protection if it is planned to close the local social welfare office at a location (details supplied) and if so, will there be a new office built in the area. [6034/11] 752 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): There are no plans at this stage to close the social welfare local office in Thomas Street or to build a new social welfare office in the area.

134. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Social Protection if it is planned to close the social welfare office at a location (details supplied) and build a new state of the art centre in Dublin South-Central and the specific status of all social protection offices in Dublin South- Central and community welfare offices. [6035/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): There are no plans at this stage to close the social welfare office at Bishops Square, Dublin 8. The integration of the Community Welfare Service from the HSE and the transfer of the work placement and community programme services from FÁS will provide an opportunity to develop and deliver a more integrated service for our customers throughout the country, including the Dublin south central area, in line with the commitment in the Programme for Government.

Social Welfare Appeals 135. Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Social Protection if a carer’s allowance application which is under appeal will be dealt with as soon as possible by way of an oral hearing in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Limerick. [6048/11]

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 09 November 2010. It is a statutory requirement of the appeals process that the relevant Depart- mental 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 16 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 Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Swimming Pool Projects 136. Deputy Michael McCarthy asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will provide a progress report on the redevelopment of a facility (details supplied) in County Cork; when he expects that work will commence on this project; the expected timeframe for completion of these works; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5684/11]

Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): Under the Local Authority Swimming Pool Programme there are four principal stages in a swimming pool project following the submission of a feasibility study. These, in order of progress, are: Prelimi- nary Report; Contract Documents; Tender and Construction. My Department has received a proposal from Cork County Council on behalf of Dunmanway for the refurbishment of the existing pool together with an extension to accommodate additional facilities including a gym. A Preliminary Report on this proposal was approved in March 2001. I understand that the Council expects to have Contract Documents submitted to the Department for approval by December 2011.

Arts Council 137. Deputy Gerald Nash asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs when

753 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Gerald Nash.] he will appoint new members to the board of the Arts Council of Ireland; the criteria he will apply to the appointments process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5783/11]

Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): At present, there are three vacancies on the Board of the Arts Council. The legislation governing the appointment of members to the Board of the Council is contained in Section 11 of the Arts Act 2003. Under the Act, all of the members of the Arts Council are appointed by the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. The legislation requires that the Council shall consist of a chairperson and 12 ordinary members each of whom shall in the opinion of the Minister, have a special interest or knowledge in relation to the arts or matters connected with the functions of the Minister or the Council under the Act. Appointments are made for 5 years from the date of appointment. The Act also requires that not less than six members of the Arts Council shall be men and not less than six shall be women. The current membership of the Council is seven women and three men. This means that the three vacancies must be filled by men. In addition to the legislative provisions, I believe it is important that conflicts of interest do not arise on the Council. New members are formally requested to resign from membership of boards of organisations funded by the Arts Council when appointed to the Board of the Arts Council. I am giving careful consideration to this matter to ensure that the Board will continue to include members of the highest calibre with the skills required to serve the needs of and to maximise the potential of the arts. I intend to make decisions on these appointments shortly.

Alternative Energy Projects 138. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding wind energy (details supplied). [5751/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): Ireland has progressively increased consumption of electricity from renewable sources — from 4.3% in 2003 to 13.4% in 2010. This increase came primarily from the development of onshore wind resources. Ireland’s National Renewable Energy Action Plan, NREAP, (available on the Department’s website) sets out how Ireland’s binding national target under the EU Renewable Energy Directive will be met. The binding 16% target will be achieved by 10% of energy consumption in transport, 12% of heat consumption and around 40% of our electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020. In the electricity sector, 36% of our consumption i.e. 4649 mega- watts (MW), will be from wind by 2020. This is proportionately the highest contribution from wind among all the EU Member States. There are currently 1776 MW of installed generating plant harnessing alternative energy technologies connected to the Irish national grid. The total number of wind farms connected is approximately 122 and this represents a generation capacity of about 1500 MW. Hydropower contributes about 238 MW of generation capacity and there is 38 MW of biomass, mainly landfill gas. There are approximately 1150 MW of wind farms that are currently contracted to connect to the grid (i.e. they have received and signed a Connection Offer) in the coming years. There are an additional 150 wind farms that have received or are due to receive, a connection offer under the Gate 3 project round of project approvals. EirGrid (the transmission system operator) and ESB networks are investing in the distribution and transmission systems to underpin the development of Ireland’s wind resource.

754 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Offshore Exploration 139. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the royalties or taxes the State will receive from the Corrib gas field; and if he is satisfied with the agreement made by a former Minister (details supplied). [5711/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): Ireland’s fiscal terms are tax based and do not include royalty payments. In 1987, Ireland followed the lead of other countries such as the UK and Norway in moving away from a royalty based payments system to a tax based system. Under the tax based system the return to the State is linked directly to the profitability of the individual oil or gas field, as compared to a royalty system where payments are linked to the actual volume of production and does not take account of differences in development cost or actual profitability. The taxation rates which apply to profits from petroleum production are set out in the 1992 and 2008 Finance Acts. Profits from petroleum production arising from exploration licences granted prior to 2007 are taxed at a rate of 25%. This is the rate that will apply in the case of profits from the Corrib Gas Field. A comprehensive review of Ireland’s licensing terms was carried out in 2007 by independent economic consultants, following which both the fiscal and non-fiscal licensing terms were revised. The revised terms, which were put into effect in the 2008 Finance Act, apply to all exploration licences issued since 1st January 2007 and provide for a new profit resource rent tax of up to 15% in addition to the 25% corporate tax rate previously applying. The revised terms ensure that the return to the State would be up to 40% in the case of very profitable fields. The direct financial return to the State from the Corrib gas field will be through the 25% tax on profits. The level of profits from the Corrib gas field will depend on a combination of factors including the volume of recoverable gas, the cost of developing and operating the infrastructure, the price of gas over the life of the field, together with the timing and profile of production. The Corrib gas field will also strengthen Ireland’s security of energy supply and at peak production will provide approximately 60% of Ireland’s annual gas needs. During its development phase the Corrib Project has contributed significantly to creating employment, both in the Erris region and nationally. The tax regime applicable to petroleum production is a key factor in attracting internationally mobile exploration investment to Ireland. The tax terms offered to companies reflect the fact that Ireland’s petroleum potential is largely unproven and that Ireland needs to encourage a higher level of exploration activity. Ireland’s petroleum taxation rate is deliberately pitched at a level that is consistent with countries such as France, Portugal and Spain, who like Ireland have limited petroleum production, rather than with major petroleum producers such as Nor- way or the UK.

Energy Conservation 140. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the grants that are or will be available to homeowners to cover the cost of roof insulation, chimney insulation and the purchase of a solid fuel cooker stove. [5905/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): Grants for roof insulation are included under the Home Energy Saving Scheme, which is administered by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI). While chimney insulation and solid fuel cooker stoves are not currently eligible for grant-aid, my Department and the SEAI keep all potential energy efficiency measures under ongoing review.

755 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Fishing Vessel Licences 141. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the number and types of fishing licences issued in Dublin in each of the past five years; and to date in 2011. [5923/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): Salmon and eel fishing licences are issued by Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) in accordance with the Fisheries Acts 1959 to 2010. I am advised that the numbers and types of licences that have been issued by IFI (and the former Eastern Regional Fisheries Board) in Dublin from 2006 onwards are as set out in the following table:

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (to date)

Salmon — Commercial Licences Draft 172 00000 Drift 1600000

Total 188 00000

Salmon — Angling Licences Oneday 8102511245 Annual district 71 69 101 121 117 34 Annual national 289 232 407 353 369 116 Annual Juvenile 7 8 19 24 35 7 21 day licence 59 61 52 66 62 21 Foyle area extension 002271

Total 434 380 606 577 614 184

Eel Fishing Licences Long Line 445000 Coghill net 775000 Fyke net 12 12 17000 Eel Trap 220000 Crib 220000

Total 27 27 27000

Broadcasting Services 142. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will make representations to the relevant United Kingdom authorities to ensure that persons living in Border areas can avail of free-to-air digital television pictures when the digital changeover is complete in the Six Counties and continue the availability of a service they have had up to now by virtue of the fact that they live in a Border area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5981/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The analogue TV services both in Ireland and in Northern Ireland are due to be switched off at the end of 2012 and my Department has been working closely with its UK counterparts to facilitate a co-ordinated approach on both sides of the border in respect of the roll-out of digital terres- trial television (DTT) and analogue switch-off. In this regard, in February 2010, a Memorandum 756 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers of Understanding was signed between the then Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the then UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding is available on www.dcenr.gov.ie. The aim of this Memorandum is to facilitate, on a cross-border basis, a smooth transition to digital switchover in Northern Ireland and Ireland. In particular, the Memorandum provides a basis for making available the Irish public service channels (TG4, RTÉ 1 and RTÉ 2) in Northern Ireland and for ongoing cooperation between the two jurisdictions in relation to spectrum coordination, information sharing and, to the extent practical, adopting a coordinated approach to the provision of information to the public on both sides of the border on the switchover process. In accordance with the objectives of the Memorandum, my Department, along with ComReg, the BAI, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and RTÉ, is continuing to engage with the relevant UK Authorities on all of these issues and this work will continue until after the digital switchover process has been successfully implemented on both sides of the border. In relation to channel overspill from the Northern Ireland network, this issue comes within the scope of spectrum co-ordination and, while the precise broadcast parameters of the North’s DTT system will ultimately be a matter for the authorities in that jurisdiction, it is understood at this stage that the level of channel overspill of the DTT system will be similar to that of the current analogue system.

Pension Provisions 143. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if persons employed as telephonists with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs during the 1960s and up to 1976 are entitled to a partial pension based on their years of service. [5984/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): In general, all civil servants are eligible for superannuation benefits provided they satisfy the qualifying conditions outlined in the Superannuation Schemes. Civil servants who resigned on or after 1st June 1973 are entitled to have their Superannuation benefits preserved and these become payable on reaching minimum retirement age, i.e. age 60 or 65 depending on which Scheme they are members of. Telephonists appointed to the Department of Posts and Tele- graphs by the Civil Service Commissions would have had Civil Service status and would have been members of the Pension Scheme. However, it should be noted that some female civil servants may have been paid a marriage gratuity in lieu of superannuation benefits in which case there is no entitlement to any benefits on reaching minimum retirement age.

Waste Disposal 144. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when he plans to publish the Hennessy report on the proposed incinerator at Poolbeg, Dublin 4; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5675/11]

145. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to consult with the Dublin city manager to ensure that no decision to proceed with the incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula, Dublin 4, will be made before the publication of the Hennessy report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5676/11]

146. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the break clause in the contract for the proposed

757 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Kevin Humphreys.] incinerator at Poolbeg, Dublin 4, which is available until 2 May 2011; if he will act on this break clause; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5677/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 144 to 146, inclusive, together. I am considering the Hennessy Report in consultation with the Attorney General, including issues relating to publication, and am working to conclude this consideration as soon as possible. I am aware that the parties to the contract in respect of the Poolbeg facility are in a period of review. The activation of any break clause and all other contractual decisions are a matter solely for those parties. The Government’s Programme commits to the development of a coherent national waste policy, in adherence to the waste hierarchy, which will aim to minimise waste disposal in landfill and maximise recovery. I am prioritising this commitment, as I am anxious to provide early regulatory certainty, in the form of both policy and legislation, to ensure that the necessary actions and investment are taken to achieve those aims.

Radon Gas 147. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to introduce a grant or other financial support for homeowners to carry out radon tests in their home. [5698/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Over a number of years Government, largely through the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII), has worked to assess the extent of the radon problem in Ireland, and to increase public awareness of the issue. Between 1992 and 1999, the RPII carried out a comprehensive National Radon Survey to measure radon concentrations in Irish homes. The principal objective was to assess the scale of the radon problem and, in particular, identify areas at higher risk of radon contamination above the National Reference Level of 200 becquerels per metre cubed (Bq/m3). The Government’s primary approach to radon, which is similar to that of the majority of EU Member States, is to concentrate efforts on increasing public awareness of the risks posed by radon in the home. Householders, particularly those in known high radon areas, have been strongly encouraged by the RPII to have their homes tested for radon and to undertake reme- diation works where necessary. At present, there is no funding available through my Depart- ment to carry out radon tests. The cost of household radon texts is typically around €55. Further information is available on the RPII website www.rpii.ie .

Local Authority Housing 148. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the way he will deal with the local authority housing waiting lists; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5700/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, provides for a new process of housing needs assessment for applicants for social housing support. The Social Housing Assessment Regulations 2011, made under that Act, will come into force on 1 April 2011. From this date, all applicants for social housing support will be assessed under new eligibility criteria, including maximum net income limits prescribed by Regulation.

758 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

In tandem with the progressive implementation of the provisions of this Act, I intend to undertake a wider review of social housing policy generally to examine how best the needs of those on housing waiting lists can be met in the context of the further development of sustainable communities, while taking account of new housing options and the level of funding and resources available.

149. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to purchase some of the unfinished housing estates and finished houses to take care of the housing needs of persons awaiting social housing. [5806/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): The sourcing of suitable housing units to meet social housing needs in individual areas is primarily a matter for the statutory housing authorities and approved housing bodies. Providing an enhanced legal and policy framework within which the statutory and other housing bodies can meet social housing need is a high priority for the Government. In order to deliver on this priority, I intend to undertake a wider review of social housing policy generally to determine how best the needs of those on housing waiting lists can be met in the context of the further development of sustainable communities and the overall financial parameters which apply. In this context it will be important to ensure that the current surplus housing stock can, where appropriate and sustainable, be deployed to meet social housing needs.

Planning Issues 150. Deputy Noel Harrington asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the new regulations regarding grave digging introduced by Cork County Council; if they have been approved by him or his predecessor; if any other local authority has sought to introduce or approved similar regulations and if he will seek to amend these regulations to respect family traditions or if he will make any other amendments to these regulations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5846/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Section 199 of the Local Government Act 2001 provides that local authorities may make bye- laws for or in relation to the use, operation, protection, regulation or management of any land, services, or any other matter provided by or under the control or management of the local authority, whether within or without its functional area or in relation to any connected matter. The making of such bye-laws is a matter for decision by individual local authorities and is a reserved function of the elected members under Section 199(5) of the above Act. My Depart- ment does not hold details of such bye-laws in relation to graveyards.

Genetically Modified Organisms 151. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to revert to the Ireland’s previous stance in the EU on GM crops and foods. [5847/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The responsibility for GMOs is spread across a number of Government Departments. My Depart- ment has responsibility for policy matters in relation to the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment and the contained use of GMOs. The Department of Health and Children has responsibility for policy matters concerning genetically modified food and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for regulating seed of certain species for

759 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Phil Hogan.] marketing and cultivation; regulating animal feed that contains or is derived from authorised GM crops; developing a national strategy to ensure the co-existence of authorised GM crops with other crops; and authorisation and control of marketing of pesticides for use on crops, including GM crops. National legislation in this area takes account of the common EU framework for assessment and control of GMOs, by which Ireland, in common with all Member States, is bound. National policy on GMOs merits careful consideration and requires input from the three Departments, a number of state bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Teagasc and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, as well as other stakeholders. Working with my Ministerial colleagues, account will also be taken of the Programme for Government commitments in relation to enhancing the potential of the Irish agri-food sector globally and the potential for an eco brand.

Fire Stations 152. Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding the provision of a fire station in Tuam, County Galway. [5891/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The provision of a fire service in its functional area, including the establishment and maintenance of a fire brigade, the assessment of fire cover needs and the provision of premises, is a statutory function of individual fire authorities under section 10 of the Fire Services Act 1981 and 2003. My Department supports the local fire authorities through setting of general policy, training support and issue of guidance on operational and other related matters, and the provision of capital funding. An application to replace the existing fire station in Tuam was approved in principle by the Department in 2007. A site for the project has been purchased by the fire authority and the site cost has been recouped by my Department. The design process has also been completed. The provision of funding to bring the project to construction phase will be considered under future capital programmes within the constraints of available resources, and will have regard to the fire authority’s priorities, the spread of existing facilities and the totality of requests from other fire authorities for available funding.

Planning Issues 153. Deputy Noel Grealish asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if there are provisions in the Planning Act that address first floor fire exits in domestic dwelling houses or if there are any plans to include a provision in the future in order that first floor exits can be installed to enable persons with limited mobility to leave the house safely in the event of a fire on the ground floor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5924/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Part B (Fire Safety) of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations provides for the means of escape in case of fire in buildings. In particular, the requirement at B1 states: “A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building, capable of being safely and effectively used.” Technical Guidance Document B (TGD-B) provides guidance on how to comply with the requirements of Part B.

760 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Part B/TGD B does not currently require first floor fire exits in domestic dwelling houses to enable persons with limited mobility to leave the house safely in the event of a fire on the ground floor. The provisions for fire safety in relation to people with disabilities in dwellings will be considered in the context of the next review of Part B (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations.

Water and Sewerage Schemes 154. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment if he has granted funding for phases 2-4 of the Donabate-Portrane WWTP upgrade in County Dublin; and if so, when those moneys will be released and the expected timeframe for delivery of the works. [5944/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The Water Services Investment Programme 2010-2012, a copy of which is available in the Oireachtas Library, provides for the development of a comprehensive range of new water services infrastructure in Fingal. The Programme includes contracts under construction and to commence in the county to the value of some €130 million during the period of the Programme. While some network improvements in the Rush area of the Portrane/Donabate/Rush/Lusk Sewerage Scheme are included in the Programme amongst the list of contracts in the county to progress through planning in the period 2010 to 2012, it was not possible to include all elements of the network improvements proposed amongst the priority contracts and schemes selected for inclusion. A key input to the development of the Programme was the assessment of needs prepared by local authorities, including Fingal County Council, in response to my Department’s request to the authorities in 2009 to review and prioritise their proposals for new capital works in their areas. These were subsequently appraised in my Department in the context of the funds available and key criteria that complemented those used by the authorities. Inevitably, through this process, certain projects that had been proposed had to give way to others that are more strategically important at this time. Fingal County Council has written to my Department seeking the inclusion in the Programme of the remainder of the network it proposes for the ultimate development of the Portrane/Donabate/Rush/Lusk area. The annual review of the Programme is due to commence shortly and any proposals received from local authorities that meet the criteria being developed for the review will be considered for inclusion the Programme, having regard to overall financial implications.

EU Directives 155. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the time scale and methodology regarding the establishment of the management plan structures to deal with turf cutting on the land of special area of conservation, SAC, bogs, in order that compliance with the EU habitat directive will be in place. [6037/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Iam giving early and urgent attention to the issue of turf cutting on protected habitats, and am currently working with my colleague, Mr Jimmy Deenihan, TD, who will have responsibility in this regard as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, in developing comprehensive proposals for Government reflecting the commitment in the Programme for Government. These proposals, to be brought to Government as a matter of urgency, will also address con-

761 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Phil Hogan.] cerns raised by the European Commission regarding Ireland’s alleged breaches of the Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives in relation to the issue of peat extraction. This Government will seek to resolve the long-standing issues regarding peat extraction on protected sites by working with local communities to address legitimate concerns while ensuring that Ireland is in compliance with EU environmental legislation. The proposals which are now being developed will put in place a range of measures designed to meet these twin aims.

Asylum Applications 156. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will support the case of a person (details supplied) regarding family reunification. [5657/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) that the person concerned made an application for Family Reunification on behalf of his wife in July 2008. The application was forwarded to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for investigation as required under Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996. This investigation has been completed and the Com- missioner has forwarded a report to INIS. I am further informed that INIS have recently been in contact with the person’s legal representative seeking clarification of certain issues and upon receipt of same, the application will be considered further. 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.

Crime Prevention 157. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will support the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 5 regarding anti-social activities. [5658/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that the location referred to is within Santry Garda District. Local Garda management is not aware of any specific issues regarding organised anti-social behaviour in the area. Local gardaí have been in contact with the resident at the location referred to and have not been informed of any anti-social behaviour. Two members of the local Community Policing Unit are specifically assigned to the area and regularly meet residents’ groups and individual residents to discuss their concerns. Residents are encouraged to contact Gardaí if they have any policing concerns. The area is the subject of regular patrols by uniform and plain clothes personnel, including the Community Policing Unit and Mountain Bike Unit and local Detective and Drug Unit personnel, supplemented as required by the Divisional Crime Task Force and Traffic Corps personnel. Local Garda management closely monitors and keeps under review patrols and other operational strategies in place, in conjunction with crime trends and policing needs of the communities in the area, to ensure optimum use is made of Garda resources and the best possible Garda service is provided to the public. Current policing plans in the area are designed to address issues of crime and public order offences. Community policing is a central feature and core value of Garda policing policy, and

762 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers current policing strategies are predicated on the prevention of crime, public order offences and anti-social behaviour.

Citizenship Applications 158. Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform when a decision will issue on an application for naturalisation in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary. [5713/11]

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 February 2011. 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. While the average time from application to decision is 26 months, processing requirements and time taken to carry out necessary checks vary from case to case. 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 Recruitment 159. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will deal with a matter (details supplied) regarding the Garda Síochána training and development review group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5719/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am currently reviewing the entry requirements into An Garda Síochána in consultation with the Garda Commissioner. This review will of course take into account the recommendations of the Training and Develop- ment Review Group Report 2009 including the recommendations on the proposed educational entry requirements.

160. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform when the next round of recruitment to an Garda Síochána will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5726/11]

161. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform when the next intake of Garda trainees in Templemore, County Tipperary, will be called for training; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5727/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 160 and 161 together. 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-

763 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] 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 next begins.

Legal Aid Service 162. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the criteria which are required to qualify for free legal aid here; if they are the same criteria used throughout the EU or if not, the criteria adopted by different EU member states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5755/11]

163. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if a person has been refused free legal aid in their own member state is allowed to apply in another EU country; if there is a maximum limit to the cost involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5768/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 162 and 163 together. I wish to inform the Deputy that the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 makes provision for the grant by the State of legal aid and advice to persons of modest means in civil cases who meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations. The scope of the Act is very broad and covers most areas of civil law. The applicant must satisfy a means test and be found to be financially eligible under the provisions of the Act and Regulations. In addition to satisfying the means test, a merits test is applied also to each individual application for legal aid. The applicant is liable for a contribution which is also determined under the provisions of the Act and Regulations. I should also stress that for the vast majority of persons, civil legal aid is not free and they are required to make a financial contribution (based on their income and assets) which in most cases is relatively small. The minimum contribution for legal advice is €10 and for legal aid is €50. The contributions can be waived in certain limited circumstances. There are certain categories of cases in which it is free and is not means assessed. I understand that Information Leaflets about the services (including a Leaflet on Financial Eligibility) that the Board provides and a full list of the Board’s Law Centres is available at the Board’s website (www.legalaidboard.ie). The criteria for granting legal aid are not uniform across the EU. The Council Directive 2002/8/EC is designed to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. There is a standard application form which a person may complete and send to his or her own legal aid authority who can transmit it to the legal aid authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. A person who is deemed to be financially ineligible in their own country may have an application transmitted to this country in respect of court proceedings in this jurisdiction and if found to be financially eligible and to meet the other legal aid criteria, may be granted a legal aid certificate. I should emphasise that the Board can only process and determine applications for legal aid where the proceedings are in this jurisdiction. Any applicant wishing to seek legal aid for a matter in another jurisdiction must complete the standard application form and the Board, which is the designated transmitting and receiving authority for inter-jurisdictional legal aid applications, transmits the application to the relevant receiving authority in the other jurisdiction. A copy of the relevant form is available on the Board’s website www.legalaidboard.ie

764 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Under the Criminal Justice Legal Aid Act 1962, the courts, through the judiciary, are responsible for the granting of legal aid in criminal matters. An applicant for legal aid must establish to the satisfaction of the court that his/her means are insufficient to enable him/her to pay for legal representation him/herself. The court must also be satisfied that, by reason of the “gravity of the charge” or “exceptional circumstances”, it is essential in the interests of justice that the applicant should have legal aid. I have no function in these matters which are determined by the Judiciary. Under the 1962 Act, the applicant for free legal aid in criminal matters may be required by the court to complete a statement of means. It is an offence for an applicant to knowingly make a false statement or conceal a material fact for the purpose of obtaining legal aid. My Department, in consultation with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, is considering a range of changes to the current system, including the introduction of measures aimed at bringing a greater degree of rigour to the means assessment process in relation to criminal legal aid, increase the sanctions for providing false information and provide for the possibility of contributions towards the cost of legal representation where individuals have the means to do so. Responsibility for administering all legal aid will be consolidated with the Legal Aid Board. It is essential that the system is rigorous while ensuring legal aid is available to those who are entitled to it. I am also anxious to ensure that any measures introduced should not ultimately cost more than is saved. The Deputy will be aware that EU member states operate different legal systems and by virtue of this will apply different criteria for the award of legal aid within their respective national systems but all states are bound by Article 6.3.c of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: . . . . . (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require”.

Crime Levels 164. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of persons arrested for possession of drugs for sale and supply while they were on bail in each of the past five years; the number of those arrested who were again released on continuing bail; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5772/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Garda Síochána Act 2005 makes provision for the compilation and publication of crime statistics by the Central Statistics Office, as the national statistical agency, and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose. I have requested the CSO to provide directly to the Deputy any available statistics in relation to the commission of drugs offences during the reporting period, where the suspected offender was on bail. Other information sought by the Deputy relates to the granting of bail by the courts. Under the Courts Service Act 1998, the Courts Service is independent in the performance of its functions, which includes the provision of information on the courts system, including the provision of statistical and other related information. I have requested this information from the Courts Service in so far as what is available or can be compiled and will contact the Deputy again. I am concerned about offences being committed by persons on bail. For that reason, I intend to bring forward a new Bail Bill which will consolidate and update bail law. In preparing the Bill, I have asked my Department to examine a number of matters in the current law to ensure

765 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] that the bail regime can operate in as tight and effective a way as possible. One of the measures I am looking at is the extent to which the law can give greater guidance to the courts on the need to protect the public against those who present an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if granted bail.

Proposed Legislation 165. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform when he plans to bring forward legislation on proposed new anti-corruption laws; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5896/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Government is committed to consolidating and reforming the law on corruption. My officials have commenced work with a view to bringing proposals to Government in due course.

166. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform when he will introduce legislation to abolish upward only rent reviews for existing leases as set out in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5899/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): As the Deputy notes, the Programme for Government indicates that legislation will be introduced to end upward only rent reviews for existing leases. I am in consultation with the Attorney General with a view to progressing this matter as expeditiously as possible.

Citizenship Applications 167. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the position regarding an application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5906/11]

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 16 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.

Garda Resources 168. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of dogs currently in the Garda dog unit; his plans to increase the number of dogs; and the cost of one extra dog. [5920/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I have been informed by the Garda authorities that there are currently twenty-six dogs attached to the Garda Dog Units in the Dublin Metropolitan Region and the Southern Region. The cost of purchasing dogs varies between €1,000 and €3,000, depending on the breed involved. The allocation of Garda

766 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers resources is a matter for the Garda Commissioner, in line with his identified operational requirements and priorities. In that context I have been advised that the roll out of Garda Dog Units to other Garda Regions is being examined.

169. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of horses currently in the Garda mounted unit; his plans to increase the number of horses; and the cost of one extra horse. [5922/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): The allocation of Garda resources is a matter for the Garda Commissioner, in line with his identified operational needs and priorities. I have been informed by the Garda authorities that there are currently twelve horses attached to the Garda Mounted Unit and that plans to increase this number are being progressed. The approximate cost of purchasing a horse for the Garda Mounted Unit is €6,000.

Grant Payments 170. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive their REP scheme payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5664/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 3 on 1st October 2006 and has received payment in respect of each of the years 1 to 4. Following the imposition of a non-compliance penalty on his year 3 payment, the person named lodged an appeal to the Agriculture Appeals Office. The original decision was upheld by the Agriculture Appeals Office and the file is currently under review by the Office of the Ombudsman. Once the file has been returned by the Office of the Ombudsman processing of his Year 5 payment will be finalised.

171. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when payment of REPS 4 will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5701/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 4 in January 2010. A revised plan was submitted and has now been processed. Payment will issue within 10 days.

172. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when REP scheme payment will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5732/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The above named commenced REPS 4 in June 2009 and received his year 1 payment in December 2009. A new plan was submitted and, during processing, was found to be invalid. My officials have recently been in touch with the planner involved in order to resolve the matter.

173. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Kerry will receive their single farm payment. [5734/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): An application under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme was received from the person named on 17 May 2010. A number of land parcels declared by the applicant and listed as permanent pasture on the Single Payment Scheme application form were also being claimed as forestry under another Scheme.

767 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] The matter has now been resolved and payment under the Single Payment Scheme will issue to the applicant shortly.

174. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway has not been paid extra grant aid under the REP scheme in relation to endangered species; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5758/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 3 on the 1st December 2005 and received his year 5 payment in December 2009. The additional payment to the person named in respect of Rare Breeds was paid on 22nd March 2011.

175. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway has not been paid €10 per ewe grant aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5759/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): An application under the 2010 Grassland Sheep Scheme was received from the person named on 15 April 2010. This application was selected for and was the subject of a ground eligibility and Grassland Sheep Scheme inspection. This inspection revealed that the number of breeding ewes as declared by the person named on the 2009 Sheep Census was over-declared by 25%. Under the requirements of the Scheme, where the over-declaration between the total breeding ewes declared and the total determined is greater than 20%, no payment is due to the applicant.

176. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason a 10% penalty was imposed on a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5760/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): REPS 3 specifi- cations state that at least half of the recommended level of lime must be applied by the end of year 2 of the REPS plan, and the remainder by the end of year 4. In the case of granulated lime, the recommended requirement must be spread in equal amounts every year for the period of the contract. An inspection was carried out on the farm of the person named and it was found that the lime was not spread within the first two years. A letter explaining this and advising the person named of the penalty was sent on 18 November 2010. The letter also informed him of his right to appeal. To date no letter of appeal has been received from the person named.

177. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason grant aid under the sheep fencing scheme has not been approved in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5761/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named submitted an application under the Sheep Fencing/Mobile Equipment Scheme on 31 January 2011. The application is currently being processed. As soon as processing is complete the person named will be advised as to whether or not he has been approved for the scheme.

178. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason grant aid under the sheep fencing scheme has not been approved in respect of a

768 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5764/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named submitted an application under the Sheep Fencing/Mobile Equipment Scheme on 31 January 2011. My Department is awaiting further information concerning the application and when this is received processing of the application will recommence.

Veterinary Inspection Service 179. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his attention has been drawn to the closure of the district veterinary office in Portlaoise, County Laois, and the fact that this will mean that there will be no DVO in counties Laois, Carlow, Kilkenny, Westmeath and north Tipperary; and the measures he will take to address this void. [5769/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Decisions regarding the reorganisation of my Department’s local office structure were taken almost two years ago following an extensive review undertaken within the Department. The closure of the District Veterinary Office in Portlaoise represents the final phases of implementation of that review. Paramount to restructuring the local office network was concern to ensure a high quality service to farmers and food business operators throughout the country. The new structure not only maintains a high quality service but in fact, will enhance the level of service available, while at the same time driving greater efficiencies and encouraging broader flexibilities within the new Regional Office structure. Through the greater use of modern technology, the simplifi- cation of schemes and programmes, the reduction in disease levels, the uptake and availability of on-line services and the improved telephone service as a result of electronic systems, quite apart from the reduction in office footfall, the Department’s public interface with its clients can now be carried out in any one of the new Regional Offices. As a result, the number of local offices will be reduced to a sustainable level to reflect the overall reduced staffing levels within local offices and the reduced requirement for public counter services arising from the increased availability of the Department’s on-line services and the success of information technology investments, especially in the areas of animal health and welfare, customer management, animal movement identification and the management of field inspections. Instead of having a presence in every county, or more than one in many counties, a new regional structure of offices will replace a total of fifty eight separate office locations throughout the country. Farmer clients in neighbouring counties can access any of the regional offices in the network and all regional offices are geared up to provide service to farmers and food business operators.

Grant Payments 180. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a REP scheme payment will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry. [5774/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 3 in June 2006. His final payment in respect of year 5 was made in full in August 2010.

769 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

181. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will immediately pay farmers their REP scheme payments and all other payments due. [5807/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): My Department makes substantial payments under REPS and over €78 million was paid to participating farmers under the scheme in 2011 alone. To date, some 24,000 REPS 4 farmers have received a 2010 Scheme year payment. I am acutely aware, nevertheless, that many farmers are still awaiting their REPS 4 payments. I appreciate the importance of such payments to these farm families and I can assure the Deputy that every effort is being made by my officials to expedite these payments. Some REPS participants have not yet received their REPS 4 payment because their applications have not yet cleared the mandatory administrative checks. To meet the requirements of the EU regulations, applications for REPS payments have to go through an exhaustive series of administrative checks before payment can be released. In a significant number of cases, those checks have raised issues and queries which require further detailed examination. My officials are working to resolve these as quickly as possible with the applicants with a view to completing payment as quickly as possible.

182. Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when payment under the REP scheme will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary and the reason for the delay in issue of payment. [5900/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named joined REPS 4 on 1st January 2009 and received his year 1 payment in March 2010. The 2010 REPS 4 application from the person named was under examination following a crosscheck with the 2010 Single Farm Payment application. Difficulties due to re-digitisation have now been resolved and payment will issue over the next two weeks.

183. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding a forestry grant in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; if this person is entitled to payment at the farmer or non-farmer rate and the exact payment per acre in this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5927/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): To qualify for the farmer rate of premium under the afforestation scheme, an applicant must either have an active Department ID (Herd Number) or prove that 25% of their income was from farming for either the year of completion of planting or for 1 of the 3 years prior to completion. The person named has yet to submit acceptable proof of his farming activity in order to qualify for forestry premiums at the farmer rate. The rates of premium payable, for the species planted, are €467.50 per hectare for farmers and €194.79 per hectare for non-farmers. Also, payment of grants and premiums cannot be made until the person named submits a current/valid Tax Clearance Certificate as issued to him by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

184. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be paid their sheep grant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5929/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): An application under the 2010 Grassland Sheep Scheme was received from the person named on 14 April 2010. Payments under the 2010 Grassland Sheep Scheme commenced on 1 February 2011 in respect

770 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers of those cases cleared for payment at that stage; the application for the person named in now fully processed with payment due to issue shortly.

Live Exports 185. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his plans to outlaw the export of Irish greyhounds to China. [5941/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): I am not aware of any exports of greyhounds from Ireland to China in recent years. Any proposal to export greyhounds from Ireland to China would require the establishment and agreement of export health certification protocols with the Chinese authorities, and appropriate transport arrangements would have to be put in place to ensure the welfare of the animals in transit.

Veterinary Inspection Service 186. Deputy Arthur Spring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his attention has been drawn to the concerns of the local farming community in Portlaoise regarding the decision to relocate the Portlaoise district veterinary office and staff of 30 persons to a new rented building in Naas, County Kildare; the reason behind this decision; if it makes economic sense to move this office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5947/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Decisions regarding the reorganisation of my Department’s local office structure were taken almost two years ago following an extensive review undertaken within the Department. The closure of the District Veterinary Office in Portlaoise represents the final phases of implementation of that review. Paramount to restructuring the local office network was concern to ensure a high quality service to farmers and food business operators throughout the country. The new structure not only maintains a high quality service but in fact, will enhance the level of service available, while at the same time driving greater efficiencies and encouraging broader flexibilities within the new Regional Office structure. Through the greater use of modern technology, the simplifi- cation of schemes and programmes, the reduction in disease levels, the uptake and availability of on-line services and the improved telephone service as a result of electronic systems, quite apart from the reduction in office footfall, the Department’s public interface with its clients can now be carried out in any one of the sixteen new Regional Offices. The financial savings from the reorganisation of the local offices are very significant and for 2011 the reduction in running costs amounts to some €20 million and the reduction of over 250 staff. For 2012 the reduction in running costs are expected to be some €30 million with an overall reduction from the programme of over 400 staff. In the case of the new Regional Office in Naas, no additional accommodation is being rented by my Department.

Grant Payments 187. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there were any entitlements in the names of persons (details supplied); if such entitlements are still available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5949/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The persons named established 13.15 standard entitlements with a net unit value of €261.43 resulting in an overall Single Payment of €3,437.80. In scheme year 2005 the persons named successfully consolidated their entitlements which resulted in an allocation of 11.56 National Reserve entitlements with the higher unit value of €297.39 each. Subsequently in scheme year 2010, the persons named

771 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] transferred, by way of sale, 6.66 of these entitlements. They now have 4.90 entitlements remaining with a unit value of €297.39 each.

188. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when payment through the agri-environment options scheme will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5950/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Under the EU Regu- lations governing the Agri-Environment Options Scheme and other area-based payment schemes, a comprehensive administrative check, including cross-checks with the Land Parcel Identification System, must be completed on all applications before any payment can issue. Payment will issue to the person named at the earliest possible date once these checks have been completed.

189. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider paying the suckler cow welfare scheme to a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5952/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Section 8.7 of the Terms and Conditions of the Suckler Welfare Scheme states that “it shall be mandatory for an approved applicant to attend a suitable training course before reaching the end of their second year in the Scheme.” The Department provided courses for applicants extensively throughout the country during 2008 and 2009. However, in view of the difficult circumstances faced by a number of farming enterprises in Ireland during 2009, the Department decided, as an exceptional measure, to extend the period for completing a training course for a further year. To this end, further courses were run around the country in late 2010. Notification issued to all of those participants in the Scheme who had not already undertaken a course reminding them of their obligations under the Scheme and advising them that this was the final opportunity to attend a course and that failure to do so would result in no further payments being made and that any payments already made may be recouped. The person named applied for the above Scheme in 2008 and was made aware of the requirements regarding the training for the Suckler Welfare Scheme under the Terms and Conditions and through the extensive media campaign, which was conducted prior to the Scheme coming into operation. He had three years in which to complete the training and has not done so. Consequently, no further payments can be made to this herd owner under this Scheme and payments already made may be recouped.

190. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when payments will be made to farmers in Donegal South-West who have signed contracts as long ago as November 2010 with his Department under the agri-environment options scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5979/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Under the EU Regu- lations governing the Agri-Environment Options Scheme and other area-based payment schemes, a comprehensive administrative check, including cross-checks with the Land Parcel Identification System, must be completed before any payment can issue. Payment will issue at the earliest possible date once these checks have been completed.

191. Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason the final 25% of payment under the REP scheme has not issued to a person (details supplied) in Count Tipperary. [6039/11]

772 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 4 in November 2008 and received the first two years’ payments in full. 75% of the year 3 payment was made in December 2010. Payment of the final 25% cannot be made until outstanding checks are finalised and compliance with the scheme conditions has been fully established. Payment will issue at the earliest possible date once all checks have been completed.

192. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will receive payment in respect of their REPS 4 application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6049/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 4 on I December 2009 and received his year 1 payment in March 2010. The REPS file of the person named is the subject of an audit and will be processed for payment when the audit has been completed.

Community Development 193. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs if a decision has been made regarding funding for an organisation (details supplied); if a further extension will be granted; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5817/11]

Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): The Scheme to Support National Organisations in the Community and Voluntary Sector, under which the organisation referred to by the Deputy has been funded, commenced in 2008 with the aim of providing multi-annual funding to national organisations which provide coalface services to disadvantaged target groups. The three-year contracts were concluded at the end of 2010. On 16 December 2010, applications were invited under a new round of funding for the Scheme to Support National Organisations in the Community and Voluntary Sector. This new round of funding will replace the previous Scheme and will provide multi-annual funding (subject to funding being available) to national organisations towards core costs associated with the provision of services. The closing date for applications was 24 January 2011. On 2 December 2010, organisations funded under the previous Scheme were offered an extension to their contract until 31 March 2011. In light of the changes currently underway in relation to Departmental functions, I have decided to roll-over the current interim funding for a further month to allow sufficient time for decisions on the allocations under the new scheme to be made by the end-April 2011. The relevant organisations were informed of this revised timescale on 25 March 2011.

Údarás na Gaeltachta 194. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Comhionannais agus Gaeltachta an bhfuil sé i gceist aige airgead a chur ar fáil do Scéim na mBóithre Pobal i mbliana de bharr an luacha airgid atá ar fáil ónscéim; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [5693/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Dinny McGinley): Mar is eol don Teachta, rinneadh ciorrú substaintiúil ar bhuiséad na Roinne Gnóthaí Pobail, Comhionannais agus Gaeltachta don bhliain 2011. I gcomhthéacs an chiorrai- the sin agus i bhfianaise na ngealltanas atá ar láimh, ní léir go mbeidh sé ar chumas mo Roinne- se deontais a cheadú i leith bóithre pobail sa Ghaeltacht sa ghearr-théarma.

773 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

195. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Comhionannais agus Gaeltachta an bhfuil sé i gceist cead a thabhairt d’Údarás na Gaeltachta Príomhfheidhmean- nach nua a cheapadh; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [5691/11]

196. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Comhionannais agus Gaeltachta an bhfuil sé i gceist na feidhmeanna fiontraíochta atá ag Údarás na Gaeltachta a fhágáil acu mar atá leagtha síos sa Straitéis 20 Bliain don Ghaeilge; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [5692/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Dinny McGinley): Tógfaidh mé ceisteanna 195 agus 196 le chéile. Mar is eol don Teachta, tá molta sa Straitéis 20 Bliain don Ghaeilge 2010-2030 go mbunófaí Údarás Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta (Údarás na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta ), a ghníomhódh ar bhonn náisiúnta agus a chomhlíonfadh feidhmeanna ábhartha a dhéanann Údarás na Gael- tachta agus eagraíochtaí Stáit agus neamhrialtasacha eile i láthair na huaire, de réir mar is cuí. Tá ráite sa Straitéis freisin go leagfar síos ról sonrach agus feidhmeanna sonracha an Údaráis mholta nua i ndréacht-reachtaíocht. Maidir le Príomhfheidhmeannach nua a cheapadh, tuigfidh an Teachta nach mbeadh sé cuí tabhairt faoi sin go dtí go mbeadh na cinntí cuí tógtha maidir leis na cúrsaí seo uile.

Health Services 197. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the provision of appropriate adult day services for a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5665/11]

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.

198. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the provision of respite care in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5666/11]

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 to the Deputy.

Medical Cards 199. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding a medical card in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 5. [5673/11]

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.

200. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding a medical card application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5678/11]

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.

774 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Hospital Services 201. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will continue to quote the trolley figures produced by the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation and not the figures produced by the Health Service Executive which he previously claimed were dis- credited. [5690/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The information currently available on waiting times in Emergency Departments records only those who have been assessed as in need of admission at a particular time. The HSE publishes this information in respect of 2 p.m. each day. The Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation publishes information from 8 a.m. each day. I do not consider that the information currently produced is a good indicator of the actual extent of waiting times in our EDs, particularly where it relates only to patients awaiting admission, rather than to all ED attendances. The HSE is now implementing a project to collect data on the full patient waiting time experience in EDs. This ‘time in/time out’ data will show the actual time waited by all patients, whether admitted or not, from time of registration at an ED to time of admission or discharge. The HSE is working intensively to put this data system in place. When complete later this year, I expect that they will be in a position to produce better validated, more comprehensive information.

202. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Health and Children if funding will be provided in 2011 for the provision of a unit to provide radio iodine ablation in Galway Univer- sity Hospital; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5694/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Health Services 203. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will support a home care package in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin. [5709/11]

204. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will support the case of a person (details supplied) regarding assistance. [5716/11]

Medical Cards 205. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding a medical card appeal in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5723/11]

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.

775 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Nursing Homes Support Scheme 206. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be approved under the fair deal nursing scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5731/11]

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.

Mental Health Services 207. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children his views regarding youth mental health (details supplied); the actions he proposes or has instigated to address the issues raised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5745/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The Deputy can be assured of this Government’s commitment to youth mental health and to the development of the child and adolescent mental health service. Of course many factors affect the mental health of young people and I fully accept that youth is a very vulnerable time. In these circumstances, it is I believe critical, that we provide within our communities, the kinds of supports young people require. By ensuring early access to appropriate interventions we can help to prevent a lifetime of needless pain and suffering. In this regard the Government will reform our model of healthcare delivery so that more care is delivered in the community; access to modern mental health services in the community will therefore be significantly improved. It is proposed to ringfence €35m annually from within the health budget to develop community mental health teams and services to ensure early access to more appropriate services for both adults and children. It is hoped that the provision of such services will put an end to the practice of placing children and adolescents in adult psychiatric facilities.

Hospital Waiting Lists 208. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children when a child (details supplied) in County Kildare will have a physiological test completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5752/11]

209. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Kerry will receive an appointment. [5753/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Departmental Offices 210. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Health and Children his plans to close the Department of Social Protection local office at a location (details supplied) in Dublin 12 and move all staff and services to another local office. [6033/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for attention and direct reply to the Deputy.

776 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Hospital Waiting Lists 211. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kildare has not been provided with a date for an operation; if the position of surgical beds at Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, is resolved; the number of operations cancelled or deferred there for each of the past six weeks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5653/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As these are service matters, they have been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Hospital Services 212. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he issued a statement regarding the relocation of orthopaedic services from St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital to the South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Cork, which stated that this will enable the services to best serve the needs of orthopaedic patients in the region, in the safest and most efficient manner. [5668/11]

213. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he has now decided to review the decision on the relocation of orthopaedic services from St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital to the South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Cork; when he made this decision; the persons present at the meeting on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 when this was discussed; and if the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, was present at the meeting. [5669/11]

214. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he has discussed his decision to review the relocation of orthopaedic services from St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital to the South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Cork with the director of reconfiguration in the south. [5670/11]

215. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children when the review of the decision to relocate orthopaedic services from St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital, Cork, will take place; when a decision will be taken; the persons who will carry out this review and the cost of this review. [5671/11]

234. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Health and Children when the review he is undertaking on the future of orthopaedic services at St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital in Cork will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5903/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 212 to 215, inclusive, and 234 together. My Department has asked the HSE to identify any situations where it is planning to withdraw 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. My colleague, Deputy Dara Murphy, recently raised with me the HSE’s plans to reorganise the provision of orthopaedics service in Cork and I intend to discuss this particular issue with the Executive.

777 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Departmental Communications 216. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will undertake to publish all press statements issued by him, and on his behalf, on the website of his Depart- ment. [5672/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): All press releases issued by me, Ministers of State and my Department are published on the website of the Department of Health at www.dohc.ie, however this does not include responses to direct media queries. The Deputy might also like to note that in September, 2010, the Press and Communications Unit of my Department launched a new web link, www.healthupdate.gov.ie which was specially developed to provide information on health topics which may be of interest such as launches and speeches by me and my Ministers of State, health matters raised in the Oireachtas and developments in the health services from around the country.

Health Service Staff 217. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Health and Children when he expects to be in a position to offer a voluntary scheme to non-frontline employees in the Health Service Executive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5681/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As the Deputy will be aware, a voluntary targeted early retirement scheme and redundancy scheme for employees in the “Management/Administration” and the “General Support Staff” categories was made available in the health sector late last year. 2,006 individuals (of whom 1,409 were HSE employees) availed of these exit schemes. The Government is committed to bringing about a significant reduction in the number of staff across the public service over the period to 2015, to realise efficiencies in the delivery of public services and contribute to the overall correction of the national finances, while protecting front-line services as far as possible. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is currently considering the range of measures that will be necessary to bring about the necessary numbers reductions. Policy measures across various areas of Government activity should contribute to this overall objective, and the Government will be carrying out a Comprehensive Review of Expenditure this year to examine all areas where savings and numbers reductions might be identified. Part of the overall policy on public service numbers may involve voluntary staff exit mechanisms, and the options in this regard will be considered by the Government in this overall context.

Vaccination Programme 218. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Health and Children when the commitment in the programme for Government for the provision of the cervical cancer catch-up programme for all girls in secondary school will be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5748/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I have asked the HSE to develop an implementation plan for a catch-up programme for HPV vaccination of girls in secondary school, to commence in the new school year this autumn.

Hospital Waiting Lists 219. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be granted a first appointment; if the period spent waiting for a

778 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers first appointment will be considered when seeking a referral to the National Treatment Pur- chase Fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5750/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The management of out-patient waiting lists is a matter for the HSE and the individual hospitals concerned. I have, therefore, referred the Deputy’s question to the Executive for direct reply. Subject to the resources available to it, the National Treatment Purchase Fund may arrange treatment for patients who have been on a surgical waiting list for more than three months.

220. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Health and Children, further to Parliamentary Question No. 39 of 26 January 2011, when a person (details supplied) in County Clare will be facilitated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5821/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I understand that the HSE has issued a reply to the Deputy in relation to this matter.

Health Services 221. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Health and Children, further to Parliamentary Question No. 41 of 26 January 2011, when an application will be processed in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5822/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The HSE has advised that they replied to the Deputy on the 4th February 2011 in relation to this matter.

Mental Health Services 222. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will produce a step by step plan including a timeframe for each action demonstrating the way he will deliver on the promise to close unsuitable psychiatric institutions, improve access to modern mental health services in the community and implement A Vision for Change; and if so, when. [5824/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Government policy on mental health incorporates the recommendations of A Vision for Change; the closure of the old psychiatric hospitals and the transfer of patients to more appropriate community based settings is central to A Vision for Change and is therefore a priority for the Government. The evidence is overwhelming that a modern mental health service is best delivered in the community and as close to service users as possible. In these circumstances the Government is committed to improving access to modern mental health services in the community, and will ringfence €35m annually from within the health budget, to develop community mental health teams and services to ensure early access to more appropriate services, and improved integration with primary care services. As the implementation of A Vision for Change is primarily a matter for the HSE, the Deputy’s request for details of a step by step plan has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Medical Cards 223. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Health and Children when an application will be processed in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5825/11]

779 Questions— 29 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 to the Deputy.

Proposed Legislation 224. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason the Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation Bill) 2011 was not restored to the Dáil Order Paper; if he will bring forward his own legislation to outlaw this practice as a matter of priority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5829/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I am pleased to inform the Deputy that since this Bill was initiated in the Seanad, it remains on the Seanad Order Paper. The issue of restoration will only arise after the new Seanad is formed.

225. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason that the Sunbeds Regulation Bill was not restored to the Dáil Order Paper; if he will bring forward his own legislation to prohibit the use of sunbeds by under 18s; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5830/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The Sunbed Regulation Bill 2010 was a Private Members Bill which lapsed on the dissolution of Dail Eireann on 1 February 2011. Shortly, I will seek Government approval to prepare legislation to regulate sunbed use, in particular to prohibit their use by those under 18 years of age.

Genetically Modified Organisms 226. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Health and Children his plans to revert to Ireland’s previous stance in the EU on genetically modified, GM, crops and foods. [5848/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Responsibility for issues relating to the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Ireland rests with my colleague Mr. Phil Hogan, T.D. Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government while responsibility for GM animal feed rests with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Simon Coveney, T.D. My responsibilities in this area relate to the safety of food. Each application for authorisation to place food consisting of, or containing, genetically modified ingredients on the markets of EU Member States is considered on a case-by-case basis. The food in question must be deemed to be safe by both the European Food Safety Authority and the competent authority in the country of application. If authorised, the food must be clearly labelled to ensure that consumers are fully informed as to the properties of the product. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) is the competent authority on food safety in Ireland. My Department has consulted with the FSAI and has been informed that there are currently no authorised GM foods on the Irish market.

National Lottery Funding 227. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Health and Children, further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 93 and 103 of 2 December 2010, the position regarding an application in respect of a group (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5854/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): National Lottery funding applications are approved based on the recommendation of the relevant section within my Depart- ment. I am pleased to advise the Deputy that the application for National Lottery funding

780 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers which was made by the group in question has been successful and funding amounting to €22,600 has been approved. A letter confirming this outcome has issued to the group.

Hospital Waiting Lists 228. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Carlow will be provided with a bed to allow further investigation and medical attention for their illness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5855/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Health Services 229. Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for Health and Children if he has received a submission from an organisation (details supplied) to provide rehabilitation; if his attention has been drawn to the lack of community rehabilitation services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5890/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I have received correspondence from Acquired Brain Injury Ireland on behalf of the Neurological Alliance of Ireland regarding their Action Plan for Neurological Care. My Department is in the process of finalising a National Policy and Strategy for the delivery of Neuro-Rehabilitation Services in Ireland 2011- 2015. The Health Service Executive’s National Service Plan for 2011 includes a commitment to:

• target people waiting for a neurology out-patient appointment,

• appoint a national clinical lead for neuro-rehabilitation,

• establish an implementation structure and develop an implementation plan for neuro- rehabilitation

I am confident that the implementation of the Government’s Programme of reform for the Health Services will improve services for people living with a neurological condition.

Care of the Elderly 230. Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for Health and Children when the national positive aging strategy will be published; the Minister or Minister of State who will be dealing with these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5892/11]

231. Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will have responsibility for issues raised by organisations involved with the elderly; if these matters will be dealt with by a Minister of State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5893/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 230 and 231 together. I would like to reassure the Deputy that policy in relation to older people in Ireland is a priority for the Government. While policy in relation to the health services is a matter for me as Minister, positive, active, healthy aging must not be considered to be solely a health issue. It is a matter for every Minister to consider the wide range of issues which directly impact on the lives of older people particularly in the context of the increasing numbers of older people in society. It is therefore a matter for every Minister to address issues relevant to older people and respond accordingly.

781 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy James Reilly.]

As the Deputy may be aware, the Programme for Government commits us to complete and implement the National Positive Aging Strategy. The Strategy will establish the strategic framework for future policies, programmes and services for older people in Ireland. It is envisaged that the National Positive Aging Strategy will set out a common framework for the development of operational plans by Government Departments clearly setting out their objectives relating to older people, as well as the development of ongoing mechanisms designed to monitor progress and identify challenges facing older people in the future. The development of the Strategy is being assisted by a Cross-Departmental Group (CDG), comprised of officials from 11 Government Departments, the Central Statistics Office and An Garda Síochána, and is chaired by the Director of the Office for Older People. Work on preparing and developing the Strategy is continuing in my Department. I would also like to assure the deputy that I consider it vital for me, as Minister, and for officials at my Department, to liaise and work closely with groups who represent and are involved with all citizens, including older citizens. Indeed, as part of the ongoing work to develop the National Positive Aging Strategy, a group comprising representatives of twelve national-level non-governmental organisations with an interest in older people’s issues has been established under an independent chair. The purpose of this Group is to facilitate the exchange of information and views during the development of the Strategy between NGOs, their members and the Cross Departmental Group assisting in the development of the Strategy.

Medical Cards 232. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Health and Children when a decision will issue on an application for a medical card in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5894/11]

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 Aids and Appliances 233. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) will receive orthopaedic shoes. [5902/11]

Question No. 234 answered with Question No. 212.

Health Insurance 235. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will outline all contacts between him and a group (details supplied) and Voluntary Health Insurance between his appointment as Minister and Tuesday, 23 March 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5904/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I met with representatives of the Cork Medical Centre along with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Simon Coveney, on 10 March 2011. I listened to their concerns about the decision of the VHI not to provide cover for the facility. I explained that I could not intervene in what are commer-

782 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers cial decisions for the VHI. However, I indicated that while I was not in a position to give any undertakings, that I would discuss the issue with the VHI. I met with the Chairman and Chief Executive of the VHI on 11 March to discuss a range of issues, including the VHI’s decision on the Cork Medical Centre. In particular, I expressed my disappointment at a decision which would lead to the closure of such a modern facility and the consequent loss of jobs. While it is not appropriate for me to intervene in the decisions of the VHI as to which health service providers it makes arrangements with on behalf of its customers, I am anxious to deal with the perceived dominance of the VHI in the private health insurance market. In that regard, I have instructed my officials to proceed with the appointment of financial and legal advisors to examine options for the rebalancing of the market, with a view to addressing this position.

Hospital Services 236. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Health and Children if Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, is proceeding with a new car park; if declining parking revenues was an element of the decision to develop new parking facilities at Beaumont; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5961/11]

237. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Health and Children the projected cost to Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, for the option to acquire the title in 2013 of the multistorey car park that was opened in Beaumont in 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5962/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 236 and 237 together. As decisions relating to car park facilities at Beaumont Hospital, including the projected cost for the option to acquire title to the multistorey car park, are matters for the HSE, the questions have been referred to the Executive for direct reply.

Medical Cards 238. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding an appeal of a medical card refusal in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5968/11]

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.

Health Services 239. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will expedite an application for home help in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5969/11]

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.

240. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children when a specific item will be made available to a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5970/11]

783 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Child Care Services 241. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will specify the regulations in relation to child care (details supplied). [5971/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Child minding in Ireland is governed by Part VII of the Child Care Act 1991 and by the Child Care (Pre-School Services) (No. 2) Regulations 2006. The explanatory guide to the regulations prescribes that a childminder should look after not more than five pre-school children including the childminder’s own pre-school children. Not more than two of the prescribed number of children should be less that 15 months. Exceptions in relation to the numbers under 15 months can be made in the case of multiple births or siblings. It is also a requirement that a telephone and a second person be available on the premises to deal with emergencies.

General Practitioner Services 242. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will provide a breakdown of the costs that general practitioners meet out of their general medical services payments, relating to staff, accommodation and so on, received from the Health Service Execu- tive. [5982/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): More than 60% of the population receive GP services on a private fee paying basis, while almost 40% receive such services under the General Medical Services (GMS) Scheme. While these percentages may vary between practices, information in relation to GPs business expenses are not available to my Department. GPs who hold contracts with the Health Service Executive (HSE) under the GMS Scheme are remunerated through a range of fees and allowances, including capitation fees, out-of- hours payments, special items of service fees, rural practice allowance, payments towards the employment of practice nurse, secretary and manager support and fees for locum cover for leave. In 2009, the total fees and allowances paid by the HSE to contracted GPs was over €470 million. This included allowances of some €75 million towards the employment of practice secretaries, nurses and managers. These staff are available for the provision of services to the GPs’ private patients. The full list of GMS payments to GPs is set out in the Primary Care Reimbursement Service “Statistical Analysis of Claims and Payments 2009”, which can be viewed on-line at http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/PCRS/PCRS—Publications/2009.pdf. Regulations made in 2009 and 2010 under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 will result in full year savings of some €78 million in 2011 in GP fees and allowances. The current rates of GMS payments are set out in the Health Professionals (Reduction of Payments to General Practitioners) Regulations 2010 (S.I. No. 638 of 2010).

Health Services 243. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children when a specific service will be made available to a child (details supplied) in County Cork. [5986/11]

784 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Health Service Staff 244. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will assist in resolving the issues which have arisen in relation to the transfer of staff from one facility to another (details supplied). [5987/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for attention and direct reply to the Deputy.

Health Services 245. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if assistance has been approved for transport costs in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5988/11]

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.

Health Services 246. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will restore a specific service which was recently suspended by the Health Service Executive. [5989/11]

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 247. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will arrange a hospital appointment in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5995/11]

Medical Cards 248. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding an application for a medical card in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [5997/11]

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.

Search and Rescue Service 249. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Transport if the full complement of staff, in light of impending retirements, will be maintained at Valentia coast guard radio station, County Kerry, now and in the future in view of the fact that this is a front-line emergency service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5784/11]

250. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Transport when the urgently needed updated equipment will be installed at Valentia coast guard radio station, County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5785/11]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I propose to take Questions Nos. 249 and 250 together.

785 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.]

In relation to the current staffing complement and impending retirements of staff at Marine Rescue Sub Co-ordination Centre (MRSC) Valentia, there are no plans to reduce the current establishment numbers of the Coast Guard’s Co-ordination function which are located at Valentia, Malin and Dublin. As regards the installation of Integrated Communications System (ICS) at Valentia, the existing buildings will have to be adapted to accommodate the ICS equipment. Planning for this is currently underway in consultation with the Office of Public Works. Installation is not expected to be completed until next year.

Taxi Hardship Panel 251. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Transport the position regarding the taxi hardship scheme in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 13. [5935/11]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The Taxi Hardship Payments Scheme was established in late 2003 to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Taxi Hardship Panel. The Scheme was formally launched in November 2003 and the final date for receipt of applications was 24 September 2004. The processing and consideration of applications under the Scheme was undertaken independently of my Department by Area Development Manage- ment Limited, now known as Pobal. My Department has no details of applications made under the Scheme. I have referred the Deputy’s Question to Pobal for direct reply. There are no proposals to reopen the Scheme.

Road Network 252. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Transport if he will provide funding for the bridge at Ballindeega on the N72 road between Barraduff and Rathmore, County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5777/11]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As Minister for Transport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding in relation to the national roads programme element of Transport 21. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads, is a matter for the National Roads Authority (NRA) under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Noting this I have referred the Deputy’s question to the NRA for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a reply within ten working days.

253. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Transport the position regarding the steel structure on the bridge at Valentia, County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5778/11]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is the statutory responsibility of each local authority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on those roads are funded from local authorities own resources and are supplemented by State road grants. The initial selection and prioritisation of projects to be funded is also a matter for the local authority. The 2011 Regional and Local Road Grant Allocations were announced on 1st February 2011. A total of €375.176 million is being provided to local authorities this year for the maintenance and improvement of regional and local roads. In July last year, local authorities were invited to submit applications for funding in 2011 under the Specific Improvement Grants Scheme. However, funding for Valentia Bridge was not among the applications submitted by Kerry County Council. It is open to Kerry County

786 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

Council to prioritise this project and to include it among its applications for funding in 2012 when submissions are sought later this year. Alternatively, Kerry County Council may fund this project from its own resources.

Ministerial Travel 254. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Transport if he will report on his recent visit to India for St. Patrick’s Day; the number of persons he met during the visit; the number of officials who accompanied him on the visit and the cost of the visit to date. [5921/11]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): India is the second fastest-growing major economy in the world. It has been growing at over 6% for the past 15 years and offers a wide range of opportunities for Irish interests, particularly in relation to trade, industry, education and tourism. If the Irish economy is to return to sustainable annual growth, we need to successfully engage with the BRIC economies. As such, the expansion of Irish firms into the Indian marketplace, as well as attracting foreign direct investment from India will play a key role in our economic recovery. Therefore, the purpose of my trip was to increase awareness of Ireland generally in India, to help promote Irish interests there, and to encourage investment and tourism from India to Ireland as well as educational co-operation. In this regard, I departed from the 15th of March 2011 and returned on the 21st of March 2011. From my arrival in New Dehli on the 16th of March, to my departure on the 20th of March, there was a full schedule from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. During the course of my visit I met with a wide range of individuals and groups. These included Indian central and state governmental ministers and officials including the Minister for Civil Aviation, Shri Vayalar Ravi, the Secretary for Civil Aviation Dr. Zaidi, and Joint Secretary for Civil Aviation Prashant Sukul and the Minister for Science and Technology, Ashwani Kumar. I also met with Ministers from the Governments of the states of Goa, West Bengal and Maharastra. I met with a number of Irish businesses operating in India and seeking to attract investment from India to Ireland. In this regard I met with a number of IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland clients, with a number of aviation interests, visited Dell’s Indian headquarters as well as witnessing the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between Keenan Technologies, an Irish company, and Keventer Agro, an Indian company. In addition, I held meetings in New Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai with Indian tourist and education agents in order to promote Ireland’s attractions as a destination for Indian tourists, as well as a location for learning. Finally, I also attended the Irish cricket team’s match with the Netherlands as a guest of Cricket Ireland and met with the team afterwards to congratulate them on their success at the Cricket World Cup in defeating England and the Netherlands. I also met with Sister Cyril Mooney of the Loretto Rainbow School in Kolkata — a noted Irish educationalist who has been a foremost innovator in Indian education since the 1950s. I also carried out a number of interviews and briefings with the Indian media. I also met with IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and Tourism Ireland representatives working on the ground in India, as well as the Honorary Consuls in Kolkata and Mumbai. On my return from India, I had the full details and costs of the trip published on the Departmental website. These details can be accessed from http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=300. Furthermore during the course of my trip, there were regular updates on the Departmental website as to my activities on this trip including details of my itinerary. On the trip I was accompanied by my private secretary. The total cost of the trip (for both myself and my private secretary) to my department including flights to India, and internal flights within India, overnight accommodation, gifts for dignitaries amongst other costs was

787 Questions— 29 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] €9,156.31. A full breakdown of these costs can be found on my Department’s website. Approxi- mately half those costs relate to me and half to my private secretary. I was also accompanied on part of my visit by Declan Collier, CEO of the Dublin Aviation Authority. It should be noted however, that his costs were not borne by my Department. With regard to the number of people I met on the trip, it is not possible to state this definitively given the number of events that I attended. However, it was in excess of 100 people. Furthermore, I addressed over 1,000 people at evening events in New Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work being done by the Irish Embassy in India, as well as the various Irish State agencies operating there.

Public Transport 255. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Transport the reason Dublin Bus services are being reduced in Dublin North-Central, particularly on the 123 bus route. [6050/11]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): This is a day-to-day operational matter for Dublin Bus in conjunction with the National Transport Authority (NTA) under its public service contract with the company. I have no function in the matter. I have arranged for the Deputy’s question to be sent to the NTA for a direct response. Please advise my Office if you do not receive a response within ten days.

788