Dáil Éireann

Vol. 730 Wednesday, No. 4 20 April 2011

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Dé Céadaoin, 20 Aibreán 2011.

Leaders’ Questions ……………………………… 589 Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 32 ……………… 596 Order of Business ……………………………… 596 Ceisteanna—Questions Taoiseach ………………………………… 600 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages ………………… 611 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: Order for Report Stage …………………………… 619 Report Stage ……………………………… 619 Ceisteanna—Questions (resumed) Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport Priority Questions …………………………… 629 Other Questions …………………………… 637 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 648 Commission of Inquiry into Banking Sector: Statements ………………… 649 Private Members’ Business Energy Resources Motion (resumed)………………………690 Adjournment Debate Arts Funding ……………………………… 715 TaxCode…………………………………716 Asylum Applications …………………………… 718 Symphysiotomy Procedures ………………………… 721 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 723 DÁIL ÉIREANN

————

Dé Céadaoin, 20 Aibreán 2011. Wednesday, 20 April 2011.

————

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

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Leaders’ Questions Deputy Micheál Martin: The Nyberg report is a candid and clear assessment of the origins of the financial crisis and at its core is an analysis of the systemic failures, which is far more challenging than a more narrow approach. It confirms that one cannot simply take action against a number of individuals and expect that everything will be fine. It explicitly addresses the roles of the banks, regulators, politicians——

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: No, it does not.

Deputy Micheál Martin: ——Departments, auditors, the media and commentators.

A Deputy: And Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I suggest to the Taoiseach that were Members to respond properly to the lessons of what went wrong, they must commit themselves to a much wider set of specific regulatory reforms. In this context, will the Taoiseach support the establishment of an Oireachtas regulatory oversight committee?

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: The Deputy is 14 years late.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Because the fundamental question——

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: It is a bit late for that.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Where has light-touch Charlie gone now?

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, will the Deputies please allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak?

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Where has Charlie McCreevy gone?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I apologise.

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The fundamental question remains as to who guards the guardians in such situations. The conventional wisdom historically and over the past decade or so advo- 589 Leaders’ 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Micheál Martin.] cated the independence of regulators from politicians and from the Oireachtas. That has been the conventional wisdom but when things collapse, conventional wisdom changes and Members need to endeavour——

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Revisionism.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Light-touch Charlie.

Deputy Micheál Martin: ——to create alternatives to that approach. I suggest a proposal I have made previously, namely, the establishment of an Oireachtas regulatory oversight committee with the capacity to hire independent expert staff to assist it in its work. Members are in discussions on the establishment of committees and this presents an opportunity for this Dáil to establish such a committee to ensure that this House — if one goes back over the past decade or so, one will note the House rarely discussed bank regulation — will have an ongoing, systemic approach to overseeing the work of the various regulatory authorities in the different sectors of our economy.

The Taoiseach: I thank the Deputy for his having arrived at a point of distilled wisdom after all the years. I agree on behalf of everyone else in the House that Members should have the capacity to have authority to investigate such matters properly. The Nyberg report speaks for itself. However, what it does not state is that the entire culture was such and that banks knew they were lending too much and in many cases, borrowers knew they were borrowing too much. I recall being in the House during the controversy caused by a former Taoiseach to the effect that if people were a bit concerned about the housing business or that the housing boom might fail, they should go off and commit suicide. When the Nyberg report came before the Cabinet, it discussed this and people want those who were involved in reckless lending and the pursuit of such activities to be legitimately questioned. The Oireachtas does not have the authority to do this because of the current legislative constraints. The Government intends to change this and will ask the people for their authority and imprimatur to deal with the consequences of the Abbeylara judgment. This will give the Oireachtas the right to investigate the facts, without criminal intent being determined, in the way people desire in respect of accountability. This will be the oversight that Members must have and will get. The Government will bring forward its views shortly after Easter on the new committees and the numbers thereof, which will be seriously reduced. These committees will have the opportunity to deal in a real way with issues that come before them. In respect of the matters arising from the Nyberg report and for all future occasions, I want elected Members of the Oireachtas to have the right to have compellability whereby witnesses may be called before them to investigate facts regarding which the electorate is rightly and thoroughly outraged.

Deputy Micheál Martin: One can be highly partisan and political about this issue but that is not the point. The Nyberg report fundamentally is about a systemic failure across a range of issues and I have put forward a constructive proposal in the context of how, on an ongoing basis and in a systemic way, Members should change the way in which they do politics and business in the House by having a proper regulatory Oireachtas committee with teeth and with independent expertise that can ensure the role and performance of regulators are as the legislative framework ordains. This change can and should be brought about and I ask the Taoiseach to make a commitment to work with other leaders in the House to establish such a regulatory oversight committee. I have no difficulty with the amendment of the Constitution in respect of the Abbeylara judgment. However, while that will deal with the specific issue on hand, other issues may arise in the future. The Taoiseach is correct in that one can make comments and 590 Leaders’ 20 April 2011. Questions observations about what did or did not happen. Regulation was introduced here and the Oireachtas raised issues on dog doping and so on but what is important——

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: We know what happened.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: We still are paying for it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: ——in respect of what happened within the financial system is that Members should change systemically the manner in which they operate to ensure they can prevent other occurrences in the future.

The Taoiseach: While there was a regulation committee in the last Dáil, it was not able to do its duty. The question to be asked of the people will give the Oireachtas and its committees real authority and teeth to do their job both in a specific case and for all others. I believe the Deputy will agree with and support this measure. While the Nyberg report speaks of systemic failure, it also deals with a blatant lack of leadership and direction from the Government in office.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach: When the Abbeylara consequence has been dealt with, the appropriate committee to deal with these matters also will be able to call before it politicians representing the Government. I refer to my quotation from the Nyberg report yesterday, “The higher ... [the office], the greater their responsibility”, and that did not exclude politicians or the political process. This is the reason a referendum on the Abbeylara judgment is needed and is the reason I intend to enable Members of the Oireachtas on an appropriate committee to do their duty for the people so that there can be accountability for what happened. As the Deputy knows well, this was a scandalous series of events. He was a Member on the benches on this side of the House which unfortunately allowed it to happen. That is in the past and we must now deal with the future to ensure this cannot happen again.

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you Taoiseach.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach: The Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, has pointed out that decisions will be taken in conjunction with the EU directions for changes and in respect of what the Govern- ment will implement.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Obviously, we need to put in place procedures and committees with appropriate powers to deal with this issue, but we are missing the point about the pulse of the public. The Nyberg report points to all of the failures. Sinn Féin warned about what would happen, but we were ignored and dismissed. We repeatedly called for stronger regulation, caps on remuneration, a fair tax policy and so on. What about those who created this mess? How will they be held accountable? Yesterday the Taoiseach stated he would not intervene to get back the €3 million of the people’s money pocketed by Colm Doherty of AIB, citing contractual entitlements. This came the week after the announcement that 2,000 lower paid bank workers would be sacked, while thousands more are being denied modest pay rewards, despite their contractual entitlements. Is it only the rich and the golden circles that have entitlements? Cénfáth nach ndéanann an Taoiseach an rud ceart — seasamh ar son na cosmhuintire amuigh ansin in ionad bheith ag seasamh ar son an chiorcail órga atá beo go fóill? As we seek to reform the banking system, can we expect to 591 Leaders’ 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Gerry Adams.] hear further news of more big bankers walking away with obscene severance packages and pensions for which the taxpayer will pay and in respect of which the Government will repeat the mantra that it can do nothing? The people concerned acted in breach of their duties, caused significant losses, brought banks to the point of collapse and almost bankrupted the State. They should not be rewarded. I know of no other sector in which this conduct would be rewarded. Citizens have taken action against those whom they perceived to be politically responsible, but what action will the Government take to ensure there is not a recurrence and that those who are accountable will be brought to book instead of being allowed to walk away with millions of euro in public money?

The Taoiseach: I heard the leader of Sinn Féin say he had issued warnings about what would happen. I am not sure how severe the warnings were, but I know that his party knows a lot about banking. There is no question about this.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputies, please.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Taoiseach is absolutely right. We certainly do. Does he have any other gems of information to share with us?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach to reply, please.

The Taoiseach: As Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin is aware——

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Sadly, some of us spent a long part of our lives working in the damn things.

An Ceann Comhairle: Could we hear the Taoiseach reply, please?

A Deputy: It is Joe Soap’s bit of paper.

The Taoiseach: As Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin is aware, the money was paid to Mr. Doherty last year before the general election occurred. I make the point to Deputy Gerry Adams that the Government has taken action and that the Minister for Finance has outlined a series of changes that are to take place. There may well be other senior banking executives who have legal entitlements to similar deals. I do not know.

Deputy Gerry Adams: The Taoiseach should know.

The Taoiseach: The Department of Finance is examining that matter following the making of a request by the Minister. We have to look at new remuneration allowances for the future. As the Deputy is aware, there are similar developments in the European Union where there are directives on the remuneration of senior bankers and in which their bonus culture is attacked head on, which did not happen here. We will be moving towards a new regime to replace the old one. I am conscious of the fact that there are people with legal entitlements that will be very difficult to disentangle. The pension cash payment in the case of Mr. Doherty arose under the Finance Act 2006. Pension pots above €5 million, the standard fund threshold, were made subject to a very high tax rate. The SFT was reduced to €2.3 million in the last budget. Individuals with bigger pots were allowed to agree a personal fund threshold with Revenue that eliminated retrospective 592 Leaders’ 20 April 2011. Questions tax liability. Usually, no future payments were made into the pension fund. Some employers offered lump sum tax payments which were taxed as income each year in place of pension contributions. When this issue was examined by the CIROC group, it recommended against making these payments in lieu of pensions and AIB agreed to withdraw its scheme. However, it indicated to CIROC at a meeting in February 2009 that Mr. Doherty had agreed his arrangement with Revenue and would suffer financially if he attempted to undo it. This was accepted. When AIB sought the agreement of the Minister for Finance on the appointment of Mr. Doherty in November 2009, it was agreed that his salary should be €500,000. AIB also sought approval for a continuation of the pension cash allowance. This was agreed, subject to it being strictly in line with existing contractual entitlements. The important point is that the Department of Finance did not have the details of Mr. Doherty’s contract. The then Minister for Finance, referred to as a person of high office in the Nyberg report, should have known this. Certainly, as a person who did not want to have Mr. Doherty appointed in the first place, he should have made it clear that he should have been apprised of each and every issue regarding the internal appointment of Mr. Doherty by AIB.

Deputy Gerry Adams: That is a bit rich, if the Taoiseach does not mind the pun. He asserts that the then Minister for Defence should have known this.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Minister for Finance.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Gabh mo leithscéal.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: The Minister for Defence was giving interviews in Limerick at the time.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: And writing for the Sunday Independent.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Gerry Adams: I thank the Ministers for their assistance.

An Ceann Comhairle: Ministers and Deputies, please allow Deputy Gerry Adams to continue.

Deputy Gerry Adams: The Taoiseach stated the then Minister for Finance should have known this, yet he stated earlier that there might be others about whom he did not know who would walk away with a great deal of money. That is exactly what he stated.

The Taoiseach: Correct.

Deputy Gerry Adams: He then went on to criticise what the former Government had done, despite repeating——

Deputy Brendan Howlin: During the appointment process.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Let me outline my understanding of what the Government plans to do. It plans to remove board members of the bank who were appointed before the bank bailout——

An Ceann Comhairle: This should be a supplementary question.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Sin é. Is that the case? What about senior management? Surely, it must go. What about the public interest directors? Do they not have a case to answer? This is 593 Leaders’ 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Gerry Adams.] occurring on the Taoiseach’s watch. He needs to know and tell the House clearly that bankers will not walk away with obscene amounts of the people’s money.

The Taoiseach: I did say it was the Department of Finance, not the Department of Defence, as the Deputy said. The position is that I do not know the contractual arrangements of other senior bank executives and whether there are similar deals that were done. I do not know the answer to that question, but the Minister for Finance has asked the Department of Finance to inform us of what the position is. The Minister has pointed out, following the Government’s deliberations, that changes are going to take place. My point is that if the Minister for Finance of the day did not want Mr. Doherty to be appointed to the bank in the first instance, he should at least have been diligent to the utmost in finding out what contractual arrangements were being made for him. The contractual arrangements had been drawn up at that stage, but a copy of the contract was not made available to the Department. Obviously, following the Minister’s query, I expect that we will receive some further information on the number and range of other persons who may have had similar contracts drawn up currently working in the banking sector.

Deputy Finian McGrath: I revert to an issue I raised a number of weeks ago, namely, that of cystic fibrosis services. I believed this matter had been done and dusted in the Dáil three weeks ago when I was fairly satisfied with the Taoiseach’s response. The problem stems from the considerable confusion caused by a major change made last Tuesday. Will the Taoiseach respond to a letter I received from a constituent of mine who is a person with cystic fibrosis attending St. Vincent’s Hospital? The letter reads:

We all watched prime time on Tuesday with a sigh of relief as this part of the battle was coming to an end. The harsh reality that was presented to us in the last seconds of the programme (only 20 inpatient beds) and the realisation we have to continue fighting is almost too much to comprehend.

It continues:

I am afraid to go into hospital and have never had the luxury of an en-suite single room. I do not understand how people who understand what we are going through can do this to us.

Will the Taoiseach confirm to the House that 34 beds with en-suite facilities will be available for cystic fibrosis patients at St. Vincent’s Hospital when the new wing is finished next year? Will he end the confusion on the matter, particularly after the “Prime Time” report, where the Minister announced there would be 20 beds for the purpose? By the Friday he seemed to revert to the original 34-bed figure. If the figure for 34 en-suite rooms is accurate — I hope it is — will the Taoiseach remove the 20-bed figure from the agenda? Does the Taoiseach accept that cystic fibrosis patients and their families have a right to the precise figure? Does the Taoiseach understand the hurt, anxiety and trauma caused to cystic fibrosis patients by these announcements? Will the Taoiseach confirm that 34 beds with en-suite facilities will be dedicated to cystic fibrosis patients at St. Vincent’s Hospital?

The Taoiseach: I thank the Deputy for raising the matter again and if he provides me with a copy of the letter I will reply to it on behalf of the Minister for Health and Children and the Deputy. It is only right and proper for us to say that the needs of cystic fibrosis patients must be respected and recognised. I took the opportunity to attend the annual gathering of the cystic fibrosis organisations in Westport recently and met with significant numbers of parents who 594 Leaders’ 20 April 2011. Questions have children with the condition. One of those parents made the point that it is not just the child in a case who must deal with cystic fibrosis but the entire family. From that perspective, attitudes and focus would change entirely because of having to deal with the condition. Last week the Minister for Health and Children decided to bring all the various interests together to bring about a common understanding about cystic fibrosis. I am aware of the building currently under way at St. Vincent’s Hospital and proposals in respect of other places around the country. Deputy McGrath should be aware that four parties issued a joint statement as a result of the Minister requiring a common interest to ensure everybody plays on the same pitch. The parties are Mr. Philip Watt, the chief executive of the Cystic Fibrosis Association of Ireland; Professor Charlie Gallagher, the lead clinician for cystic fibrosis in St. Vincent’s Hospital, who has done remarkable work over the years; the chief executive of St. Vincent’s Hospital; and Dr. Barry White, the national director for quality and clinical care in the HSE. These people issued a joint statement which sets out the following:

It is Department of Health and Children policy that there must be sufficient inpatient beds to treat all people with cystic fibrosis who require hospitalisation. The number of cystic fibrosis inpatients at St. Vincent’s University Hospital is expected to vary between 20 and 34. In this respect, 20 inpatient beds is a minimum and not a maximum, and the number of beds with appropriately trained staff can potentially accommodate 34 inpatients. When the beds are not required for cystic fibrosis they will be used for other inpatients with a clearly agreed protocol that there will always be beds available for patients with cystic fibrosis who require admission.

That is the joint statement from the four professionals dealing with the matter. In answer to the Deputy’s question, the 20 inpatient beds are a minimum but there will always be beds for cystic fibrosis patients who need them.

Deputy Finian McGrath: I am concerned about the absence of the 34-bed figure, although the Taoiseach mentioned a 20-bed figure that could go as high as 34 beds. Before the last general election, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin, the Independents and all the Government parties agreed on 34 beds. The new Members of the Oireachtas should be aware of that. Deputies such as Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and a current Minister of State, Jan O’Sullivan, were very supportive of a 34-bed unit. There should be no messing with the figures or saying that the 20- bed unit can go to 34 beds. The Taoiseach mentioned Charlie Gallagher, whom I know very well. I worked with him very closely over the past number of years at the cystic fibrosis unit in St. Vincent’s Hospital. He and all the other professionals and parents want 34 beds. Accommodation for 100 beds is currently being built so surely we can get 34 beds without any dithering. I suspect there is something going on in the background between hospital management, the HSE and the Depart- ment of Health and Children, which is part of the problem. Is there a turf war between the HSE and the Taoiseach’s Department? In the past four or five days I have been under the impression that he has been on the case. People like Orla Tinsley have done much work on cystic fibrosis so the Taoiseach might consider nominating her as one of the 11 nominees to the Seanad. That would enable a voice in here for cystic fibrosis patients.

The Taoiseach: I have always commended Deputy McGrath for his continuing interest in genuine matters related to health. As I understand it approximately 1,200 people in the country must deal with cystic fibrosis. The new unit is being built in St. Vincent’s Hospital to increase the capacity and level of facility available for people who must deal with the condition. The 595 Order of 20 April 2011. Business

[The Taoiseach.] Deputy is also aware that it is important for optimum use to be made of whatever beds are available, with 20 as the minimum number. The statement from the four professionals in the field indicates that the facility will be able to cater for up to 34 beds with appropriate trained and skilled staff. That should be of some comfort to people with cystic fibrosis, and beds should not be idle when they can be used. There is a clear indication that if beds are required for cystic fibrosis patients, they will be used for that purpose. Deputy McGrath would be aware of other developments in train in respect of Limerick and other areas. I hope that over a period, the people who must deal with cystic fibrosis, including families, will have proper facilities and thus increase quality of life and life expectancy. That will come about by having the best and most up-to-date facilities available. The Minister called the relevant parties together last week and I am glad there has been a clear statement from four people who are genuinely involved in the matter. I listened to Mr. Gallagher speaking in Westport and as a man of considerable experience I appreciate his views. I am glad he is party to the statement which sets out the true position.

Request 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 notice under Standing Order 32.

Deputy Niall Collins: Under the provisions of Standing Order 32, I seek the adjournment of Dáil Éireann to discuss an issue of major public importance to Limerick and the mid-west region requiring immediate consideration, namely, the proposed decision by the Health Service Executive to cut the surgical capacity of Croom Orthopaedic Hospital in County Limerick by 50% from 3 May. I call for an opportunity for the Minister for Health and Children to intervene directly with the HSE to reverse the decision, given his and the Government’s stated intention to bring the HSE under direct control, to exercise responsibility and thus avoid the disastrous consequences for patients and staff across Limerick by reversing this planned 50% cut.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered the matter, I am afraid it is not in order under Standing Order 32.

Order of Business The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 8, Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad] — Report and Final Stages; No. 9, Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 10 — statements on suicide prevention (resumed); No. 11 — statements on the commission of inquiry into the banking sector in Ireland, the Nyberg report, to be taken at 3.45 p.m. today and the Order shall resume thereafter. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings for No. 11 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. tonight and the following arrangements shall apply: the statement of a Minister or Minister of State 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 15 minutes in each case; the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes; Members may share time; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes. Private Members’ Business shall be No. 21 — motion re: natural resources (resumed), which is to conclude at 8.30 p.m. if not previously concluded.

An Ceann Comhairle: There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 11 agreed to? Agreed. 596 Order of 20 April 2011. Business

Deputy Micheál Martin: The McCarthy report on State assets and companies will be published today. Will the Taoiseach agree to provide time for a debate on this when the Dáil resumes? We welcome the fact that it does not appear to recommend a fire sale of State assets; however, I have not seen the report. Commitments were made in the programme for Government by the parties in office to realise about €2 billion through the sale of such assets. Could the Taoiseach indicate when legislation will be introduced to realise those proceeds?

The Taoiseach: The McCarthy report will be published today, and it is important that there be a public debate about its contents. Obviously, the Government will consider its implications. The programme for Government, as the Deputy is aware, states clearly that we believe the sale of non-strategic State assets should be enabled in order to obtain a fund of €2 billion. That will only apply at appropriate times. Time will be allowed in the House for a debate on this. Yesterday we had a debate about the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding, which will apply in the week the Dáil returns after Easter. We will make arrangements at the Whips’ meeting this evening about when it will be appropriate to have a comprehensive debate on the McCarthy report.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I may have misheard the Taoiseach. I think he said we had a debate yesterday on the memorandum of understanding, but I must have missed that. The Government promised a referendum to overturn the results of the Abbeylara case. Is it intended that this will be held in conjunction with the presidential election in November? Will the promised children’s rights referendum also be held in November? Is the Government still ruling out a referendum on the EU-IMF bailout?

The Taoiseach: What I said was that we agreed yesterday that the original promised debate on the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding, which was to be held this week, would be replaced by a debate on the Nyberg report, and the original debate would take place the week after the Dáil comes back. The Deputy may not agree with the format of the debate; he will be entitled to have his say about that. The Government has decided, in respect of the publication of the Nyberg report, that the current legislation does not allow the Oireachtas to do its job in the way in which we would like. Thus, it is necessary to have a referendum to deal with the consequences of the Abbeylara judgment. What we have said is that this referendum will take place this year. I 11 o’clock emphasise that the legislation required is complex and sensitive, but it will be prioritised by the Government and by the Attorney General. There was no commitment to hold any particular referendum in conjunction with the presidential election, on whatever date that might be, but it is an option that could be considered. The Minister for Children, who is beside me, is working on the issues that need to be dealt with in order to hold a referendum on children’s rights. As the Deputy is aware, there was a change in the wording, on the recommendation of the previous Attorney General, from that agreed by the all-party Oireachtas committee. I have met with advocacy groups for children’s rights, and work is currently being undertaken by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in this regard. I cannot give a commitment that this referendum will be held at any particular time.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I seek clarity on an issue to which we referred earlier, namely, contractual entitlements. If it is proven that the individuals involved were in breach of their contractual obligations, an indictment that is clear from the current reports——

597 Order of 20 April 2011. Business

An Ceann Comhairle: Maybe the Deputy should table a parliamentary question. That is not an issue for the Order of Business. We have dealt with it.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Perhaps the Taoiseach wants to respond.

The Taoiseach: As I said, the Minister for Finance is examining this, and he has already announced a number of changes that will apply from here on. As I said in reply to an earlier question from the Deputy, I am not aware of the number of people who might have similar contracts and are currently working in the banking system. The Department of Finance is now considering this.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I welcome the fact that we will have an opportunity to discuss the Nyberg report today, although I cannot say I welcome its content. Given the media coverage today that the McCarthy report proposes the sale not of €2 billion worth of State assets, as specified in the programme for Government, but of €5 billion worth, and lists such bodies as Coillte, the ESB, and harbours and ports, is it not a matter of urgency that we debate the report before the Easter break? This is not about what happened in the past but what will be done to vital public assets in the future in order to pay off the bad gambling debts of bankers and speculators at the behest of the IMF. Could we have time before the Easter break to discuss this report and hear the Taoiseach’s response to its recommendations?

The Taoiseach: There is not much time left to have a debate on this before Easter. The Deputy should read the report. I can confirm that it recommends no fire sale of non-strategic State assets. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will comment on this today following the publication of Mr. McCarthy’s report. The Deputy should note that reports are reports. There is no binding obligation upon the Government to comply with all the recommendations in the report, of which there are a considerable number. The Government’s intention to realise €2 billion from the sale of non-strategic State assets at an appropriate time is clear. Let there be a comprehensive debate, to which the Deputy can contribute, and the Government will make its decision in due course about which of the recommendations may feasibly be implemented.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Can we start it tomorrow?

Deputy Michael McCarthy: Last week I asked the Tánaiste a question about legislation dealing with the retention of deposits. He courteously replied and said an official would be in contact with me regarding that issue. However, I have not had such contact. I would appreciate if I could be given information on the question I raised last Thursday. My question is about community employment schemes. There is a commitment in the programme for Government that these will be transferred to local authorities. When will legislation be introduced to deal with this?

The Taoiseach: I can confirm to the Deputy that there was contact with the Department of Justice and Equality about this although it is not actually the responsibility of that Department but of the Department of Finance. Two contacts were made; one is now accurate, and that will be followed through. The Deputy will hear a report shortly.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Considering the Taoiseach’s statement that tackling the disastrous unemployment situation is a top priority and that the proposed strategic investment bank is supposed to deal with this crisis by financing large infrastructural projects, which could create tens of thousands of jobs, I am surprised that he was not able to tell us in recent days when legislation would be introduced by the Government to provide for this investment bank. In 598 Order of 20 April 2011. Business view of the urgency of this situation and the need to resume lending to small enterprises and the self-employed, which is provided for by the proposed bank, does the Government have a timetable for legislation in this regard?

The Taoiseach: The strategic investment bank and the NewERA programme are part of the programme for Government, and these are being dealt with at the moment. The decision of the Government to have two pillar banks, and the required deleveraging, will provide serious capital of €10 billion for credit over each of the next three years. In addition, the Government has stated that as part of its jobs initiative programme it intends to introduce a loan credit scheme, which will make it easier for businesses to acquire credit for expansion, changes of direction and employment of new personnel. It is fundamentally important for everybody that we get our people back to work. Those two elements of our jobs initiative will help in that matter.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call——

Deputy Joe Higgins: It is very important to have clarity. Is the Taoiseach stating there will not be legislation for a strategic investment bank?

The Taoiseach: I am not.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The Taoiseach did not reply to my question. He knew when this legislation would be introduced because he considers it important but he spoke about two other banks. Will there be a strategic bank and when will relevant legislation be introduced?

An Ceann Comhairle: Is legislation promised, Taoiseach?

The Taoiseach: I answered the Deputy’s question. I reiterate the strategic investment bank and the NewERA programme are part of the programme for Government and work is being done on both at present. The Deputy also raised a point about credit not being available and I gave him two answers. The deleveraging and the decision of the Government to bring clarity to this matter will allow for credit to be made available. As part of its jobs initiative programme, the Government will introduce a partial loan credit guarantee scheme which will free up the capacity of business to have credit to provide employment and to help with the development of our indigenous economy. I hope that is clear.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor: It was perfectly clear to me, at any rate.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Maybe the Deputy will tell us about it.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor: Given that banks’ external auditors should have a key reassurance role at the heart of the financial reporting system, that they had a privileged position which provided exceptional access to bank information and that the audit report had limited constructive value as a means of communicating the banks’ problems, would the Taoiseach consider improving the existing rules and regulations in regard to the proposed Central Bank Bill to conform to a more watchdog approach to the role of the banks?

The Taoiseach: Deputy Lawlor may make a number of such points in the course of the debate if he has the opportunity to speak. The Central Bank Bill is at an advanced stage and is obviously receiving priority from the Minister for Finance. It will be introduced to the House as soon as it is ready. 599 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions

Deputy Willie O’Dea: When can we expect to see the consumer and competition Bill that will merge the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency?

The Taoiseach: I cannot give the Deputy an accurate answer. We do not yet have a date for the Bill’s introduction. I shall report its progress as it moves through the system.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: Under secondary legislation, namely, the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, for a long time local authority tenants living in houses have been afforded the right to purchase their homes. Under that Act when will the Minister sign an order to allow tenants in flats to purchase their flats? Will the Taoiseach provide me with a date?

The Taoiseach: I am aware of the problem. This concerns secondary legislation for which I do not have details to hand. I suggest the Deputy forward a question to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, or asks the Ceann Comh- airle’s permission to have the matter considered on the Adjournment. I shall send the Deputy a report in so far as I can ascertain the position.

Deputy Niall Collins: The first McCarthy report made a number of recommendations regarding the unifying of local authorities in, for example, Limerick, Waterford and Galway, and this was echoed in the Brosnan report for Limerick. Does the Taoiseach intend to introduce legislation to give effect to those recommendations?

The Taoiseach: The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is working actively on this matter. I do not know when he intends to introduce legislation but he is considering the implications of the reports mentioned by the Deputy.

Ceisteanna — Questions

————

State Visits 1. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the estimated costs to his Department of the upcoming visits of Queen Elizabeth II and President Barack Obama; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7560/11]

The Taoiseach: My Department will meet certain of the costs associated with these visits. However, as detailed arrangements for the visits have not been finalised it is not possible at this point to give an accurate estimate of the amount involved. The costs must be seen in the context of the historic nature of the visits and the opportunities they present, not only for trade, investment and tourism but also as regards enhancing Ireland’s international reputation and profile at a critical juncture.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: That is not really an answer. Reports have been circulating in the media about the Garda and a bill for €25 million for security for the visits. Nobody knows the figure — certainly I do not — but perhaps the Taoiseach knows whether that figure is part of such a cost or is the total considerably greater? Who will pay for it? Is it to come from the Taoiseach’s Department? The public are entitled to know what the cost of such visits will be, given they are being slaughtered with cuts, left, right and centre. If the figure of €25 million, for example, is even close to accurate, let us think how many hospital beds could reopen and how many public amenities—— 600 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: ——or public services that were cut could be restored. Is it not merely rubbing the noses of the Irish public, who have been slaughtered with cuts, to invite one of the richest women in the world to this country for a jamboree or to spend millions on bringing over the American President when that President is involved in a war in Afghanistan, is arming and financing dictatorships in the Middle East, and so on? Is that an appropriate use of public money in these straitened times?

The Taoiseach: The Deputy is entitled to make smart remarks if he so wishes. He should regard this as an investment. Two global figures are coming to visit this country. Regarding the Queen of England, it is the first time in 100 years that a reigning monarch has come here and this is the culmination of a great deal of work by a great number of people who brought about a peace situation. The Queen responded to the invitation from our Uachtarán to visit the country. The same applies in the case of the visit of the American President. The Deputy is aware of the extent of the investment by American business in Ireland and the fact that more than 100,000 people are thus employed, many more indirectly. The Deputy’s comment about spending the money allocated for the double visit does not appreciate the scale of the potential which exists for tourism, business, the development of our economy and the presentation in a global sense of our country and its people. This is very short-sighted on the part of a Deputy from a constituency where the last monarch landed on a visit to Ireland. The Deputy should look on this as an investment for the future. Detail of all of the costs, to the last cent in so far as public moneys are concerned, will be made available to the Deputy after the visit. We know we recently allocated €3 billion to Anglo Irish Bank and INBS and will have to pay that sum for each of the coming ten years, based on a promissory note. I cannot tell the Deputy the exact cost of the double visit but I shall have the figure when the visits are over. It is an investment for the future and a brilliant opportunity to present our country in a global sense with two internationally recognised figures who will visit, along with many others who will be associated. I expect the vast majority of Irish people will welcome warmly both visitors to our shores. The Deputy should have the decency to do the same.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy may ask a short supplementary.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: The Taoiseach may be aware the previous visit to Dún Laoghaire was accompanied by a protest organised by none other than James Connolly. It was a justified protest because the monarch represented and symbolised vast inherited wealth and the subjugation of poor people in this country. To bring it up to date, is it not incredible for the Taoiseach to say we will only know the cost of these visits afterwards, when people are being slaughtered with cuts, left, right and centre, with the loss of vital services? The vulnerable in our society——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy already made this point.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Does the Taoiseach not have a responsibility to tell the public, before these visits, how much they will cost so that we can debate as a society whether that is the best way to spend that money rather than putting it into the services people need and into job creation programmes——

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you, Deputy. 601 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: ——rather than for a jamboree for one of the wealthiest women in the world and one of the world’s most powerful men?

The Taoiseach: The Deputy will be aware that in a previous existence the Ceann Comhairle made massive strides in dealing with sea-landing facilities in their mutual constituency and these will stand the test of time.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Our harbour has not been sold.

The Taoiseach: It is not possible to give an up-to-the-cent figure for the costs associated with both visits.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: A ballpark figure.

The Taoiseach: All of these will be made available in due course but the Deputy should understand at least that other countries would give a lot for the opportunity to have two global figures visit our country in the space of a short time. I see this as an investment in business, for tourism, the development of the economy and the projection of Ireland as a country that has grown up, that faces the future, has dealt with adversity in the past and will do so again in the future. We will be a better people. Queen Elizabeth and President Obama are warmly welcome to our shores.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach agree that, notwithstanding the importance of costs, the need to have value for money to underpin everything we do in public life, investment in tourism and other secondary benefits that may flow from such visits, the fundamental rationale for the visit of Heads of State — in this instance the Heads of State of Great Britain and the United States of America — is the normalisation of relationships that should exist between kindred countries, which have long historic links of family, kinship, investment, trade and so forth? It is the normal thing to do. Does the Taoiseach agree that the importance of the visit of the Queen of England is that it reflects the transformation in the set of relationships between the people of this island and the people of Great Britain? This is the ultimate motivating factor in welcoming the Queen of England at this juncture in our history when we have collectively travelled a significant journey towards peace and reconciliation. Above everything else, this is the fundamental reason this visit should be welcomed. In the context of the visit of President Obama, we should consider the historic and very important links between our two countries, the powerful Irish diaspora in the United States and their sense of kinship with the island of Ireland throughout the generations. The visit of President Obama reflects the personification and manifestation of this strong and vibrant relationship which is still thriving and which is of value to the future of this country and to our diaspora in Great Britain and the United States.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Beidh fáilte roimh cuairt an Uachtarán Obama go hÉirinn. Ní aon- taíonn Sinn Féin le go leor polasaithe atá ag teacht ón Teach Bán. Nuair a bhí seans agam, dúirt mé a leithéid leis na hUachtaráin Clinton, Bush agus Obama. Caithfimid bheith an-soiléir gur thacaigh Rialtas Mheiriceá leis an bpróiseas síochána in Éirinn. Síleann poblachtánaigh agus saoránaigh eile go bhfuil cuairt Banríon Shasana mícheart ag an am seo.

An Ceann Comhairle: Ceist, más é do thoil é.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Maith go leor. Cuirfidh mé mo cheist i mBéarla. I find it rather patronising that the Taoiseach refers to this as a sign that Ireland has grown up as if, in some way, we were adolescent, immature or juvenile. A better mark of what is wrong with a section 602 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions of Ireland is in the Nyberg report. However, I come directly to the issue. Does the Taoiseach agree that while some people may wish to welcome the Queen of England, others have the right to dissent, provided they do so peacefully and in a democratic way? There is an egalitarian tradition on this island——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, could we have the supplementary question, please?

Deputy Gerry Adams: ——that is conscious of the history between the islands. We have yet to make our own history because we are still partitioned. Those of us who wish to point out these things and to celebrate republicanism as opposed to monarchy should have the right to do so.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Will the Taoiseach desist from speaking about US investment in Ireland as if they were here to do us a kindness?

An Ceann Comhairle: This is Question Time.

Deputy Joe Higgins: It has one of the highest returns on investment anywhere in the world with handsome profits. Is the Taoiseach aware that in the United States it is considered that the reason for President Obama’s visit is to support his re-election campaign and how this will impact on the Irish American vote?

An Ceann Comhairle: The question is about what?

Deputy Joe Higgins: Is it not a little rich that the taxpayer, as well as bailing out European speculators, must now make a contribution to the re-election campaign of a United States President? In view of the fact that the royal family of Britain is one of the wealthiest families in the world and that this country is, figuratively, almost sleeping rough, will the Taoiseach ask the Queen if she might make a contribution towards her own bed and breakfast costs to assist the unfortunate taxpayers and go easier on them?

An Ceann Comhairle: Before you reply, Taoiseach, Deputy Clare Daly’s question No. 14 is about the plans of the visit of President Obama. I wish to allow a supplementary.

Deputy Clare Daly: I will be brief as there has been some discussion on it already. I find it hard to believe that with a couple of weeks to go, the Taoiseach has no indication whatsoever of what the plans for President Obama’s visit may be. I assume the Taoiseach has some idea. Out of respect to the House we deserve some indication of what they may be. Similarly, a question arises with regard to cost. The Taoiseach justifies the visits on the basis that they will contribute to enhancing Ireland’s international reputation. Let us get real here. The Taoiseach will need something substantially more than the visit of these two individuals to enhance Ireland’s reputation. I find reprehensible the idea of wining and dining them at our expense when so many cutbacks are being foisted on the backs of ordinary people. Many people will object to the fact that our money is being used.

An Ceann Comhairle: Can we have a question please?

Deputy Clare Daly: I do not believe the Taoiseach does not have the details of the costs or the plans of the visit and I wish to see them. It is not good enough to say this is an investment; the Taoiseach must quantify it. The 100,000 people working for US multinationals work here because of the profits those companies generate. However, that number is a fraction of the workforce of the country. The investment would be better made in jobs here rather than this visit. 603 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions

An Ceann Comhairle: This is Question Time.

Deputy Clare Daly: That is the question.

The Taoiseach: I agree with Deputy Micheál Martin in respect of the fundamental reasons for the visits of the Queen and President Obama. It is part of the continuation of the normalisation of relationships between countries. I commend the Deputy on the part he played when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs in dealing with issues in regard to Northern Ireland and on some of the actions he took, all of which were part of leading to that normalisation. I commend An tUachtaráin and her husband on the work they did and continue to do in respect of developments in Northern Ireland to bring about a situation where there is peace and harmony among all the communities. The elections under way in Northern Ireland are evidence of the first full term of office run by the Assembly. I trust that in the discussions we have on a continuing basis with the politicians and elected representatives from Northern Ireland and our counterparts in Britain we will continue to work on the development of the island economy of Ireland and for the benefit of all our people. Deputy Adams spoke about the Teach Bán and the tacaíocht that the Stáit Aontaithe are giving us in Ireland and we will respect that. As the Deputy is aware, we have made a strong case for the continuation of the investment funds, especially in regard to vulnerable communities in Northern Ireland. However, this is a free country and visitors are welcome here. Deputy Adams is entitled to have his say, as he does. The vast majority of people will welcome the visits of the Queen of England and President Obama. I note Deputy Higgins’s comment to the effect that the reason the President is coming is because of his re-election campaign. I recall that many of the statements the Deputy made in the European Parliament, to where he was dispatched from Dublin West for a period, were not disconnected from his attempts to get back in here. Fair play to him, he is back from Dublin West. Politicians have in their nature a view of the future from which they are not themselves absent, as does the Deputy. In respect of Deputy Daly’s comments, I do not have the actual cost of both visits. Figures have been mentioned for the overall costs and they are extensive, obviously. These are two global personalities. I do not have all the details of President Obama’s visit. He will visit the village of some of his ancestors in Moneygall and it depends on the extent of his schedule here, which has not been finalised, so I cannot say to the Deputy what will happen or where he will visit from the time the wheels of his plane touch down on the tarmac until he leaves. That will be finalised between the American Administration and ourselves, and the House will be told in due in course. When Deputy Higgins speaks about homelessness and problems people face, I understand that. I went to Cricklewood on Friday morning to talk to people who were homeless who are now being looked after by the Irish welfare personnel with some assistance from the local authorities in Brent and from the Government here through the Department of Foreign Affairs. While some of them strayed in former years, they at least had the opportunity to have employment and to raise a family across the water. We should not forget that. Between 750,000 and 1 million people from this country live in Britain and had the chance to do very well in many cases. The 100,000 people here who work in American firms, who raise their families and get on with their lives, are grateful for that investment. One of the major American firms here is spending €500 million of its own money, without grant assistance, to put itself in a competitive position for future investment. I support that. Part of that is linked to the 12.5% corporation 604 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions tax rate which has been of immense value for young men and women to get jobs in Ireland. Irrespective of Deputy Higgins’s political philosophy, I am sure he supports that.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: Despite what has been said this morning, I ask the Taoiseach to continue to promote Ireland as a tourist destination and to assure President Obama and Queen Elizabeth that they will be more than welcome to visit our constituency in Dún Laoghaire. We are spending a lot of money trying to promote our county and if the Taoiseach could invite President Obama or Queen Elizabeth to the constituency, the people there would be delighted to welcome them.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Maybe they should switch the Monte Carlo rally to Dún Laoghaire.

Deputy Peter Mathews: I also ask the Taoiseach to invite President Obama and Queen Elizabeth to the Oireachtas, if that would fit in with their plans, and I congratulate the Taoiseach for the good will. This is an invitation of good will in the season of Easter. It behoves us all not to get bound up with neurosis and costings and the details of the plan. It is often the case that people do not know their plans until they finally arrive. The main thing is that these people get a good, warm welcome. I advise people not to worry too much about the past because every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. We should reflect on that.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Is that a confession?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I wonder will they travel around throwing cake to the peasants.

The Taoiseach: I thank Deputies Mitchell O’Connor and Mathews for their comments, support and invitations, and for the Deputy Mathews’s words of wisdom, particularly regarding sinners.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Father Mathews.

The Taoiseach: I hope we all have a future in that case. These visits are a brilliant opportunity to be availed of by the country and, on behalf of the people, I warmly welcome the visits of the Queen and President Obama.

Inward Investment 2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the role to be played by him in seeking to secure and retain inward investment as distinct from the role of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. [7690/11]

3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach in view of his previous role in relation to key science and innovation issues, the role he will play in this area in the future. [7781/11]

The Taoiseach: I propose to answer Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together. Attracting and retaining inward investment, and promoting research and development and innovation, are both core aspects of the Government’s strategy for supporting enterprise and growing employment. As Head of Government, I will support development and implementation of policy in these areas in a variety of ways, including as chair of relevant Cabinet committees, promoting Ireland’s interests abroad on international visits and meeting potential investors where appropriate. However, these and other aspects of enterprise policy are primarily the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. As such, any questions on these 605 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions

[The Taoiseach.] issues, including future parliamentary questions, should be addressed to him. As Taoiseach, it is my privilege to associate the office with this area in general. We are all interested in attracting jobs to this country.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I thank the Taoiseach for that reply, although I am concerned about its tone in the sense that the Taoiseach historically played a vital role, not just a supporting role, in securing inward investment, particularly in terms of major inward investment projects where invariably the Taoiseach would be brought on board at a certain stage to attract such projects and to meet chief executives from the countries where the Government was anxious to secure foreign direct investment. In recent years the Taoiseach led major trade missions to emerging markets such as China and India. While some of that was commented upon negatively in the media, in essence they were watershed visits in terms of bringing many companies from Ireland to those destinations. We should not underestimate in Asian countries the importance of the Taoiseach visiting and leading trade missions to secure market share for Irish companies and to attract inward investment. The Taoiseach is moving some of the relevant staff from the Department, as we discussed yesterday, to another Department, but I hope he will continue to play that role to attract inward investment. Did the Taoiseach meet the chief executive officer of Twitter? The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, met the chief executive of Twitter to persuade the company to locate its head office in London. I understand the company is now planning to locate its head office in London and it would be a pity if Dublin was overlooked in the race to secure the European headquarters. There are other questions on science and technology but the research landscape has been transformed in the past ten years. The Taoiseach’s office has played a significant role in supporting science and research and development initiatives. There are worrying reports that basic research is to be downgraded on the innovation agenda. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that he intends to use his position as Head of Government to maintain the central role of basic research to promote Ireland as a destination for research investment?

The Taoiseach: I assure Deputy Martin that I intend to involve myself centrally, along with other Ministers, on behalf of the Government in promoting what we regard as potential for investment to increase exports and develop jobs. We should be able by 2016 to demonstrate that we are the best small country in the world in which to do business. When I went to Washington for the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations, I spoke to 2,000 business people at a number of functions reiterating the opportunities that exist here for investment. I met individual business personnel but I will follow through on the Deputy’s suggestion and also meet chief executives of major businesses here in groups to deal with the issue. The remit of the Tánaiste is now that of Minister for Foreign Affairs and trade promotion. We want to ensure — Deputy Martin worked on this matter when in government — that there is com- petency in our embassies throughout the world in the context of trade development. That is an important issue. A decision has not yet been taken in respect of our trade missions abroad. There has been a degree of contact with regard to a trade delegation visiting China. Obviously this will depend on available dates and people’s schedules, particularly in so far as the Chinese Administration is concerned. When I served as Minister of State with responsibility for trade, I brought a trade delegation to India. In that context, I am aware that it is not so much the size of such a delegation that matters but rather the range of expertise among and the level of seniority of 606 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions the personnel from the different companies involved which causes an impact and which generates respect, particularly on the part of administrations in the Far East. I will give consideration to a possible visit to China when the relevant arrangements can be made and when people’s schedules are compatible. I have not met the chief executive of Twitter. I will, however, do so if the opportunity presents itself. As the Deputy is aware, Facebook, Google and similar companies have established operations in Dublin. The existing cluster is, therefore, very strong and we would like to see it develop further.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I welcome the Taoiseach’s latter remarks with regard to his inten- tions. As leader of the Opposition, I will be supportive of trade missions to countries such as China and India. I will not be engaging in any petty criticisms in respect of such missions because Ireland is, in large part, an exporting country. The Taoiseach has an important role to play in the context of leading such trade missions. He also has a role to play in meeting the CEOs of major companies which continue to invest in Ireland and of those companies which have yet to invest here. Is it the Taoiseach’s intention to play a leading oversight role in respect of science and research and development policy, particularly as such a policy relates to the attraction of inward investment during the lifetime of the Government?

The Taoiseach: I will forward more precise figures to the Deputy in respect of what we intend to do. The world is going to change utterly in the next decade, with developments occurring in respect of the Internet, genetics, biotechnology, robotics, nanotechnology, etc. As the Deputy is well aware, Ireland has enormous capability in this regard in the context of the cluster capacity that exists here and regarding the potential that can emanate from the area of research and innovation. I spoke with Prime Minister Cameron about a programme for research and innovation, the potential of the Single Market and the opportunities that exist for us in this regard. The Deputy can take it that I intend to remain centrally involved in the promotion of research and innovation. I would be happy to receive suggestions from Deputies at any time in respect of that matter.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Aontaím leis an Taoiseach ar an ábhar seo agus déanfaimid ár ndícheall chun tacaíocht a thabhairt dó go mbeidh seans ann é adhéanamh agus tá súil againn go n-éireoidh an t-adh leis san obair seo. An aontaíonn an Taoiseach go gcaithfimid iomaíocht a athrú ar an oileán seo go mbeidh comhoibriú ann idir infheistíocht sa tír ón taobh amuigh agus gnóthaí dúchasacha a chruthú agus a chothú.Isféidir leis an Rialtas cabhrú leis an fhás atá de dhíth trí ghnóthaí dúchasacha agus iad ag fás agus infheistíocht a mhealladh isteach ón taobh amuigh. Tá dhá rudaí ann — infheistíocht ón taobh amuigh agus ár ngnóthaí dúchasa- cha áitiúla.

Deputy Joe Higgins: I wish to correct Deputy Martin, who is the leader of Fianna Fáil and not of the Opposition. The United Left Alliance is the Opposition and he is not our leader. In such circumstances, he should not use that term.

Deputy Micheál Martin: That is a very welcome clarification.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins should pose a supplementary question.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Does the Taoiseach agree that the hugely hysterical emphasis he, his Government and the media place on the importance of our rate of corporation tax, which is the third lowest in the European Union, in attracting foreign direct investment is unbalanced and unsustainable? Does he agree that, in the first instance, our highly-skilled and well-educated workforce is a major attraction for companies which establish operations here and that 607 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Joe Higgins.] another massive incentive for these companies is the enormous profits — much greater than those available elsewhere — they can make in this country? In the period 2004 to 2008, total business profits in this country, including those made by foreign companies, amounted to €268 billion. Only €27 billion, or 10.3%, was paid in tax on these profits. Is that not really unsustainable, particularly when the poorest and those who are low paid are increasingly being hit for more money and when one may not even speak about increasing the take from big business?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: While everyone welcomes inward investment, particularly if it is ethical in nature and is aimed at making a serious contribution to our society, is it not a major mistake to bet the entire economic future of the country on the hope of such investment? A necessary accompaniment to this type of investment is a ratcheting down of taxes on business and wealth. This produces an unsustainable narrowing of the tax base, which lies at the root of our deficit problem. Is it not time to debate the sacred cow of low taxation on wealth?

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a separate question.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Is it not also time to state that rather than just betting our economic future on inward investment, we must concentrate on developing an indigenous industrial base which is sustainable and which will not be vulnerable to the shocks and ups and downs that occur in the global market? We are aware that the latter is desperately unstable because it is driven by profit and competition rather than the best interests of ordinary people and society.

The Taoiseach: Aontaím leis an méid a dúirt an Teachta Adams faoi fhorbairt comhlachtaí áitiúil agus gur chóir go mbeadh comhoibriú ann an t-am ar fad. The reaction in respect our corporation tax rate has not been hysterical at all. Rather, the Deputy has been quite hysterical with regard to some of these matters.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Deputy Higgins is right to be hysterical.

The Taoiseach: The current corporation tax rate has been in place for some time. I was a member of the Government that introduced corporation tax, which has been a fundamental cornerstone of foreign direct investment. The Deputy is aware that for many years this country was the gateway to Europe as a result of the capacity, flexibility and productivity of its workforce. This was particularly true in the case of American investment. We helped open up the then Common Market, which eventually became the European Union, to such investment. The European Union has work to do in the context of developing the full potential of the Single Market, in which enormous opportunities exist for Ireland. I do not share Deputy Higgins’s view with regard to increasing the rate of corporation tax. Indeed, we will defend our 12.5% rate and I would regard any movement away from that as representing a massive breach of trust. That is not the way I do business. I wish to make the point to Deputy Barrett——

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I am Deputy Boyd Barrett. The Ceann Comhairle is Deputy Barrett.

The Taoiseach: I apologise to Deputy Boyd Barrett. Last year, the value of food exports was of the order of €8 billion. By 2020, this figure will have risen to over €12 billion and that will have enormous implications. The Deputy stated that we are betting our entire economic future 608 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions on inward investment. That is not the case. The export sector has been running very well for 20 months in a row and we want to develop that. I agree with the Deputy’s comments on the development of indigenous industry. The Mini- ster for Finance will be coming before the House in early May to announce our jobs initiative, which will deal with the indigenous sector. Tourism is one outstanding area of indigenous development. That flies in the face of what the Deputy was talking about in his earlier question about the visits of two heads of state. These visits will have enormous potential for the development of that indigenous industry. Does the Deputy not realise the number of British people who will want to travel to this country following the visit of their Queen to Ireland? Does he not realise the power of that visit and its impact on the development of one of the indigenous industries about which the Deputy spoke? Our jobs initiative is focused entirely on that. I hope the Deputy will support it when it is debated in the House and ensure that people in the constituency of Dún Laoghaire have the opportunity to get up in the morning and have the dignity of being able to go to work and contribute to the well-being of our country and society.

Programmes for Government 4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has put in place within his Department a specific function for overseeing the implementation of the Programme for Government; the persons involved and the publications he will issue through his Department relating to implementation of the Programme for Government. [7692/11]

5. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Programme for Government. [8292/11]

6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the arrangements he has put in place within his Department to oversee the implementation of the Programme for Government and the monitoring reports which he intends publishing. [8592/11]

7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach when an agreed implementation timetable for the individual commitments contained in the Programme for Government will be published. [8593/11]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together. The programme for Government was approved by the Fine Gael and Labour parties on 6 March 2011 and was adopted by the Government at its first meeting as the framework for its work over coming years. The programme sets out the policies and initiatives to be progressed over the term of the Government to tackle the many and varied challenges facing the country. It is the responsibility of each individual Minister to ensure the commitments in the programme that fall within their particular portfolio are fully implemented. I will be reviewing progress on a regular basis with each Minister. As I indicated to the House on 22 March 2011, my Department will be supporting the implementation of the programme as a whole and it will do this with a more explicit focus on its role as a Cabinet office. The procedures to reflect the new focus are being developed and will be announced shortly.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Cé hé,nó cé hí, an t-oifigeach sa Roinn atá freagrach, go sonrach, as an gclár Rialtais a chur i bhfeidhm? Cé, go sonrach, a bheidh freagrach as ath-mhachnamh adhéanamh ar an gclár chun a bheith cinnte go bhfuil an clár ag dul i bhfeidhm agus go bhfuil dul chun cinn le feiscint? 609 Ceisteanna — 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Micheál Martin.]

As part of the monitoring of the implementation of strategic planning, the Government has, clearly, prepared targeted dates for the promises contained in the programme. Will these be made publicly available? We all agree the House must take a more strategic approach to its work. The most effective first step in this would be to know the target dates for the initiatives we will be considering as part of the implementation of the programme for Government.

The Taoiseach: Agus an Teachta ag caint i nGaeilge, cuireann sé i gcuimhne dom an díos- póireacht a bhí eadrainn i gConamara i rith an olltoghcháin.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Is cuimhin liom go maith é.

The Taoiseach: Is é Ard-Rúnaí na Roinne a bhéas i bhfheighil an phlean a chur i gcrích, go ginearálta. Mé féin, mar cheannaire pholaitiúil ar an Roinn a bhéas á stiúradh. Deputy Martin is aware that we have set out a number of targets. These are all contained in the programme for Government, which will continue over the lifetime of this Government. I intend to have regular interaction with Ministers and Ministers of State about the elements of the programme that are their individual responsibility. I cannot give a series of days and dates for the implementation of each specific item. We have set targets for every Minister in respect of the programme for the first 100 days. As we achieve those targets, a second set of targets will be prioritised for fulfilment thereafter. It is not a case of being able to say, across the full range of Departments, what is going to happen on a particular week. We have set a series of targets for Ministers for the first 100 days. As we approach that deadline we will prioritise work on what is achievable for the period after that.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach intend to have, over the lifetime of the Govern- ment, a framework within which there will be detailed target dates for the implementation of specific commitments contained in the programme for Government? Does the Taoiseach intend to publish reviews of the implementation of the programme for Government? The practice in the past was to have annual or periodic reviews of the monitoring and strategic evaluation of the programme for Government. Does the Taoiseach intend to publish such reviews? With regard to the constituent parts of the programme, such as the social dimension and the economic, European and political sides, will specific civil servants be given the responsibility to monitor and oversee the implementation across Government of the proposals contained in the programme for Government?

The Taoiseach: Deputy Martin is aware that Cabinet meetings are about making decisions in respect of elements of the programme for Government and other matters that arise from time to time. We will have a report for the first 100 days. I intend to meet Ministers and Ministers of State regularly about the elements of the programme that are their responsibilities. It is fair comment to say one should report progress on a regular basis, but people know this anyway. Every Cabinet decision is available to the public. It might not be any harm to have a regular review of the elements of the programme that have been achieved. A great deal of work is being done in trying to bring about the full implementation of the Croke Park agreement and what it actually means. There is always a short period when a new Government is formed when Ministers and Ministers of State get to know the range and personnel of their Departments and establish a dynamic to achieve objectives. As Deputy Martin knows from long experience, it can be difficult to turn the ship in the direction one wants in a 610 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages short time. I have set targets for the first 100 days. We will follow those with other targets and we can discuss them here on a regular basis. This is all in the interest of having a better country.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The Taoiseach is very clear with regard to targets for public sector reform, so called, and to the slashing of between 22,000 and 25,000 jobs by 2015. With regard to the Government’s jobs programme, which the Taoiseach says will come in May, does he have a benchmark for reducing unemployment from the disastrous level of 440,000? Has he set a benchmark for six months, 12 months or 18 months with regard to how many tens of thousands of jobs will have been created and the level of unemployment after those periods? With regard to employment and unemployment and with regard to local government reform, which the Taoiseach also promised, was he shocked by this morning’s announcement that Mayo County Council will slash 150 jobs in his own county? Is that not an incredibly bad start to any talk of local government reform? The loss of 150 jobs will have a huge consequence for public services for the people of Mayo. Does the Taoiseach denounce that proposal?

Deputy Gerry Adams: As part of this outline, will the Taoiseach put in place a very easy-to- read outline of the number of U-turns and flip-flops in the implementation of the programme for Government? For example, “not a red cent” has become “billions into the banks”. The Taoiseach has also conceded that he will pay outgoing bankers.

The Taoiseach: That is nonsense, as Deputy Adams knows. I made the position very clear in the House and we are following through on it. We have made some serious decisions in order to bring some certainty to the banking sector. I pointed out to the Deputy that credit to lend to business will be available from the two pillar banks. I also pointed out that we 12 o’clock will introduce a partial loan guarantee scheme for further credit for business so that people in the Deputy’s constituency will be able to go to work, will have a job, a career and opportunities. This is what good politics should be all about. It is not a case of having an easy to read document to which the Deputy refers. It will be very easy to tick off the decisions that have been made by Government in the interests of our people and of the country and we will continue to do this. As I stand here, no Government in the history of this State has faced the range of the economic challenge which this Government faces but we will face it with courage and fairness and deal with it because that is what the people elected us to do. Deputy Joe Higgins referred to 22,000 to 25,000 jobs being cut. He will be aware of what is known as the Croke Park agreement and he will be aware that the Government intends to bring about a transformation of the delivery of public services making them efficient and effective without compulsory redundancies and allowing for the potential and creativity of many thousands of hard-working public servants who want to help their country. We hope to give them that opportunity. Reform of local government in terms of the delivery of local services is an important issue. I was shocked to hear the Deputy’s comment about 150,000 jobs being lost in local authorities until he changed the number to 250. This is a matter that unions and management of the local authority in question will be discussing very soon. I do not have the details of the numbers of retirements or voluntary redundancies that will apply there. I am confident those discussions will take place very shortly.

Deputy Joe Higgins: It is a case of jobs gone.

Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are in the name of Deputy Dooley who is not present. 611 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Would it be possible for me to speak in favour of Deputy Dooley’s amendments?

Deputy Micheál Martin: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 32, after “person.” to insert the following:

“The member shall, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, require the provision of a sample of blood or urine at a place where medical care is provided to the person.”.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I welcome the Minister and I commend Deputy Dooley for tabling the two amendments in question. The first, that a member of the Garda Síochána shall, as soon as possible thereafter, require the provision of a sample of blood or urine at a place where medical care is provided to the person while amendment No. 2, would require the provision of a sample of blood or urine at a place where medical care is provided to the person. This reverts to the discussion on Committee Stage regarding two areas of the Bill which some people think are lacunae in the provisions. The first are concerns drivers who are unconscious and the question of what are the appropriate steps for a member of the Garda Síochána to take at the scene of the collision. The Minister gave a commitment on Committee Stage to seek advice on the case of a driver involved in a collision who is in a serious medical condition or is unconscious. The Minister said that in his experience as a medical doctor he believed that unconscious patients are tested in any case so it would be possible to provide the requisite evidence of the state of the driver at the time of the collision. The Minister gave a commitment on Committee Stage that he would be prepared to act in the next road traffic Bill which he said is being prepared and which will deal with the training of young drivers. As regards badly injured or unconscious drivers, the concern is that a person may be feigning injury and may not be as seriously injured as is presented in the first example. The two amendments seek to clarify what kind of follow-up strategy would be in place to deal with a collision resulting in a fatality or serious injury. I seek clarification on whether the Minister has also given a commitment that if for medical reasons a driver involved in a serious collision could not be tested at the scene that there would be a legal basis for ensuring that this issue is followed up either at a Garda station or in a hospital. I ask the Minister to confirm that he is prepared to address those issues in the next road traffic Bill and perhaps give the House a guarantee. Sinn Féin colleagues referred to the issue of drug driving, an issue I pursued when I was my party’s spokesperson on transport. I refer to the striking example of the Australian states, Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, who seem to have a valid legal road side drug testing equipment and I ask the Minister to comment. I ask if the evidential testing machines will be ready for September. I note from recent media reports, for example, a valuable report in yesterday’s Irish Indepen- dent, that the Go Safe camera programme has resulted in 26,000 drivers being apprehended for speeding. Before the system was installed, only 9,500 drivers had been apprehended. The offence of speeding incurs a serious fine of two penalty points. I ask for the Minister’s view on the appalling attacks on three of the camera vans. Many people would regard these attacks as being acts of attempted murder, in that staff who are contracted to work for the State were attacked by miscreants who are bitterly opposed to the monitoring of speed in areas where there have been serious accidents. These people are prepared to attempt to murder a servant of the people. Will the Minister and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, take vigorous action to apprehend the culprits? 612 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages

In this year to date, 61 citizens have been killed in horrific crashes. One year ago, the total was 55 persons so this year is turning out to be a worse year. The graph could start rising again, as it did in 2003 for three or four years before the present Road Safety Authority and the Minister’s predecessor and the Labour Party mounted a strong campaign to address this problem. I commend the two amendments and I ask the Minister to give a commitment to the House that on the passage of this Bill he will address these matters and also the appalling attacks on the camera vans.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I may be mistaken and I am new to this work but last week the Committee Stage turned into a Second Stage and I do not want this Report Stage to turn into a Second Stage. I understand that an amendment on Report Stage must be moved by the Member in question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The amendment was moved by another Deputy and that is permitted.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: This is a short but important Bill. Each of its sections will enhance the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 2010 and send an important message to the public from this House that drink driving and drug driving will not be tolerated. Section 2 of the Bill allows for the mandatory testing of drivers following a collision. I read earlier in the week that since last November, 50,000 drivers have been detected speeding and issued with fines and penalty points. The number of people being killed or seriously injured on our roads is increasing. The incidence of drink driving is decreasing and I hope this Bill will help to eradicate it entirely. The Government needs to invest in driver education to address the issue of motorists driving while tired. It should not be forgotten that driver fatigue is a big issue. We have built many new motorways across long distances but we have failed to provide for garages or other areas where people can stop to have a cup of coffee. Obviously, that will be addressed in the future. Driver fatigue is a very big issue. I have experienced it on numerous occasions, as I am sure most Deputies have. Deputy Dooley has proposed his amendments because he is concerned that the discretion it is proposed to give to gardaí under the amended sections 12(6) and 12(7) of the 1994 Act would mean that the compulsory power currently given to gardaí with regard to blood testing would become a discretionary power. The Bill as it stands proposes to provide for discretion in the testing of breath in circumstances in which it “would be prejudicial to the health of the person”. While I understand this concern, I am not convinced of the value of these amendments. It is unlikely and rare that a person would be in a situation in which he or she could not have his or her breath tested because it would be “prejudicial to the health” of that person, whereas it would be fine for him or her to have his or her blood tested instead. Gardaí are being awarded the discretionary power to do this. I do not believe it would be practical to go any further. It should be taken into account that medical advice will also be available. Tá Sinn Féin i bhfábhar an Bille seo. Le cúnamh Dé, beidh ármbóithre níos sábháilte mar thoradh ar an reachtaíocht seo.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I will comment on the amendments at this stage. I can address the other issues during my Final Stage contribution. I thank Deputy Dooley for the amendments he has proposed. I understand his concerns but I am satisfied that the provisions in the Bill, as drafted, are sufficiently balanced to ensure gardaí have the requisite powers they need to enforce mandatory testing. 613 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.]

If a garda forms the opinion that, on health grounds, a person cannot provide a preliminary breath test specimen, the main consideration is that the health of the person may not be jeop- ardised. In circumstances such as acute asthma attacks, cardiac arrest, panic attacks, major haemorrhage, fainting, major facial or head injuries or loss of consciousness, clearly it would not be possible for a person to comply with the breath test requirement. A person may have a head injury and be concussed, may be hyperventilating because of a panic attack or may be exsanguinating due to an injury in his or her leg. Although those conditions might not be life- threatening, it would be “prejudicial to the health of the person” to attempt to require him or her to do a breath test in such circumstances. The position in this regard has been clarified for me by the Office of the Attorney General, which has advised that in certain circumstances, it is not appropriate for a member of the Garda Síochána to insist on a preliminary breath test, particularly where doing so would pose a risk to the health of the person. The Act must provide for such a safeguard in order to protect the individual and the garda concerned. As section 12 does not envisage a medical practitioner being available at the scene of every accident, or most accidents, the decision must be taken by the garda. The wording “prejudicial to the health” has its ordinary meaning and is to be assessed by the garda having regard to all circumstances presented to him or her. Where the driver has been injured in the collision and brought to hospital, the mandatory testing provisions in the hospital are provided for in section 14 and are applicable. If a garda forms the opinion that testing would be prejudicial to a person’s health, or that the person is shamming or feigning injury, the person can be arrested and a blood sample or urine specimen obtained in a Garda station. Such specimens are obtained by, or in the presence of, a designated doctor who will also be in a position to provide medical care to the person if required. To compel a person to go to a place, as suggested in these amendments, would deprive that person of his or her freedom. Accordingly, he or she would have to be arrested in the first instance. Therefore, the amendments are defective as they would require the arrest of such a person, in effect. As the House will be aware, there are few examples of such a provision. There may be one or two examples. Even in the case of murder, there is no requirement that somebody be arrested. These amendments use the term “as soon thereafter as may be practicable”. I am advised that this term has no real legal meaning. The amendment also requires “the provision of a sample of blood or urine” but it does not specify how and to whom the sample should be given. It also refers to “a place”. If the place is somewhere other than a hospital or a Garda station, it must be specified. The amendment also uses the term “where medical care is provided” but does not specify who the person providing the medical care must be. This genuine attempt to close a perceived lacuna would create four further gaps in the legislation. This is often the case with amendments. Road traffic legislation is highly litigious and often challenged in the courts. There is a risk that by trying to close a perceived gap, the Deputy is providing for the possibility of creating four new gaps and causing cases to be struck out of court. I understand the concern that a small number of unscrupulous gardaí might use this provision to allow people to evade having their breath tested. Unfortunately, I have not found a means of legislating against a garda being unscrupulous or not obeying his duty. I do not believe there is a means of doing so. That applies across the board. It is not possible to legislate against somebody not doing his or her job properly or being unscrupulous. It might be possible to make it an offence for a garda not to do his or her duty. I am prepared to consider that in the context of the second road traffic Bill. It could be difficult.

614 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages

In my discussions with the Garda, it has been confirmed that a number of options are open to members of the force when a preliminary breath test is not administered at the roadside. For example, the driver may be arrested and the test carried out at a Garda station. When I met an assistant Garda Commissioner, I raised our concerns about this matter and we agreed to monitor the situation regularly. The timed information issue relates only to court cases and coroner’s cases. It is possible in a shorter timeframe to get the time as to whether people are tested or not. If anyone has any evidence that this new legislation is not being enforced and that we do not have genuine mandatory breath testing — it may not be happening due to circumstances in which it would be genuinely “prejudicial to the health” of the person involved — I want to know about it. When this Bill has been enacted, I want to be presented with details of any cases in which it is not being enforced by the Garda. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask Deputy Dooley to withdraw the amendments he has proposed.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: I appreciate the extensive reply the Minister has provided, but we continue to have concerns. I accept his argument that there is nothing he can do about unscrupulous gardaí. Our amendment does not attempt to deal with such cases, however. It has been tabled to assist the Garda Síochána in its efforts to deal with unscrupulous citizens. It was made clear during the most recent discussion on this legislation in the House that some people try to feign or fake certain conditions in a way that makes it difficult for gardaí to deal with them as they wish. The amendments we have proposed will ensure the onus is taken from the individual garda. Ultimately, we want to ensure every individual is required to provide a sample of blood or urine, regardless of his or her medical condition. An exception can be made, as provided for in the legislation, if the person is in hospital. We clearly recognise the complications associated with those who are hyperventilating and pose a considerable risk to gardaí in determining that they have to provide a sample. That onus should be taken from gardaí. The legislation caters for cases in which the person has gone to hospital in the first instance. We are keen to prevent an individual who has not been transported to hospital from seeking to evade detection by faking an event in a way that prevents the Garda from intervening. The amendment would place a requirement on the officer in question to take a sample wherever appropriate medical assistance is provided, whether at the roadside, in the driver’s home or car or elsewhere. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure a potential lacuna does not emerge. It is not intended to complicate the considerable volume of law pertaining to drink driving cases or create further problems for the courts in attempting to secure convictions. As my party indicated during the previous debate on the Bill, given the criminal sanctions associated with being convicted of drink driving, individuals will try every possible avenue, sometimes at considerable legal cost, to test the law. On that basis, the Bill leaves a significant gap which will allow individuals to evade justice. That this loophole has been highlighted and identified guarantees that individuals will seek to exploit it. While I fully understand the Minister’s resolve to implement the main provisions of the Bill relating to mandatory breath testing, it would be remiss, in light of the considerable period the legislation has been in gestation, to implement it without first ensuring all possibilities are addressed. I ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment. Perhaps it could be refined and an amended version introduced in the Upper House. A new Seanad will be elected within the next fortnight. While I do not wish to delay enactment of the Bill, given that it has been in gestation for a long period, a further three or four weeks’ delay would not have any major impact. I am concerned, however, that enacting a Bill which has a serious deficiency would have a greater 615 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages

[Deputy Timmy Dooley.] impact than delaying its implementation by a few week. If it proceeds, the courts will have to address the deficiency and the House would need time to amend the legislation. I ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendments.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: While I appreciate the Deputy’s intent and share his objectives, faced with the circumstances he outlines a Garda will have three options. First, if the driver cannot take a breath test because a garda forms the opinion that it would be prejudicial to the person’s health to do so, the garda may wait for a period for the person to calm down before administering the breath test. Second, if the driver is seriously distressed, the garda can call an ambulance and the person will be brought to hospital where a blood or urine test can be taken under existing legislation. Third, if the garda suspects that the person is pretending to be distressed or is shamming, he or she can be arrested and brought to a Garda station where a blood or urine sample can be taken. The legislation covers all the circumstances outlined by the Deputy. If I interpret Deputy Dooley’s contribution correctly, he may be hinting that circumstances may arise in which a garda, for nefarious reasons, would choose not to arrest a person, bring a person to hospital or wait until such time as it becomes possible to carry out a breath test. The only circumstance in which the legislation could not be enforced is where a garda acts nef- ariously. One cannot legislate against such circumstances. The Bill strengthens current legislation and should be viewed in the context of the body of legislation in place in this area. If it is not enacted this week and we delay enactment for a few weeks in the hope of finding a solution — I do not believe such a solution is possible — mandatory breath testing will not be in place in the coming weeks and people who should be tested will not be tested. This is a much worse scenario than that outlined by Deputy Dooley. As the Deputy will be aware, bank holiday weekends are the worst periods for road traffic accidents. With the Easter and May bank holidays approaching, I want mandatory breath testing enforced immediately and do not want the legislation delayed for another few weeks or months as we seek to legislate for circumstances in which a garda does not do his or her duty. I am not aware of any legislation which successfully provides for circumstances in which someone does not do his or her duty. In the case of legislation covering the behaviour of politicians, for example, while one can introduce provisions on what donations should or should not be taken and how they should be registered, a nefarious or corrupt politician will simply ignore the law. If the lacuna the Deputy cited arises, it will not be closed by legislation. We need to ensure that were such a case to arise, the Garda authorities will be informed and will take action against any garda who is not doing his or her duty.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: Perhaps I did not clarify the matter sufficiently. I am not concerned about a garda acting in a nefarious manner because one cannot legislate for such a circumstance. I am trying to remove the requirement on a member of the Garda Síochána to make a medical judgment. When an event takes place at a roadside a garda is left with the three options outlined by the Minister, namely, to call an ambulance in the event that someone requires hospitalisation, arrest the person if he or she believes the driver is faking illness or deal with the matter as prescribed by taking a breath test. The difficulty arises when a citizen decides to fake hyperventilation or another medical condition. In such circumstances, a garda must make a judgment as to whether to arrest the individual in question. If it transpires that the individual is not faking illness, what will be the consequences for the garda? This places a burden of responsibility on a garda. As regards the option of calling an ambulance, it is open to anyone to refuse to be taken to hospital by ambulance. It is beyond the capacity of a garda or, for that matter, a doctor to 616 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages dictate that a driver must be taken to hospital. As a doctor, the Minister will know more about this issue than I do. A garda may decide to allow a driver time to overcome the problem he or she is experiencing, resulting in a protracted period being spent on the roadside as the driver tries to stall or prevent a breath test being carried out. If the driver also refuses to go to hospital, the garda concerned is left in a difficult position. The only intervention available to him or her is to arrest the person concerned, which is a difficult decision to make when the person appears to be in an extremely distressed state. I expect this problem will give rise to stand-offs at roadsides because gardaí will be reluctant to arrest a person on the basis of the impact of such a course of action should it later transpire that the driver’s behaviour was genuine. If, on the other hand, drivers knew they must ultimately give a sample of blood or urine, the incentive to delay would be removed. The amendments are necessary for this reason, rather than as a means of addressing circumstances in which a garda acts in a nefarious manner, to use the Minister’s term. I hope that clarifies my position.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: While I understand the Deputy’s point, in the scenario he has outlined the garda concerned should arrest the driver. Essentially, the Deputy wants to introduce in law a requirement that a garda arrest someone. Such a provision would be unprecedented as gardaí are always allowed to exercise some degree of judgment in deciding whether to arrest someone, even in the case of murder. In the scenario outlined, we must allow gardaí to exercise some degree of judgment. It is not practical to expect them to have medical knowledge, so they must make some judgment as to whether the person is unable to participate in a breath test because it would be prejudicial to their health, whether they need to call an ambulance and, if the person refuses to take the ambulance, then to make an arrest as necessary. We must trust the gardaí to use their judgment appropriately and not require them to arrest people, which would be unprecedented. In our discussions with gardaí, this is certainly not something they asked for. If they had, I might consider it in another way but they did not ask the Government to tie their hands and require them to arrest people in these circumstances. I do not see the benefit of that imposition unless the Garda thought it was appropriate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: How stands the amendment?

Deputy Timmy Dooley: I am prepared to withdraw the amendments on the basis that the Minister will give further consideration to the argument when he is bringing through the next Bill, the No. 2 Bill to which he referred on the last occasion, and that, in consultation with the Garda, he is prepared, as he indicated, to review the impact of the legislation and examine the different cases if they are brought to his attention. It would be open to him to introduce a provision in the next Bill to address any potential lacuna. While we believe we have identified a problem, I am sure others may emerge in the course of the enactment and operation of the law. If he makes a commitment in the House that he is prepared to carry out that review of the impact of the Bill and use the benefit of the hindsight that will then be available, in consultation with the Garda, we are prepared to withdraw the amendments.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I am happy to give that commitment. If the Bill is enacted within the next couple of weeks, which can be done if we pass it today, we will be able to assess whether there are any problems before September or October, when the (No. 2) Bill is brought forward. The legislation will have been in operation for the best part of six months so we will know how it is working and whether there are any problems in practice. I am prepared to consider any wording for the (No. 2) Bill that might close any gaps we find have arisen during that six- month period of operation. 617 Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: 20 April 2011. Report and Final Stages

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

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

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I thank the House for its co-operation in passing the Bill. Notwithstanding any concerns people may have, I am certain the Bill further strengthens existing road traffic legislation and will make our roads a safer place. I look forward to the President signing the Bill into law and having it in action in time for the two bank holidays or, if not, certainly for the summer period when we can assess how it works and see to what extent mandatory testing improves our statistics. With regard to the issue of drug testing, we are examining what is done in Australia to find whether it is practical to do it here. We do not want to introduce a measure here that does not yet work in Australia so we want to make sure it works before we introduce——

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: They do not have our legal system.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: That is correct. Any measure we bring in has to work in our legal system. Gardaí are being trained in the use of the evidential test for drug use, which involves neurological testing, walking a line, touching a finger to the nose, Romberg testing and so on, which will be admissible in court and can be carried out at the scene of an accident. With regard to the blood alcohol limit, the machines are ordered and gardaí are currently in training with Professor Cusack in UCD and will be trained up by September or October. I am keen to introduce the necessary measures to reduce the blood alcohol limit allowed and to have a major campaign around that period to advise people that the noose is tightening on anyone who thinks it is appropriate to drink and drive. Iamad idem with Deputy Broughan on the question of the GoSafe vans. What has happened is appalling. I am glad nobody has been harmed but, from what I understand, that was not far from happening on one occasion. I have had discussions with the assistant commissioner and the Minister for Justice and Law Reform in this regard. An issue that greatly concerns me, which I heard from the Garda, is that a St. Patrick’s day parade in a certain part of the country contained a float which more or less mocked the idea of one of these vans being burned out. It shocks me that people would even think this is an appropriate response. As Members will be aware, the GoSafe vans are contracted in such a way that the company does not make any extra money no matter how many drivers are stopped. While some people perceive they are there to catch people speeding and, therefore, to collect revenue, that is not the case. The company does not benefit from catching extra people. The vans are located in areas where there have been accidents and their locations are listed on the Garda website, so there is no case for anyone taking a dim view of them. I am horrified at what has occurred, which was not anticipated. I assure the House that the Minister for Justice and Law Reform and I will press the Garda to do all it can to bring the people who have carried out these acts to justice. I suspect those who have done this are not concerned about two or four penalty points; they are much more sinister elements which are generally opposed to the idea of there being any Garda surveillance on the roads. With regard to the number of road deaths, Deputy Broughan stated that there had been 61 to date this year, which brings us six ahead of the same period last year, which is of genuine concern. However, as with economic statistics, I would not read too much into monthly or 618 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage quarterly statistics. If we were to take the monthly statistics, five people have died so far this month on our roads, which is a tragedy but is also the lowest ever number for a similar period. If, as we hope, there are no deaths on our roads over the Easter bank holiday, the figure would be well under the 19 who died on the roads last April. The objective is to keep reducing the number of road deaths every year and to bring in whatever legislation and enforcement measures are necessary to ensure that is the case. I thank the House and the Opposition spokespersons for their assistance in allowing us to introduce this legislation, which strengthens the current arrangements and brings in mandatory breath testing. I look forward to seeing it in operation in the coming months with a view to introducing the No. 2 Bill later in the year and strengthening the corpus of law even further.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.

Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: Order for Report Stage Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Róisín Shortall): I move: “That Report Stage be taken now.”

Question put and agreed to.

Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: Report Stage Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Róisín Shortall): I move amendment No. 1:

In page 22, lines 34 and 35, to delete all words from and including “Central” in line 34 down to and including “Ireland” in line 35 and substitute “Central Bank of Ireland”.

This is a technical amendment as the Central Bank Reform Act 2010 provided for the Central Bank to take over the functions and personnel of the financial services authority of Ireland and its commencement has given rise to this amendment, that is, there is no longer a financial services authority of Ireland. I ask the Deputies to accept the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is the amendment agreed?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We view this as a technical amendment and do not oppose it. Will the Minister of State clarify whether the newly appointed Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Reilly, will take any of Report Stage in the course of the time allotted for it either today or tomorrow?

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I am not in a position to clarify that for the Deputy. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, is not available today because he has another engagement. I will clarify with the Deputy later, if Report Stage runs into tomorrow, who will be taking it.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 2, 26, 27, 33 and 36 are cognate and may be discussed together.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 23, lines 20 and 21, to delete “fine not exceeding €5,000” and substitute “class A fine”. 619 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage

[Deputy Róisín Shortall.]

Amendments Nos. 2, 26, 27, 33 and 36 are technical amendments. Under the Fines Act 2010 fixed-amount fines are replaced with classes of fines. A class A fine is a fine not exceeding €5,000.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I have no objection to these amendments. However, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be aware that I have just now, upon sitting down to proceed with Report Stage, been handed a letter by a member of the Oireachtas staff from the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. This methodology of dealing with important legislation is absolutely outrageous. This is the first sight or indication I have had of a ruling made by the Ceann Comhairle’s office. It is of such importance that I request the indulgence of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to convey the letter’s contents. It states:

Dear Deputy Ó Caoláin, I regret to inform you that amendments Nos. 9, 11, 13, 14 , 15 and 18, tabled by you for Report Stage of the above Bill, the Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010, must be ruled out of order because they involve a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 must also be ruled out of order as they do not arise out of committee proceedings.

This is an absolutely outrageous proposition. Indeed it is absolutely arguable that the ruling is incorrect because what I am seeking to establish by this series of amendments is the right to critical representation in regard to the midwifery profession. The ruling is totally unacceptable. There is no engagement, no consultation; it is arbitrary and presented without means of redress. That is an absolutely abhorrent way of doing business in this House. It is important that people whose particular role will be affected by this legislation — their work and the service they provide — know what has happened here. I strongly object to this and will contest it in regard to the relevant amendments as the opportunity presents.

Deputy Clare Daly: I am somewhat shocked at what Deputy Ó Caoláin indicated has been done. I am new to this procedure, this being my first time to participate on Report Stage of a Bill. I have waited all morning to support the amendments put down by Deputy Ó Caoláin, proposals which are critical for the foundation of maternity care in Ireland for the next quarter of a century. The provisions in the Bill will have a dramatic impact on the practice of midwifery, one of the oldest, and predominantly female, professions in the State. I am not sure how to proceed. Is it normal for a Deputy to be told in the course of proceedings that his or her amendments are out of order? The proposals in question are critical and a failure to implement them will present a serious problem for midwives and for pregnant women, who have a right to choose a particular type of maternity care. Maternity services are already under threat and the profession requires protection. Deputy Ó Caoláin’s amendments seek to provide that protection. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle offer some direction?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Ceann Comhairle’s ruling in these matters is final and Deputies’ objections must be taken up with his office. Under Standing Orders, such rulings are not to be debated in the House. I can only advise the Deputies of that and suggest that they raise their concerns with the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I am not seeking to prolong this discussion, but I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to appreciate that Report Stage had already commenced when this letter was handed to me. The opportunity for taking it up with the Ceann Comhairle is post the event. It is after the effect. That is simply and absolutely not the way to address hugely important legislation which has been long awaited. There is no reason whatsoever that I could 620 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage not have been informed of this ruling in advance and afforded the opportunity to debate it with the Ceann Comhairle or whoever is at the back of this directive.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Are there any comments on amendment No. 2?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I have no objection to it.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 23, line 35, before “prepare” to insert the following:

“following consultation with the nursing and midwifery professions in a form and manner decided by the Board,”.

To strike a more positive note, I am happy to withdraw this amendment in support of amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister for Health and Children. I welcome the principle of consultation on the board’s statement of strategy and the putting in place of a mechanism for that purpose, as set out in amendment No. 4. My amendment No. 3 is encompassed within amendment No. 4 and, in fact, the latter offers a wider opportunity for engagement. The context of amendment No. 3 is the argument presented by the former group of Opposition spokespersons on health, which included the Minister, Deputy Reilly, in the previous Dáil.Iam pleased the Minister has brought forward some of the positions he articulated in opposition into his role in government. The pity in all of this is that there was not more consultation directly with the affected professions, namely, nurses and, in particular, midwives, in advance of the drafting of the Bill and during the course of its drafting by the former Government. That is what has given rise to many of the deficiencies within the legislation, deficiencies which I have endeavoured to correct. Unfortunately, I will not have the opportunity to argue for some of my proposals because of the Ceann Comhairle’s ruling, but I will persevere in regard to those that are allowable. Hopefully we will see a better product at the end of the debate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 24, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

“(4) The Board shall ensure that—

(a) a draft of the statement of strategy that it proposes to adopt under this section is published in the prescribed manner, not later than 2 months before the time when the Board is to submit a statement of strategy to the Minister under subsection (1)(b),

(b) with the draft is published an invitation to members of the public, any organisation and any body to comment on the draft before a date, which shall not be earlier than one month after the date of the publication, which the Board specifies in the invitation, and

(c) it considers any comments received under paragraph (b) in preparing the statement of strategy that it submits to the Minister under this section.”. 621 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage

[Deputy Róisín Shortall.]

The points made by the Deputy were made on Committee Stage by him and other Opposition spokespersons, and those points have been taken on board. Amendment No. 3 refers to “consultation with the nursing and midwifery professions” and my amendment goes beyond that in proposing a broader consultation to include the public and other relevant organisations and bodies. The Deputy claims there was a lack of consultation in devising the provisions of this Bill. There was extensive public consultation in the preparation of this Bill and meetings were held with various stakeholders, including the unions and directors of nursing and midwifery. This is information I have been given in respect of what happened last year in this regard but I urge Members to accept amendment No. 4 in the spirit in which it is tabled. It takes on board the points that were made on Committee Stage and goes further by providing for a wider consultation.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 27, line 4, after “Minister” to insert the following:

“subject to the approval of a Joint Committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas assigned the role of examining matters relating to health”.

I believe this is the very first opportunity, certainly for this Minister for Health and Children and perhaps also for the Government, to introduce a practical reform in the manner in which State boards are appointed. This issue has been a focus of some debate in the House over the past couple of weeks and the new Government has presented itself as a Government of change and reform, especially with regard to the political system, public service and political appointments. Both Fine Gael and the Labour Party have spoken of giving Oireachtas committees real powers of scrutiny, which I would welcome and greatly support. I believe this amendment certainly offers such an opportunity. It simply requires that an bord altranais agus cnáimhsea- chais na hÉireann, the nursing and midwifery board of Ireland be appointed “subject to the approval of a Joint Committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas [that has been] assigned the role of examining matters relating to health”. The reason I have styled it in this manner is because at present, there is some uncertainty as to the structuring of Oireachtas committees on foot of the establishment of the new Department of children. It is unclear to me whether it is intended to establish full Oireachtas committees to shadow separately both the new Depart- ments of health and children or to continue to have an Oireachtas committee on health and children even though there will be two Departments under Deputies Reilly and Fitzgerald, respectively. In the last Dáil, the then Fine Gael spokesperson on health and children, Deputy Reilly, proposed an amendment that was exactly like the one I have tabled today. This is very important as I have welcomed in respect of amendment No. 4, the Minister’s following through of the logic of the position he took up in the previous Dáil in address of this legislation. This is another opportunity both for Deputy Reilly and his colleagues throughout the Government to address both a need within this legislation and to walk the walk in respect of appointments to State boards. One little thing I noticed during the election was that the Minister’s colleague, Deputy Richard Bruton, published the following in Fine Gael’s own reform proposals in the following: “all ... appointments of CEOs and Chairman of State Boards will be vetted by a Dáil committee, with all other Board members vetted by the Public Appointments Commission”. 622 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage

I believe this amendment is very reasonable and straightforward. It constitutes a relatively mild reform and I can discern no good reason the Minister would not accept the amendment and live up to the spirit of the position articulated by both Fine Gael and the Labour Party both in opposition and since they have formed a new coalition after the general election. I commend amendment No. 5 to the Minister of State and would appreciate her acceding to it.

Deputy Clare Daly: I support this amendment. This Bill is one of the first items of legislation before the new Dáil and in that sense, it provides Members with a good opportunity to set an important precedent with regard to the appointment of State boards. The fact that the board would be subject to the approval of a joint committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas is more democratic and involves the entire House in a more democratic way. This can only benefit the professions involved and through that, the recipients of the health care they provide. The Minister of State should comment on the fact that when in opposition, the Minister for Health and Children supported the insertion into legislation of demands such as this but that on gaining power and becoming part of the Government, he has not incorporated those amendments and opinions that presumably he held dear and stood over at the time. Why, on coming to power, does he not incorporate something for which he supposedly fought in opposition? This is an extremely worrying trend, particularly on such important matters that have a precedent for the broader question of State boards in future.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I assure both Deputies that the new Government is highly committed to the principle of having transparency in respect of the appointments being made to State boards. Both parties to the Government have identified this in their respective election mani- festoes and in the programme for Government. It has been highlighted as an issue with which the new Government intends to deal at an early stage in the context of a reform agenda. This issue is in receipt of early attention at present. As we speak, policy is evolving in this area and proposals will be brought forward shortly on how best to ensure there is close public scrutiny of all appointments made to State boards. The Government is absolutely committed to the principle of having transparency in this regard and everyone has learned lessons from the mistakes that were made in the past. While concrete policies have not yet been put in place, this will be announced shortly in the context of the aforementioned reform agenda. I wish to make some points regarding the board under discussion at present. The board will comprise 23 members, of whom 11 will be nurses or midwives and 12 who will not be nurses or midwives. An important balance has been struck and agreement was reached in this regard. As for how these nominations will be made, of the 11 nurses or midwives, two will be nominated by third level colleges, one nurse and one midwife, one director of nursing or midwifery will be chosen from the Minister from a list compiled by the HSE in accordance with the procedures specified by the Minister. Eight will be elected by the various professions and there will one general nurse, one children’s nurse, one psychiatric nurse, one intellectual disability nurse, one midwife, one public health nurse, one nurse engaged in the education of nurses or midwives and who is employed in the public health sector, as well as one nurse engaged in the care of older people. Twelve board members will not be nurses and midwives and again the composition of these 12 members is prescribed. There will be one medical practitioner, who will be nominated by the Medical Council, one to be nominated by the Minister for Education and Skills, two to be nominated by the HSE, one to be nominated by the Health and Social Care Professionals Council, one to be nominated by HIQA and one who will be from the voluntary sector. This will leave five public interest members to be appointed by the Minister. Consequently, the ministerial appointees constitute a small minority of the membership, namely, five members out of 23. As for the aforementioned five public interest members appointed by the Minister, 623 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage

[Deputy Róisín Shortall.] it is open to the Minister to advertise these positions to the public, which is what is being considered by the Minister at present. The Government and its spokespersons already have given commitments to advertise such appointments on, for example, the relevant Department’s website or in the national media. This is one option, while another is to use the Public Appoint- ments Service to assist in the selection of suitable members. This is under active consideration by the Minister at present and one or other of these options will be chosen in due course. I wish to make clear that the Government is committed to the principles that have been outlined by the Members opposite. The Government made an issue of this question at an early stage after the election and we are determined to bring transparency to all appointments to public boards. This is how we intend to proceed in respect of the five remaining public interest members who are not nominated by relevant public bodies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As this is Report Stage, Deputies’ second contributions should not exceed two minutes.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is a case of Lord make a saint of me, but just not yet. What policy decision must the Government take to afford a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas a scrutiny and vetting role in respect of the appointment of a State board? Why would we not agree to do that? I was willing to believe the Minister had not tabled the amendment because it was an oversight and that the Minister of State would accept the amendment, given that it represents the position our respective parties argued consistently in the period prior to and since the election. The Government will carry out these reforms, but just not yet. This is incredible. All we are asking is for a joint committee of the Houses to have a role in approving the makeup of boards. This is a reasonable position and one to which the Govern- ment parties allegedly hold. On two levels, the Oireachtas committee on health is outside the loop because the Bill is going to provide that “the Minister shall appoint”. The committee is being rendered redundant. Where reform of matters relating to State boards is concerned, the Government has missed a golden and important opportunity to walk the walk. It is talking the talk, but there is no delivery. This was a minor test and I do not accept that it can be kicked to touch. While I welcome the Minister of State’s participation, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, who was the lead Opposition voice on health for a considerable period, would have been blistering of the absence of the then Minister for Health and Children, Mary Harney, if she had not attended to handle particular legislation. This is the first Bill under his area of responsibility 1o’clock to be laid before the Thirty-first Dáil. Why in heaven’s name is he not present as the Minister for Health and Children to deal with Report Stage of this important Nurses and Midwives Bill? He has a long record of criticism of the former Minister for her absences and lack of interest on so many occasions, but he is not demonstrating a good start in terms of this critical legislation by not being present in the first instance and by failing to reflect an important amendment that he should have adopted or, at the very least, on which he should have advised the Minister of State to indicate acceptance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will revert to the Deputy.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue: Like Deputy Ó Caoláin, I am disappointed the Government is not taking the amendment on board. Before the election, the Government parties were adamant about how appointments should be made to State boards. Despite the opportunity presented by this amendment to do so, the Government will not accept it. This is evidence of how the Government has talked one game and played another since taking office. In recent weeks, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, announced with great 624 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage fanfare in the media that he would advertise some roles on boards at his Department. However, a chairman was appointed to the board of Bord na gCon without any such reference to advertising. When the Taoiseach was asked in the Dáil about whether the new chairman would need to appear before any future committee, he replied that, while the chairman would do so, he would stay in place unless he made a total hames of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should discuss the amendment.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue: This amendment presents us with an opportunity to implement some of the talk and ideas that the then Opposition came out with prior to the election. Unfortunately, the Government is advertising some small roles to try to hide the fact that it is business as usual. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider the amendment.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: With all due respect, it is a bit rich to make such comments. The Government has only been in place for the past six weeks, yet a great deal of progress has been made. We have signalled our intention to open up the question of appointments to State boards and to bring transparency to the area. I have outlined the situation that pertains to the 23 members of the board in question, in that only five members will be appointed by the Minister. It is not an entirely straightforward matter to bring appointments before an Oireachtas committee, as our committees are not yet in place. We are at an early stage in the lifetime of the Government and we have signalled how we intend to proceed, that is, shining a light on public appointments. The Minister stated that, where the five appointments that fall to him are concerned, he is considering how best to open the process up, including whether to advertise those positions on the website or in the national media or whether the process should be given over to the Public Appointments Service, PAS. There is clarity about how he intends to proceed. He wants to make it as open as possible and, if Deputies give him just a little opportunity, he will revert with his consideration of how best to proceed. The majority of the board’s members are appointed by the relevant professional bodies. Is Deputy Ó Caoláin suggesting that they all appear before an Oireachtas committee? What would the logistical implications of doing so be? It is not a straightforward matter. It has always been the tradition that, where professional bodies nominate or elect their representatives, those nominees will be accepted by the Minister. The Deputy is proposing something entirely different, a complete break with procedures, by suggesting an opening up of those nominations. It is appropriate that the Minister should accept the professional bodies’ nominations. He intends to open up the question of the five remaining public interest members. He is examining the issue and will announce how he intends to proceed shortly.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I am not seeking to do as the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, suggests. Approval by a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas is an important procedure and I have no doubt that such a committee would not be undoing the selected or elected nominees of the respective component parts of the professions involved. However, the committee should be given the role and responsibility. While the Minister of State made the point that the Minister only has ultimate control over a certain number of appointments, the opening statement in this section of the Bill is that the board shall be appointed by the Minister, and so it should be. However, the committee should have a role and, under my amendment, it would give its approval. This is a proposal many would support. As to the notion that it cannot be adopted today because the committees are not in situ, the Seanad election procedure will conclude next week, shortly after which we will have the establishment of the various committees of the Houses. There is no impediment to 625 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.] accepting the amendment and proceeding as it sets out because those committees are not yet in situ. The Minister of State claimed the observations of my colleague in the Fianna Fáil Party were a little rich, but I welcome them and I had hoped to hear the same from the Government benches, that is, now is the correct opportunity to put down a clear marker of intent to ensure we stand up to what has been articulated heretofore and to ensure a new beginning in terms of State boards. It is unacceptable that we are not going forward in such a way. I intend to press the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That concludes the debate on this amendment, as I was going to ask the Deputy about how the amendment stands.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 89.

Tá

Adams, Gerry. Martin, Micheál. Boyd Barrett, Richard. McConalogue, Charlie. Calleary, Dara. McDonald, Mary Lou. Collins, Joan. McGrath, Finian. Collins, Niall. McGrath, Mattie. Colreavy, Michael. McGrath, Michael. Cowen, Barry. McLellan, Sandra. Crowe, Seán. Moynihan, Michael. Daly, Clare. Murphy, Catherine. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Donnelly, Stephen. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Dooley, Timmy. O’Brien, Jonathan. Ellis, Dessie. O’Dea, Willie. Fleming, Sean. Pringle, Thomas. Healy, Seamus. Smith, Brendan. Higgins, Joe. Stanley, Brian. Kirk, Seamus. Tóibín, Peadar. Lenihan, Brian. Troy, Robert. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.

Níl

Bannon, James. Deering, Pat. Barry, Tom. Doherty, Regina. Broughan, Thomas P. Donohoe, Paschal. Butler, Ray. Dowds, Robert. Buttimer, Jerry. Durkan, Bernard J. Byrne, Catherine. Farrell, Alan. Byrne, Eric. Feighan, Frank. Cannon, Ciarán. Ferris, Anne. Carey, Joe. Fitzgerald, Frances. Coffey, Paudie. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Collins, Áine. Flanagan, Charles. Conaghan, Michael. Flanagan, Terence. Conlan, Seán. Gilmore, Eamon. Connaughton, Paul J. Griffin, Brendan. Conway, Ciara. Hannigan, Dominic. Coonan, Noel. Harrington, Noel. Costello, Joe. Harris, Simon. Coveney, Simon. Heydon, Martin. Creed, Michael. Hogan, Phil. Creighton, Lucinda. Howlin, Brendan. Daly, Jim. Humphreys, Heather. Deasy, John. Humphreys, Kevin. Deenihan, Jimmy. Keating, Derek. 626 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage

Níl—continued

Kehoe, Paul. Neville, Dan. Kelly, Alan. Noonan, Michael. Kenny, Seán. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Kyne, Seán. O’Donnell, Kieran. Lawlor, Anthony. O’Donovan, Patrick. Lynch, Ciarán. O’Dowd, Fergus. Lyons, John. Penrose, Willie. Maloney, Eamonn. Phelan, Ann. Mathews, Peter. Phelan, John Paul. McCarthy, Michael. Quinn, Ruairí. McFadden, Nicky. Ring, Michael. McGinley, Dinny. Ryan, Brendan. McHugh, Joe. Sherlock, Sean. McLoughlin, Tony. Shortall, Róisín. McNamara, Michael. Spring, Arthur. Mitchell, Olivia. Stagg, Emmet. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Tuffy, Joanna. Mulherin, Michelle. Twomey, Liam. Murphy, Dara. Varadkar, Leo. Murphy, Eoghan. Walsh, Brian. Nash, Gerald. White, Alex. Naughten, Denis.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Seán Crowe; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I move amendment No. 6:

In page 28, to delete lines 41 to 47 and substitute the following:

“(2) The Board shall elect a President of the Board from amongst its members--

(a) for the first term after the commencement of this section, for the term specified by the Board referred to in paragraph 13(2) of the Schedule, and

(b) for all other terms, in accordance with the Schedule.

(3) The Board shall elect a Vice-President of the Board from amongst its members in accordance with the Schedule.”.

On Committee Stage the Fine Gael spokesperson raised the issue of the election of the first president of the board. This amendment which will provide for the board to elect the first president rather than his or her being appointed by the Minister is now being proposed. I hope I will have the support of Members in that regard.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is a pity we did not see the same positive approach being adopted the last time. I welcome the amendment which improves the Bill by allowing the board to elect its own president. It also provides for the election of a vice president. It replicates an amendment proposed by the previous Minister when we reached a certain point on Report Stage. As Members know, this Bill, with the Child Care (Amendment) Bill, is back for recom- mencement of Report Stage. My recall is that this amendment also met the intention of the previous Minister. I welcome its inclusion and the spirit behind it. I only wish it was reflected in all of the matters we are addressing today.

Amendment agreed to. 627 Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010: 20 April 2011. Report Stage

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 17 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I propose that the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 7, 10, 12, 16 and 17.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I ask the Minister of State to clarify what she has just proposed. Is she moving amendment No. 7? She used the word “recommitted”. Will she clarify the impact of that proposal on this amendment?

Deputy Róisín Shortall: There are a number of amendments in respect of which the Bill needs to be recommitted. My understanding is that if the House agrees to recommit in respect of amendment No. 7, the Bill will automatically be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 10, 12, 16 and 17 also.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Recommittal is necessary in respect of this amendment, as it does not arise from Committee Stage proceedings. It also requires recommittal under Standing Order 136, as it involves a potential increased charge on the Exchequer. That is the explanation I have for the recommittal.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Is the Minister of State indicating she does not propose to proceed with the amendment at this point? What is the impact of what she is asking us to do? I wish to argue strongly in favour of amendment No. 8 as a better alternative to amendment No. 7 in the name of the Minister. This is the first reference to recommittal with regard to any of the amendments we have addressed so far. I seek clarification of the net effect of what the Minister of State is asking the House to agree to. Are we to have a full opportunity now, or continuing tomorrow, to address amendment No. 7, amendment No. 8 in my name, as an alternative, and all of the allied amendments in the group? Sadly, from the list of amendments I sought to have included in the grouping of amendments Nos. 7-18, amendments Nos. 9, 11, 13 to 15, inclusive, and 18 have been disallowed. Very much is at stake here. I do not wish to indicate assent until I know exactly what the Minister of State seeks to achieve.

Deputy Clare Daly: I ask for clarification. Do I understand the basis for this decision is that there would be a potential charge on the Exchequer and, therefore, the amendments must be recommitted? However, the same reason was given for ruling Deputy Ó Caoláin’s amendment out of order. What is the basis for the distinction?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I explained that as best I could to the Deputy in so far as it relates to the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. The Minister of State looked for agreement on the recommittal and we shall address that matter when the House reconvenes.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: That will allow us some time.

Debate adjourned. 628 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions

Ceisteanna — Questions (resumed)

Priority Questions

————

Air Services 21. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport if he is committed to protecting the State’s current shareholding in Aer Lingus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8717/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): This question relates to the State’s current shareholding in Aer Lingus. The McCarthy report which was published at 2 p.m. recommends that the Government dispose of its shareholding in Aer Lingus as soon as is opportune. During the coming months the Government will consider the recommendations set out in the report in the context of the ongoing budgetary challenge that we face. The Government retained a minority stake of 25.1% in Aer Lingus in the initial public offering, IPO, of shares in the group in 2006 to protect the State’s strategic aviation interests, especially access to London Heathrow services and the onward connectivity available through the company’s significant slot portfolio at Heathrow Airport. In designing the investment transaction a specific mechanism was built into the company’s memorandum and articles of association in advance of the IPO to protect against disposal of the Heathrow Airport slots by the company. Therefore, in considering any disposal of the State’s shareholding it would be necessary to evaluate whether the protections considered necessary for London Heathrow services at the time of the IPO in 2006 were still relevant in the light of market developments since and, if they were still relevant, whether there would be any means of protecting them in a disposal. The effect of any disposal on competition in the airline market in the State would also have to be considered. It should be noted that the review group also points out that the objective of any disposal of the State’s shareholding should be the realisation of maximum value. This would also be a key consideration for the State if a disposal of its shareholding was to be considered.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: I thank the Minister for the clarification. I am somewhat disappointed that Dr. McCarthy has included Aer Lingus, considering that it is of strategic interest to retain the 25% shareholding. The Minister outlined the decision taken at the time of the initial public offering of shares in Aer Lingus and, in particular, why the 25% holding was retained. Notwithstanding this and the comments the Minister made about the London Heathrow slots, the fact that we are an island nation and that effective competition in domestic air services is of vital strategic national interest, I trust the Government will give broader consideration to the issue rather than simply considering the Heathrow Airport slots in themselves. They are vital, but there is a wider necessity to maintain effective competition in the airline sector. In the past Aer Lingus effectively had a monopoly. Without the emergence of Ryanair there would be a lesser service and higher fares. The concern is that the disposal of the State’s 25% shareholding would be damaging in terms of direct connectivity to London Heathrow and the onward services provided and, more especially, the lack of effective competition from a business and tourism perspective. Whatever discussions take place at Government level or whatever considerations the Minister and his Department put together in the coming weeks in respect of this proposal, I call on him to look specifically at these two aspects, that is to say, the 629 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Timmy Dooley.] necessity to maintain what is a vital link and the broader issue of effective competition in the aviation sector here.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The Deputy can rest assured in that regard. As I outlined in my initial answer, we have the 25.1% stake for two reasons, first, to ensure connectivity from through Heathrow Airport and retain access to the slots and, second, to ensure Aer Lingus is not taken over inappropriately by another airline. The Deputy will be aware that the European Commission ruled that Ryanair could not take over Aer Lingus. I am determined that we will still have competition and continue to have two significant airlines operating out of Ireland, not one. Any decision on the disposal of the stake must bear this in mind and retain the assurance that we will retain the slots at Heathrow Airport and that we will continue to have competition between at least two major airlines in the State. The airline business is changing a good deal and there is consolidation in the sector. It is somewhat like the case of mobile phones. Throughout the world, even if different names are used, the companies involved are Vodafone, Telefónica and Hutchison. This is increasingly taking place in the airline industry. We have seen Air France and KLM come together as well as Lufthansa and BMI. British Airways has formed a strategic alliance also. In the longer term one will have to question where Aer Lingus will fit into this picture. Any disposal of a shareholding must include an assurance that the reasons we hold the shareholding in the first place will be assured, that there will continue to be competition among scheduled airlines in and out of Ireland and that we will not lose access to the crucial Heathrow Airport slots which give us connectivity to the rest of the world.

Public Transport 22. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport the criteria being used by him to evaluate and compare proposed major transport projects under the terms of the comprehensive spending review, specifically the Metro North, DART underground and LUAS interconnector projects; and his views on whether his suggestion to privatise the construction of the Metro North project will be a part of that evaluation. [8816/11]

Deputy Leo Varadkar: This is the first time I have taken priority questions, too.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: We are on a learning curve.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: Yes, we are. The National Transport Authority is responsible for the implementation of infrastructural projects and traffic management in the greater Dublin area. With regard to transport policy in the greater Dublin area, the major projects, metro north, DART underground and Luas BXD, the cross city line, were all included in Transport 21 as key elements of an integrated transport network for Dublin. All of the projects perform well in cost benefit analyses which have been published in redacted form on the NTA website and are the type of projects essential to the long-term economic well being of a capital city. However, all are costly and the new financial reality dictates that all three projects cannot proceed at the same time. The previous Govern- ment recognised this fact when, following the publication of the national recovery plan, it prioritised metro north and postponed all of the other projects beyond 2014. Furthermore metro north and DART underground were planned as public private partnership projects. Owing to Ireland’s sovereign debt situation there is uncertainty about the availability of private funds for major projects dependent on Exchequer funding. However, I emphasise that careful consideration will be given to the merits and affordability of each of these 630 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions projects in the capital investment review. There will also be consideration of a fourth option, a DART extension to the airport and Swords. They will also be assessed and rated according to their contribution to economic and transport objectives, including employment potential. Notwithstanding funding difficulties, I will seek to ensure that at least one of these projects will proceed. I will examine all realistic options for delivery, including on an incremental, phased basis, if possible, with the involvement of private funding.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: These are three main projects for the Dublin area and they are vital. I am glad to hear the Minister is looking at one of them but I hope over a short period we could deliver them all. Metro north, for example, was to be a public private partnership, PPP. Sinn Féin would prefer to see the State funding these projects but if that is not possible, a PPP is an option. I have attended more meetings about metro north than any other issue. Does the Minister intend to replace Transport 21? Will that be part of the review? Can I get a commitment that the State will fund whichever one of the projects is chosen? During the election, the Minister indicated he favoured proceeding with metro north, although there were mixed messages from other Deputies. It is vital infrastructure to allow for access to our main airport and would create huge employment, with about 4,000 people working on the project and ancillary employment along the route. This is a vital project. Perhaps the Minister will give an indication which project stands the greatest chance at present. This is important and should be funded by the State.

An Ceann Comhairle: These are priority questions. There is only six minutes per question and there is only one minute and 50 seconds left.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I agree absolutely that these are important projects and I would love to see all of them going ahead so I could see my city, Dublin, looking like any other European city, with an integrated, modern transport system. These projects, however, all cost a lot of money and the reason metro north and DART underground were envisaged as PPPs is that even during the boom, no one thought it would be possible for the Exchequer to spend the billions of euro needed to pay for them. The two projects, if they are to proceed, can only do so as PPPs. If we did not have the funds for them during the boom out of taxpayers’ money, we definitely do not have the money now. It would be possible for BXD or a DART extension to go ahead with Exchequer funds because they are much less expensive than the other two projects but no decision has been made yet on which will be favoured by the Government. That is not a political answer; that is the truth. We must look at what is available in the capital envelope and decide which project can proceed. The real issue with PPPs is that they are a complex and expensive system for the State to borrow money. It is the case, however, that virtually no bank or financial institution in the world is currently willing to lend the State money. That is why the PPP projects for roads are facing difficulties. Three PPP road projects were supposed to go ahead this year and we are still hoping to conclude one or two of them but that looks difficult now. That means going back to the old fashioned system of funding infrastructure directly from the Exchequer but, as the Deputy is aware, the Exchequer does not have much money at present.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: Can I ask a supplementary question?

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sorry, we have run out of time. These questions are priority questions. Six minutes are allowed for each question, with two minutes for the Minister to answer and four minutes for supplementaries. That is why it is important Deputies when asking 631 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions

[An Ceann Comhairle.] a supplementary question are to the point, so they can get a reply from the Minister. I am constrained by Standing Orders.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: It did not seem like four minutes when I was speaking. It seemed much less.

An Ceann Comhairle: I appreciate that but we must move on. I explain that for those Deputies who might not have experience of priority questions.

Rail Interconnector 23. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport his views on whether the continuing traffic congestion problem in Dublin city and the greater Dublin area has an adverse effect on the ability of the capital to function efficiently and competitively; his further views on whether the proposed interconnector between the city’s rail systems will go a long way to addressing this problem; the central considerations he will take into account in his decision on whether to allocate funding to this project should it be given approval; when the interconnector is likely to be put into use; the estimated cost of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8720/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Alan Kelly): It is clear that traffic congestion has reduced as a result of the economic downturn but a number of pinch points remain, especially during peak periods. I will ask the National Transport Auth- ority, which is responsible for traffic management in the greater Dublin area, to provide an update to the Deputy on traffic management activities and proposals for Dublin. As regards transport policy more generally, three major projects, metro north, DART underground and Luas BXD, the cross-city line, were all designed as key elements of an integrated transport network for Dublin. They would contribute to the easing of congestion by proving attractive alternative travel options to private car journeys. The new financial reality, however, is that all three projects cannot proceed at the same time. Indeed, the previous Government recognised this fact when, following the publication of the national recovery plan, it prioritised metro north and postponed the DART underground tunnel to beyond 2014. Furthermore, metro north and the DART underground tunnel were planned as public private partnership, PPP, projects and there is currently much uncertainty about the availability of private funds for major projects dependent on Exchequer funding due to the sovereign debt situation. The Government has announced a full review of capital investment, and full consideration will be given to the merits and affordability of each of these projects. The costs and benefits will be reviewed, as will their contribution to overall economic objectives and job creation. I hope that at least one major project will proceed but it is too early to speculate on which one. All realistic options for delivery of one project will be examined including on an incremental, phased basis.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: Would the Minister of State agree that the investment in the Kildare, Maynooth, Dunboyne and the DART lines is restricted in its return because the lines are not connected? The DART underground will deliver 75 million additional passenger journeys and will open up a wider footprint into the surrounding counties outside of Dublin. Does the Minister of State not agree that the greater Dublin area will drive recovery and such integration is essential if we are to reduce the congestion in the city centre? It will open the job market to more people because the transport system will be networked. Before any 632 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions additional lines are added, however, it would make sense to integrate current services. I was a member of the DTI consultative panel in the early 1990s, before the boom, and this initiative was seen as essential. It has been postponed every time there is a pinch point because it is not an obvious project like the Luas. It is, however, fundamental to the delivery of an integrated system, one of the first terms used by the Minister of State in his reply.

Deputy Alan Kelly: To be straight with the Deputy, of course it is a good idea. As a concept it really works and in theory there would be huge support for it. Given the financial reality, however, we must look at prioritisation. I agree there is a restriction on return for these lines because of the lack of interconnectivity and I hope we will get there at some stage in the future. Having said that, there has been a significant amount of investment in these lines to improve them and ensure their delivery is maximised. I will forward the full range of investment across all lines to the Deputy if she wishes. Some resignalling works in the DART underground or interconnector project that have capacity benefits themselves are being treated separately by the NTMA and are being assessed with a view to making progress on individual aspects. Provision could possibly be made for those works between now and 2014.

Public Transport 24. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport if he is committed to maintaining funding levels for CIE in view of commitments in the Programme for Government favouring public transport. [8718/11]

Deputy Leo Varadkar: This question relates to a Government commitment to maintaining funding levels for CIE. Deputy Dooley will be aware that the fiscal legacy of the outgoing Fianna Fáil-led Government was to leave an expected deficit of €18 billion for this year. This fiscal legacy, coupled to the banking crisis, necessitated the intervention of the IMF and the EU late last year, a measure which compromised our economic sovereignty to a significant degree. In light of this legacy, while I would like to tell the House that I am committed to maintaining funding levels for CIE, to do so would involve a significant departure from reality. During the lifetime of the previous Government the total subvention paid to the three CIE subsidiaries was reduced from a high of €308 million in 2008 to €263 million in 2011. This represents a reduction of 15%. I recall Deputy Dooley voting in favour of all of those cuts. Unfortunately, there will be a requirement to reduce this subvention once again. That is the simple, hard reality and I have conveyed it to all interested parties I met in recent weeks. Despite this economic framework, the Government will — as it has committed to do in its programme for Government — with the reduced sums available for capital and current expenditure, favour public transport over road transport. The outgoing Fianna Fáil-led Government produced a four-year plan which envisaged further cuts in current expenditure in the Department’s Vote by €30 million in 2012, €30 million in 2013 and €40 million in 2014. This will undoubtedly affect the PSO subvention significantly, particularly as it makes up over 50% of the Department’s current budget. This is subject to reconsideration by the new Government under its comprehensive spending review. Unfortu- nately, however, working assumptions for economic growth and other budgetary variables have worsened rather than improved in the interim. The reduction of the subvention to date and into the future has necessitated and will necessi- tate the design and implementation of cost-effectiveness plans. The CIE group has implemented significant cost-management measures, including the implementation of the 633 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] Deloitte cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, which included Dublin Bus’s network direct project. Irish Rail has also been successful in reducing its cost base to date.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House. However, they will be required to go to the well of further cost savings again. A recovery in passenger numbers and further increases in fares could soften the impact of these cuts but it is difficult to see how reductions of this order will not impact on services if we continue with the business as usual approach to providing bus and rail services. In respect of capital investment, there will be a comprehensive review of capital spending with a view to developing a new national development plan for the period 2012 to 2017. This review, which will take place against a background of the new funding realities, will examine the costs and benefits of all capital projects against a range of economic, social and environmental criteria. Key considerations for transport will include the need to prioritise funding to protect investment made to date and to maintain high safety standards.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am aware of the significant savings that were envisaged by the previous Government. Notwithstanding that, certain political statements and commitments were made prior to the general election by the Deputy’s party and by its partner in Government on the basis that they were well aware of the fiscal deficit to which he refers. I would appreciate it if the Minister might explain how the Government intends to address this matter and to meet the commitments that were made during the course of the election campaign. That, of course, is a matter for those in Government. The programme for Government contains a clear commitment to rebalance transport policy in favour of public transport. Is the Minister committed to retaining the State subvention in a manner that will ensure there will be a capacity for a favourable approach to be taken in respect of public transport? He will be aware that the National Transport Authority has expressed concern that continuing reductions in the subvention would seriously undermine public transport provision throughout the country at a time when the national policy is in favour of public transport.

Deputy Robert Dowds: Why did the Deputy’s party not take action on that matter that when it was in office?

Deputy Timmy Dooley: The Deputy will have an opportunity to ask a question later. Perhaps he could take the matter up with members of his own parliamentary party.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputies should address their remarks through the Chair.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: The Minister will be aware that the outlook from CIE’s perspective is difficult. Perhaps he will indicate whether he has engaged in discussions with CIE in respect of the implementation of cost savings for 2011 and outline the impact such savings might have on services. The programme for Government also states that the Government supports a modern, high- speed transport system and the expansion, in range and frequency, of high-capacity commuter services. How does the Minister propose to achieve this? Does he have plans to privatise bus or rail services?

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The Deputy posed a number of questions and I will answer as many as possible. The programme for Government commits us to favouring public transport over road transport in the future. That is what we will do. We will be different from the previous 634 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions

Government in this regard. The latter, perhaps legitimately so, favoured road transport over public transport because it decided to give priority to building the inter-urban motorways. In fairness, the inter-urban motorway system is complete and we are of the view that the priorities are now different and that public transport should be favoured over road transport. However, what we intend to do in this regard will occur in the context of a shrinking budget. We are in the midst of an economic and financial crisis and we have a budget deficit of €18 billion. Budgets are going to shrink. Everyone knows that or at least I hope they do. Essentially, the roads budget and the public transport PSO budget will both shrink. However, the former will shrink at a faster rate than the latter. Unfortunately, that is the context within which we are operating. I accept that shrinking budgets will impact on services. I am sure that the previous Government was aware of this when it developed its plan to reduce the PSO by €100 million over three years. We can, however, mitigate against the effects of this by introducing cost savings. In fairness, the CIE companies have been very effective to date in delivering such savings without their having too adverse an impact on services. However, every year it is going to be a struggle to deliver the reduction in the PSO budget while maintaining services. As my Cabinet colleagues have stated on many previous occasions, it is about doing more for less. I have engaged in initial consultations with the CIE companies in respect of how they will proceed in this regard. They are commercial entities and, therefore, it is they — rather than me or the Minister of State, Deputy Kelly — who are best placed to deliver the required savings. My engagement with the companies in question is ongoing. We do not have any plans to privatise bus or train services. We are, of course, considering the contents of the McCarthy report, which proposes privatising some of the subsidiaries but not train lines or bus routes. It might be difficult to find buyers for these subsidiaries because they do not generate profits. We favour more diversity in the provision of services and that is already available in the context of the licensing of private bus services.

25. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport if he will launch a full investigation into malpractices in CIE following the Baker Tilly Report on Iarnród Éireann; his views that the CIE non-executive directors refused to attend meetings of the Joint Oireachtas Transport Committee in the 30th Dáil and if he will instruct them to do so; if he will provide a full breakdown of the expenses of CIE tours executives; and if he has satisfied himself with the use of the multimillion euro subsidy to CIE. [8845/11]

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The Deputy will be aware that I have announced a number of significant changes to corporate governance structure in CIE and the CIE companies. The term of the current executive chairman of CIE, Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and Dublin Bus will expire at the end of June. When his term ends, the position of the executive chairman will be abolished and four non-executive chairpersons will be appointed to the boards of the companies. This will represent a considerable change to CIE’s corporate governance structure. Prior to their confirmation and formal appointment, each of the four individuals will appear before the relevant Oireachtas committee to set out their vision for the various State companies. In addition, there will be a number of ministerial appointments of ordinary members to the boards of the various CIE companies in the coming months. Each of these board members will, when appointed, receive a letter of mandate. This letter, among other matters, will advise board members that if they are requested by an Oireachtas committee to appear before it in their capacity as board members, they will be expected to attend. This is in addition to the Government’s commitment to introduce legislation and hold a referendum to allow Oireachtas committees to carry out investigations and compel witnesses to attend. It is intended that the referendum to which I refer will be held later in the year. 635 Priority 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.]

I am aware that concerns have been expressed with regard to matter arising from the Baker Tilly report. However, I am advised that the Secretary General of my Department indicated to the Comptroller and Auditor General in September 2010 that detailed replies were received from CIE in January and March 2010 and that these outlined the steps taken in strengthening procurement policy and practice, the extent of implement of the recommendations and the board’s satisfaction with the adequacy of the controls in place. As such, and in consultation with my colleagues, I will give careful consideration to the Deputy’s proposal. I will report back to the House in this regard in due course. I will also be keen to take on board the views of the incoming transport committee on this matter. The issue of expenses of CIE Tours executives is a matter for CIE and I have asked the company to contact the Deputy directly about it. I would expect any expense claims to be reasonable and vouched or verified. I will take dim view of any evidence to contrary but I recognise the fact that executives of CIE Tours are obliged to travel overseas a great deal in order to secure business. CIE Tours does not benefit from a subvention from the State and it generates cash for CIE, which, in turn, reduces the need for Exchequer contributions. The funding of PSO services is governed by contracts between the CIE companies and the National Transport Authority, NTA. The NTA monitors the contracted performance of the PSO operators on a quarterly basis and reports are published on its website. The NTA recently imposed even more demanding performance targets on Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus. These companies stand to lose up to 10% of their PSO if they do not meet these targets.

Deputy Shane Ross: I thank the Minister for his reply, which is most helpful in some ways. In the first instance, he specifically stated that he will, in effect, compel non-executive board members to appear before Oireachtas committees. Such compulsion was noticeably lacking in the past. The Minister’s predecessor supported the decision of the non-executive board to decline to appear before the then Joint Committee on Transport, which was completely unjust- ifiable in terms of transparency. I also welcome the Minister’s decision to abolish the position of executive chairman. I do not have an objection to any individual holding such a position but rather I object to the position itself. I welcome his decision to advertise these posts. I am concerned about CIE. The Baker Tilly report, to which I referred in the question, found corruption in it. It found breaches of procurement regulations, as well as wrongdoing and malfeasance. However, the report was buried. Its existence was not known to the Minister until it was exposed. Because it was buried, because there is still a culture of corruption € 3o’clock and concealment in CIE, because the report cost 500,000, which was not revealed to the Minister, and because the Minister was not even told about the content of the report until it was leaked, does this not spell out to him the fact that there is a deep sickness in the organisation which was exposed at the Oireachtas committee? It was not exposed by the auditors or revealed to the Minister. Does this not make a compelling argument for the Minister to investigate what has been happening in CIE? My information is that many of the practices exposed in the report are continuing, at Iarnród Éireann in particular, and will continue, unless the Government gets to the bottom of what has been going on in that culture.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: It is important to recognise the background to the Baker Tilly Ryan Glennon report. I have not read the entire report, but it is on my reading list for next week when I will read it from start to finish. That is why I am not ruling out the possibility of appointing an inspector. 636 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

The fraud was detected by CIE which initiated the report. However, the company did not inform the Minister, as it should have done. It did not inform the Minister about the existence of the report, but it did detect the fraud and act on it. Of the 156 recommendations made in the report, 146 have been implemented by CIE. The remaining ten have not been implemented for good reasons. I will be expecting the new chairman to do exactly what Deputy Ross suggests. When he or she is appointed, part of his or her instructions from the Government will be to look at how procurement occurs in CIE, how the company spends its money and ensure the practices followed in the past are not still continuing. That will be the job of the chairman rather than the Minister or the Government. The Deputy alleges the practices deteced in the Baker Tilly report are still widespread in CIE. I have no evidence that that is the case. If there is such evidence, I want to see it. It is not reasonable to say that if fraud was detected by the company in 2005 and 2006 and acted upon, it must still be continuing. I do not accept that view. There must be some evidence to back it up. We cannot assume that because there was fraud five years ago, which was detected by the company, there must automatically be fraud now. I do not accept that automaticity.

Deputy Shane Ross: Why did the auditors never discover such fraud or malpractice in the past?

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I do not know.

Deputy Shane Ross: If they did not discover it in the past, they are not going to reveal it now.

Other Questions

————

National Cycle Policy Framework 26. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport his plans to remove the mandatory use requirement for cycle lanes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8612/11]

Deputy Leo Varadkar: This is an easy one. The Deputy asks if there are plans to remove the mandatory use requirement for cycle lanes. The removal of the requirement to use cycle lanes where provided is one of the undertakings in the national cycle policy framework. Subject to finalising some safety aspects of the proposal, I hope to make the necessary amending regulations later in the year. Where a cycle lane is provided, cyclists are required to use it, even if it is damaged or in a bad condition or inappropriate to use it. The Government agrees that the regulation should be changed and it will be.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: Local authorities have made massive improvements to cycle lanes. I am glad to hear the Minister is reviewing the requirement to use cycle lanes, even where they are damaged, which does not make sense. In other countries alternatives are permitted if there is a pot-hole or other damage to cycle lanes. Has the Minister discussed the matter with the sustainable transport unit in his Department? Will he meet representatives of the Dublin Cyc- ling Campaign? I believe they have contacted him, but I do not know if he has replied to them. Will he press forward with the commitments given in the national cycle policy framework and will he be issuing new policy statements in this regard? 637 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly, and I have had detailed discussions with the sustainable transport section in the Department. Subject to confirmation of the delegation order, most of these matters will fall into the brief of the Minister of State. He or I will meet representatives of the Dublin Cycling Campaign. I have had a good look at the national cycle policy framework. It is a good framework, but what is missing is an implementation plan and budget. We must look at it closely, see which parts can be implemented and how much it will cost to do so. Like everything, it will be subject to cost constraints. There is still some money available in the sustainable transport budget. This is an area in which much can be delivered for a relatively small amount of money. I am encouraged to see that the number cycling into Dublin is increasing all the time, while the number of cars is going down. We must continue to encourage and support this trend.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: I am happy with the Minister’s reply. There are important projects at which we are all looking. One is the cycle path link from Clontarf to East Wall Road. If money is available, we should look at the projects that are considered most urgent and most in need of funding.

Civil Aviation Legislation 27. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport if he plans to appoint Authorised Officers beyond members of An Garda Síochána, as foreseen under Section 49 of the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 and their training requirements. [8606/11]

Deputy Leo Varadkar: Section 49 of the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 gives powers to authorised officers, including members of the Garda Síochána, to inspect any civil aircraft where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual on board is guilty of one or other of the offences referred to in section 33(1)(d) of the 1988 Air Navi- gation and Transport Act. These include assault of a person on an aerodrome and possession of certain dangerous articles. It is considered that the powers available under statute are adequate to tackle any unlawful activities at Irish airports and as such, it is not my intention to introduce any new legislation in this area.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: It is usually the Garda which is left to do the bulk of this work. What do we mean by authorised officers? Would gardaí be the only people who would deal with individuals in airports or on aeroplanes? We hear reports on renditions in Shannon Airport. Has the Minister investigated these claims or received reports on them? We hear repeated denials, but groups such as Shannon Watch, Amnesty International and other human rights organisations suggest rendition flights have landed at Shannon Airport. Is it solely up to the Garda to investigate these occurrences? There is a fear that the Garda is part of the State apparatus and would not give a neutral opinion on this matter. Has the Minister investigated the matter?

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The Garda can be trusted to be neutral in giving an opinion on this issue and in doing its job. The powers granted to authorised officers are granted to gardaí.We do not have any plans to appoint authorised officers beyond members of the Garda. I do not want to go too much into the issue of extraordinary rendition because it is a question that should be directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has some responsibility with regard to airport and air navigation Acts, but the issue of rendition, if it is occurring, is one for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I would point out there have been a number of investigations into allegations of extraordinary 638 Other 20 April 2011. Questions rendition and none has revealed any evidence or even a specific allegation that any person on any occasion has been subject to extraordinary rendition through Ireland. I refer in particular to the investigation of the Council of Europe and the CIPT-UN committee.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: The Minister referred to the issue being a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is included here as a reply from the Department of Transport. I ask if the Chair could rule on this question. We seem to get jumped from one Department to another and we do not get a direct answer.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy needs to put the question to the proper Minister, that is the issue.

Air Services 28. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport the position regarding the public service obligation air services; his plans for the operational subvention scheme and capital grant scheme for each of the six regional airports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8621/11]

30. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport the position regarding the ending of the Derry Dublin public service obligation contract; and if he will consider reversing this decision. [8586/11]

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I propose to take Questions Nos. 28 and 30 together. A decision to reduce to two the number of routes covered by public service obligation, PSO, air services, was taken in line with the value for money review of the Exchequer expenditure on the regional airports programme. This review took account of a number of factors including the performance of the services, the requirement to make best use of scarce Exchequer resources as well as improvements in alternative transport modes and changes in EU legislation covering PSO services. I can confirm that my Department has formally applied to the European Commission to continue the routes linking Donegal and Kerry with Dublin. It is expected that the new contracts in respect of these two routes will be in place before the end of this year. With regard to the Derry PSO route, it is not my intention to revisit the previous Govern- ment’s decision regarding this route and the finance is not available to my Department to do so, in any case. I am considering issues relating to the operational subvention scheme and the capital grants scheme, which also have provided for regional airports. I intend to bring proposals to Government shortly. In this context it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any future arrangements for these schemes in advance of a Government discussion and decision on the matter.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: I certainly have concerns about the different issues to do with our airports. Has the expenditure on the airports been reviewed? These services are vital to the well-being of the country and we cannot afford to lose them. I ask the Minister to provide some form of guarantee that we will not lose any more services as such losses would impact upon the areas of job creation and tourism. We need to ensure that our airports are well protected.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The regional airports and the airlines are private entities. As such, I cannot give the Deputy any guarantees on behalf of regional airports or airlines. However, I can say that the PSO for Donegal has been submitted to the European Commission as also has 639 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] the PSO for Kerry. The money is available for those services and it is a Government objective that those PSOs should be in place by the end of the year. It is anticipated that the advertisement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the end of this month or early next month. It is then up to the airlines to put in bids to operate those services and I hope they will do so. Last year, 2010, the budget provided €21 million for support to regional airports and this provided for approximately 1.3 million passenger journeys at a subsidy of €40 per passenger. This year’s budget was cut from €21 million to €13.4 million so the money available to support regional airports is considerably less this year than last year because of the decisions made in the last budget. There will be pressure to find a mechanism to continue to support regional airports within that spending context.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue: I thank the Minister for his reply but I am disappointed to hear he does not intend to revisit the Derry PSO which was terminated under the previous Government and was a decision with which I disagreed. It is welcome that the Donegal PSO will continue as this is important for Donegal and west Donegal in particular. However, the Derry PSO is particularly important for the northern Donegal area and for the north-west region. I know things are difficult financially but over the past number of years, the Irish Government put a significant investment into Derry Airport, amounting to several million euro. I do not accept the logic of either the current Government or the previous Government in having invested in Derry and then not following through as this is a very important service.

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue: I will have a question. I refer to the other transport facilities in the north-west region, rail and road services. I emphasise the importance of the A5 project from Derry to Aughnacloy and the need to work with the Northern Government to enhance and integrate the rail services from Derry to Belfast and on to Dublin. I ask if the Minister has any plans for the rail service or if he has had any contacts with his Northern counterparts in an effort to improve that rail service, considering the unfortunate position that he does not intend to revisit the Derry PSO decision.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I appreciate Deputy McConalogue’s view on this matter but if the previous Government did not have the money to provide a PSO service to Derry and the economic situation has deteriorated since then, I am sure he can understand why I do not have the money to restore a PSO service to Derry. Ultimately it came down to a choice. There can only be one service for the north west and it was a choice between Carrickfin or Derry and frankly, in my view, Carrickfin was the right choice. It is not necessarily a matter of logic but rather a matter of money. I acknowledge it is very important to retain a PSO to Donegal precisely because it is isolated and there is neither motorway access nor rail access to the county. This is the reason both the Government and I regard it as important that the PSO be retained. On contacts with Northern counterparts, a meeting was scheduled with Conor Murphy MLA, my counterpart, but the meeting was cancelled by them as the elections are under way in the North. We anticipate that in May there will be a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council and a bilateral meeting with the Northern Minister for Transport and all those issues will be discussed.

Deputy Michael Colreavy: It seems to me no economic or social impact analysis has been carried out about decisions made to cut expenditure on services. I am familiar with Sligo 640 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

Airport and I know the number of people employed there. I know the value of that airport. The PSO service has been withdrawn from it and in all probability, flights between Sligo and Dublin——

An Ceann Comhairle: We are not talking about Sligo at the moment; we are talking about Derry.

Deputy Michael Colreavy: I have a question. As well as looking at the amount of money that needs to be saved, will the Minister and his Department take into account the loss of employment with the consequential movement of those people onto jobseeker’s allowance or jobseeker’s benefit? There will be a reduction in tourism potential in the region because people like to be able to fly into an area from abroad. Finally and most important, industrialists considering setting up in an area want a good air service. A proper economic and social impact analysis would allow different choices and different judgments to be made. I ask the Minister if he will insist those factors are taken into account.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: A value for money review was carried out and those different aspects were taken into account in that study. I do not wish to be blunt but I need to be blunt. The country is in receivership. We are way past the stage where we can do things on the basis of cost-benefit analyses. In the past when the country was not in receivership one could decide to spend €2 million and down the line that €2 million would generate €6 million or €7 million for the wider economy. We are not in that position any more. We do not have the €2 million in the first place; in fact we have minus €2 million. The context in which we are now making decisions is very different from what it was. The first question we need to ask ourselves is how much money do we have. We then need to decide how we should arrange expenditure within that constrained budget. That is the context in which decisions have to be made. We have to cut our cloth to suit our measure. That is the reality we face.

Public Transport 29. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport his views on the Dublin bus network direct and its impact on communities across the city; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8595/11]

49. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport if he will provide a guarantee that Dublin Bus will not be hit with further cutbacks and planned cuts to Dublin Bus routes will not go ahead; and the supports, financial or otherwise, that will be made available to Dublin Bus. [8619/11]

59. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport the number of bus drivers that will lose their jobs as a result of network direct; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8596/11]

Deputy Alan Kelly: I propose to take Questions Nos. 29, 49 and 59 together. The Deloitte report on the cost and efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann identified significant scope for the redesign and more efficient operation of the Dublin Bus network to provide a more attractive service for existing and potential users. The redesign would achieve more frequent, streamlined and reliable services. Following publication of the report, Dublin Bus undertook an extensive review of its bus network and announced plans for the reorganis- ation of routes and timetables. During the review it consulted key stakeholders, customers and local representatives. The redesigned routings are being introduced on a phased basis to allow 641 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Alan Kelly.] for a manageable and orderly process to take place and are expected to be completed by the middle of this year. In 2011 Dublin Bus will receive an estimated €72.5 million in Exchequer subvention through the National Transport Authority. In the current difficult economic environment I intend to encourage efficiencies and rationalisation in Dublin Bus. I want the authority and the other agencies to work together to encourage more people out of their cars by improving their experience of public transport through greater efficiencies such as Network Direct and other improvements such as real-time passenger information and integrated ticketing. Notwithstand- ing the enhanced service provided by Dublin Bus as a result of Network Direct, the company must implement further cost-saving measures to reduce the level of operating losses which amounted to approximately €13 million in 2009. Continuous efficiency in the provision of public service obligation services will be my priority in the current fiscal environment, as increased Exchequer support is not realistic at this time.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I found the Minister of State’s response rather depressing. It was the same stuff I had heard from Dublin Bus when I asked it about the savage cutbacks to bus services across Dublin. I remind the Minister of State that before the general election, a policy document suggested “the bus remains the only public transport option with the short and medium term capacity to meet the growing transport needs of an increasing urban population”. It referred to the “need to dramatically reform our bus networks to increase capacity, frequency and attractiveness as a public transport option”. It correctly pointed out that for every bus taken off the road, 90 cars went on the road. In that context, I ask the Minister of State to scrap the Dublin Bus network review immediately. Despite its innocent name, the review is nothing but a savage, unjust and counter-productive onslaught on bus services across the city. It will result in 200 buses being removed from the bus network and 200 jobs being lost. It will cause immense suffering among the elderly, the disabled, schoolchildren and low- income families. As part of the review, some 23 routes are being scrapped, while the frequency of dozens of other routes is being reduced. As a result of these cuts, there will be an additional 2,000 cars on the road. In their pre-election manifestos the Government parties stated we needed more buses to take cars off the road. I appeal to the Minister of State, if he is serious about his commitment to the bus network, to give a commitment to scrap the review immediately, reinstate bus services and reverse the cuts that have affected the most vulnerable people in our society, including the elderly. Perhaps he is looking for the money needed to reverse the €30 million cut in the Dublin Bus subvention. I have heard a figure of €25 million bandied about in the context of the forthcoming visits of President Obama and the Queen. We should not bother bringing President Obama and the Queen here. Instead, we should use the €25 million to increase the subvention to Dublin Bus. Would the money not be far better spent in that way?

Deputy Robert Dowds: No.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Is the Deputy suggesting the Queen is more important than the elderly?

Deputy Alan Kelly: I thank the Deputy for his passionate reply.

Deputy Robert Dowds: The visit will bring tourists to the country.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The Queen is elderly — she is in her 80s. 642 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: She will not be using Dublin Bus.

Deputy Alan Kelly: As a former tourism executive, I am aware of the huge merit of such visits and their potential for the country. As far as the Government is concerned, the review that has been carried out is working. The main features of the redesigned network are an increase in the number of high frequency routes, more direct alignment of routes to and from key areas of work and leisure, greater use of quality bus corridors, more even headways between departures, fewer route variations, adjustments to make the network easier to understand, an increase in cross-city services and improved connections with rail and Luas transport modes. Huge progress has been made with Dublin Bus which is very efficient in what it does. I do not want to be dumbing-down some of that work. I compliment those who are working together to create these efficiencies in a difficult climate while avoiding industrial relations disputes. I compliment Dublin Bus on the manner in which it has introduced a new route network map. The provision for passengers of real-time timetable information is part of the Government’s plan to try to push more people towards public transport, particularly the bus network. All of this should help Dublin Bus to safeguard its future. I suggest the results being achieved by Network Direct as part of this have been encouraging. My office has received numerous compli- ments about some of the services being delivered and the efficiencies taking place.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: There is no doubt that Dublin Bus has done some significant work. It is one of the least subsidised operators in Europe. I refer to the extent to which the State provides funds for Dublin Bus. I suggest the ongoing review of the bus network in Dublin is designed to lead to cutbacks. That is one of the big problems I have with it. Routes are being amalgamated in a way that does not take account of the needs of communities, people who are disabled and those who find it hard to get from A to B for various reasons. The manner in which we are driving the idea of cost-cutting is putting a great deal of pressure on Dublin Bus. The invaluable service the company provides for communities cannot be weighed in terms of how much money is handed out or how much it costs. I reiterate the appeal made by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett. The Government should try to stop the cuts being made by Dublin Bus. Will the Minister of State support Dublin Bus by giving it more funding and stopping the cutbacks?

Deputy Alan Kelly: To be fair, it is impossible to find more funding in this environment. I have some sympathy for the argument that the subvention given to Dublin Bus is low by comparison to that given to similar operators in other countries. It is a fair point and one I have made on previous occasions. The economic environment in which we find ourselves is very unfortunate. If we take money from another area, we will be left in an impossible position. If Deputies Dessie Ellis and Richard Boyd Barrett feel passionately about specific hardship issues, I will be happy to take on board anything they might have to say inside or outside this House in that regard. I will help them to make the case to the relevant authorities if it is realistic to do so. It is up to them to make the case in the first instance.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I welcome the Minister of State’s offer and will take him up on it. However, this is a much bigger issue. Thousands of elderly people in Dublin, including those who are immobile or disabled, have been affected by cuts to many bus routes, including the Nos. 3, 5, 10, 13a, 25x and 38c routes. There has been a disastrous attack on bus services, including Nitelink services, which are needed by some of our most vulnerable citizens such as young people and low-income families. I appeal to the new Government which before the general election correctly highlighted the importance of maintaining bus services to scrap the review which is nothing but a cover for cutbacks. It should reinstate bus services and stop the 643 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

[Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.] review now. The Minister of State has said there is no money to do so. While I accept the IMF stuff, I do not accept the rationale behind paying off bankers, etc. I have made a serious proposal. I ask the Minister to ask the Taoiseach not to spend €25 million or €30 million on——

An Ceann Comhairle: The point the Deputy raises is irrelevant. He should ask a question.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: May I ask where is the money?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must ask a question about Dublin Bus.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I am asking the Minister to ask the Taoiseach not to spend €25 million on the visit of two individuals to this country. The money should be spent instead on increasing the subvention for Dublin Bus and providing the funds required to reinstate bus services which have been cut across Dublin.

Deputy Paudie Coffey: This is populist nonsense.

Deputy Robert Dowds: Does the Deputy not realise the damage that would be done if the invitations were withdrawn?

Deputy Timmy Dooley: Will the Minister of State ask where we will get the €25 million?

Deputy Alan Kelly: The review will not be stopped. It is not fair to describe its purpose as being to secure cutbacks. Its purpose is to obtain as much as possible for what we have. I have made an offer on specific hardship cases which need to be addressed and this will be done. We must be realistic, however. While routes and other issues raised by the Deputy are matters for Dublin Bus, in a number of cases with which I am familiar routes have been extended and amalgamated rather than being cut. I do not accept the loss of services is at the level described by Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: While I do not wish to introduce a divisive tone to the debate, in November 2010 the Fine Gael Party published——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must ask a supplementary question.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: ——a document which expressed an interest in introducing the model of reform implemented in London where some bus routes were privatised. I ask the Minister to consider having the Joint Committee on Transport investigate this matter. As a member of the previous Joint Committee on Transport, I visited London with a committee delegation. We found that the model pursued for the London bus system was anything but effective in achieving cost savings and in terms of service delivery. The authorities had to spend substantial amounts trying to improve services which declined as a result of privatisation. Will the Minister ask the Joint Committee on Transport, once it has been constituted, to carry out a more detailed analysis or investigation of the Fine Gael Party proposal?

Deputy Alan Kelly: While I would not necessarily fully subscribe to the option to which the Deputy refers, every option is on the table and will be examined, including, if necessary, by the relevant committee.

Deputy Seán Crowe: While we all want Dublin Bus services to improve, difficulties arise when one tries to change services. I am involved in the Dublin Bus forum in Tallaght. As part of the consultation process, we asked for additional meetings to be held with members of the 644 Other 20 April 2011. Questions local community which relies on public transport. Will the review take into account factors such as age profile, local unemployment rates and so forth? I do not believe this is the case. Will the review and road shows take a flexible approach to making changes? Is the issue under consideration the financial viability of the routes in question? Anecdotal evidence suggests that while buses are full at specific times, it may not be financially viable to provide a full service throughout the day. In many cases, early morning bus services are the only means people have of travelling to work. Perhaps the review should consider the provision of a skeleton service at peak times to allow people to travel to and from work.

Deputy Alan Kelly: I understand and respect the reason this issue raises passions in local communities. We have encouraged as much consultation as possible. While I am open to correc- tion, I understand demographic profiling has been done. I will ensure a full answer is provided to the Deputy’s questions in this regard. When I meet the relevant authorities I will emphasise again the need for skeleton services, particularly to serve areas on the outskirts of Dublin to enable people to commute in the mornings and evenings. The Deputy makes a good point in that regard. Following the completion of the review, the success or otherwise of changes introduced by the National Transport Authority will be reviewed within six months. A safety valve is, therefore, available and will be used.

Question No. 30 answered with Question No. 28.

Road Network 31. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport his plans to extend the use of bus lanes; his further plans to review the bus lane system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8613/11]

Deputy Alan Kelly: Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority in December 2009, responsibility for the delivery of an integrated transport system, including funding for quality bus corridors in the greater Dublin area, is a matter for the National Trans- port Authority. I have, therefore, asked the National Transport Authority to send the relevant information to the Deputy. I ask him to advise my private office if he does not receive a reply within ten working days. As regards the rest of the country, my Department is funding an ongoing programme of bus priority measures — green routes — and park and ride facilities in the four regional cities of Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. An amount of €5.5 million has been provided in 2011 to the four cities in question. Public transport feasibility studies have been commissioned by the local authorities in the four regional cities and these were funded by my Department. The purpose of the studies is to examine the most appropriate and feasible public transport systems for the cities in question. The completed studies include recommendations in relation to bus priority measures. Some of the recommendations of the feasibility studies are already being funded under the regional cities bus priority and park and ride programme. Since 2006 the four cities concerned have received funding totalling €55 million under the programme. The National Transport Authority is examining the recommendations of the completed studies as requested by my Department in consultation, as necessary, with other appropriate bodies, with a view to assessing and prioritising future public transport options for the four regional cities, having regard to the current difficult budgetary position. 645 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

Deputy Seán Crowe: On plans to review the network of bus lanes, Deputies will be aware of bus lanes being established on routes where a bus service is not provided. This is crazy and must change. Will this issue be examined as part of the review? Another issue which arises is the use of bus lanes by non-bus traffic during off-peak times. I am aware this could give rise to difficulties but we need to take a flexible approach to the road network. It does not make sense to have bumper to bumper traffic on one lane of a road beside an unused bus lane. Will the review examine these types of issues given that they make a nonsense of the system?

Deputy Alan Kelly: I presume the Deputy’s concerns relate to the greater Dublin area. The National Transport Authority is examining this matter, although it is not the subject of a review. I could request that such a review be carried out to examine matters such as the times at which the bus corridors can be used by vehicles other than buses, the success rate of each bus corridor measured against key deliverables and so forth. I will communicate further with the Deputy on the matter.

32. Deputy Paudie Coffey asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport the steps he will take to revise current National Roads Authority policies to increase the number of service stations on the motorway and national roads network to ensure that there is adequate provision of rest and service areas in the interests of road users and traffic safety; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8544/11]

39. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Transport; Tourism and Sport the tender process for services areas on new roads that is used by him. [8627/11]

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I propose to take Question Nos. 32 and 39 together. The programme for Government includes a commitment to introduce a new procedure for answering oral questions by State bodies. The chief executive of every State funded body will be required to attend the relevant Oireachtas committee on a regular basis to answer oral parliamentary questions which can be submitted by any Member. There will also be a liability on State bodies to answer written questions within a specified number of Dáil sitting days. Until these new procedures are designed and implemented, I have adopted a transitional arrangement for questions on issues which are the responsibility of bodies under the aegis of my Department. Rather than seeking to have these questions disallowed, as was previously the case, I have been referring them to the relevant bodies for direct reply and have asked the Deputies concerned to revert to my office if a reply has not been received within ten working days. The House will appreciate that this approach lends itself well to written questions. However, our procedures for oral questions allow for supplementary questioning and this is clearly not appropriate when the Minister is not responsible for the issue concerned. I suggest, therefore, that Deputies table such questions for written reply only as I clearly cannot deal with them in any detail in oral replies. As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding for the national roads programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads, including service areas, is a matter for the National Roads Auth- ority under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Section 54 of the Roads Act 1993 specifically provides for the National Roads Authority or a local authority to provide and-or operate service areas. I have, therefore, referred the Deputies’ questions to the National Roads Authority for direct reply. I ask them to contact my office if a reply has not been received within ten working days. Given what I have outlined, I am not in a position to respond further. 646 Other 20 April 2011. Questions

Deputy Paudie Coffey: I welcome the effort by the Minister to take these questions and I note they were ruled out of order under previous Administrations. It is important we have the opportunity to put parliamentary questions to State bodies. The NRA takes direction from the line Minister, Deputy Varadkar, with regard to policy. While we must acknowledge the huge improvements in the inter-urban motorways and roads network, there is a deep deficit in regard to facilities and service stations on these networks. Will the Minister confirm that in his deliberations with the NRA he will ask it to revise its current policy in order to allow more service stations on networks, including not only the motorways but also the national roads network? I am aware of cases, as I am sure are other Deputies, where the NRA objects to applications for new service stations on our national roads network. This is an issue we need to examine from a strategic point of view with local authorities to ensure we have adequate provision. We do not want them on every road but we want adequate provision in the interest of road safety and providing facilities for road users. I ask Minister to consider this point.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: Perhaps the right way forward is for me to arrange for the Deputy to meet the NRA to convey his views directly. The provision of service stations is an objective of the NRA but they must be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is appropriate to locate them in some places but not in others and we do not want to have too many spread out on a single road. We often find that while there is great support for service stations in some areas, people in other areas may be very much against them because they argue they take commerce out of individual towns. There is also an issue whereby private operators want to provide their own service area where one is not provided by the NRA, and they would often have expectations that the NRA will rebuild the road or build over-bridges and so on to facilitate their businesses, which is not realistic in most cases. This is the reason the matter is left to the NRA. It is not appropriate for a Minister to make decisions on individual cases as to where service areas should be located. The right approach might be for me to organise a direct engagement with the Deputy and the NRA on the matter.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: I appreciate and understand the Minister’s position. However, we are outlining our concerns regarding what is happening on the motorways and the Minister must take this on board. While the NRA is responsible, we all have experience of travelling on motorways where there is no place to set down and the driver must either go off the motorway despite being in between locations. The issue of safety and driver fatigue comes into the equation. It is a serious situation. I understand some contracts are already in place and five or six stations are to be delivered. However, it is urgent that we have service areas, whether it is a garage, a restaurant or otherwise, where people can recuperate and have a cup of coffee. It is essential that people have breaks when they feel tired. I urge the Minister to reiterate to the NRA that it needs to deliver these service areas quickly because it is a safety issue.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: In his discussions with the NRA, the Minister might raise two issues. First, he might find out what the term “service station” means. The NRA seems to believe it constitutes a very large development costing millions of euro and, therefore, is difficult to provide.

Deputy Paudie Coffey: That is correct.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: All we seek is the provision of tea and coffee making and toilet facilities appropriate to the current lay-by system that exists. Second, the Minister should also ask the NRA why many lay-bys have their gates closed. 647 Adjournment 20 April 2011. Debate Matters

[Deputy Timmy Dooley.]

When the transport committee is established, it would be a good forum in which to deal with this matter. We had the opportunity previously at a time when the NRA iterated the point made by the Minister that it did not want to provide these services as it would take from people entering villages. Those of us who travel on the inter-urban routes rarely, if ever, enter villages as we continue to try to get to our ultimate destination, often at risk to ourselves and other motorists. I ask that action be taken and that, in conjunction with the issue of lay-bys, relatively small tea and coffee making and toilet services would be provided. This would be more than adequate to meet the needs of the vast majority.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: Under the current policy, the NRA has identified optimum locations for 12 service areas at approximate intervals of 50 km to 60 km and legislation was amended in 2007 to allow it to do that. Generally, service areas are designed to offer a full range of services, including convenience retail services as well as extensive car, coach and HGV parking and Garda enforcement areas. In addition, the NRA provides for rest areas. While they are not a substitute for service areas, there are a number of parking areas along the major inter- urban routes where vehicles can be parked safely to allow drivers to take breaks or rest periods. In the context of a motorway, an interval of 50 km to 60 km should be adequate. With regard to projects that have already begun, three opened for business in 2010 — two on the M1 and one on the M4 — and the authority has planning approval for four other stations at Athlone on the M6, Cashel on the M8, Kilcullen on the M9 and Gorey on the M11, and three other service areas are being tendered at present for Athlone, Kilcullen and Gorey.

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 Michael Healy-Rae — the need to re-introduce the excise duty rebate in respect of diesel for coach operators; (2) Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Pearse Doherty — the need to review the application of commercial taxation on vehicles that are used for purposes other than for work; (3) Deputy Paschal Donohoe — the need to preserve the Lighthouse Cinema in Smithfield, Dublin 7; (4) Deputy James Bannon — the need for the Minister for Social Protection to restore funding to Lough Ree development co-operative under the Pobal CSP scheme; (5) Deputy Joan Collins — the urgent need for the Minister to clarify the situation in regard to the promised allocation of 34 rooms for the treatment solely of cystic fibrosis patients in the proposed new unit at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Dublin; (6) Deputy Patrick O’Donovan — to review a decision of the HSE to close, on a temporary basis, a surgical ward and operating theatre at Croom Hospital, County Limerick; (7) Deputy Nicky McFadden — the matter of residential institutions and to seek the assurance of the Minister for Health and Children that medication is not being used to subdue patients who exhibit challenging behaviour; (8) Deputy Joe Costello — the need to grant residency to a person (details supplied); (9) Deputy Gerry Adams — the need to establish a full public inquiry into the practice of symphysiotomies in hospitals under the care of the State; (10) Deputy Tom Fleming — to insure that the necessary funding is made available to allow Valentia Community Hospital serve the needs of the island and the Iveragh peninsula in the same magnificent way it has done for the past 140 years; (11) Deputy Thomas P. Broughan — the proposed closure of the Teagasc Research Centre at Kinsealy, County Dublin; (12) Deputy Mattie McGrath — the changes to the primary school transport scheme announced in budget 2011 and how this will affect families and local school communities; and (13) Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett — the 648 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements issue of the future of Dún Laoghaire harbour in light of the McCarthy report and current disputes between the workforce and management over rationalisation plans. The matters raised by Deputies Paschal Donohoe; Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Pearse Doherty; Joe Costello; and Gerry Adams have been selected for discussion.

Commission of Inquiry into Banking Sector: Statements Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Yesterday was a sobering day for anyone interested in how a successful economy can, in parallel, develop the seeds of self-destruction, and how these seeds can take root, grow and develop and eventually create enormous havoc. This is the third year of the banking crisis and I come to the Dáil Chamber today in a som- bre mood. How it all came to pass is the subject of the report we have before us today, Misjudging Risk: Causes of the Systemic Banking Crisis in Ireland, Report of the Commission of Investi- gation into the Banking Sector in Ireland, prepared by Peter Nyberg. As I said yesterday, this report represents a thoughtful and multifaceted analysis into the causes of the banking crisis in Ireland and bears careful and measured consideration by all in the House. It requires careful consideration because we have to learn the lessons from these events, about how we got there, how we managed during the period and how we dealt with the crisis as it was developing. Mr. Nyberg’s report is a story about bank management which no longer understood what lending was about and had forgotten the very nature of credit. Providing credit, Mr Nyberg says, is not a sale of bank services; it is the acquisition of a risky asset. The appropriate prudential focus of such a transaction is, therefore, limiting and mitigating risk — or, at the very least, understanding the real risk and pricing it accordingly — rather than expanding sales, which seemed to be the objective of the banking industry in Ireland. This apparent inability, some might say unwillingness, of Irish banks to remember this basic principle of banking was a major cause of the banking crisis in Ireland. It is a story about banks, whose boards did not fully understand their role in oversight and control and that, in certain cases, lacked appropriate expertise to hold bank management to account. It is the story of national authorities which failed to read the macroeconomic warning signals that could have indicated a pattern of unsound lending behaviour by banks in a timely fashion, which seriously underestimated the nature and extent of the risks in the Irish financial system, and which had not gathered the necessary information. If more relevant information on and analysis of the underlying position of some of the banks had been available, discussions and policy recommendations may have been different. It is also the story of a seriously inept Government which fuelled rather than restrained the activities of banks when the crisis began to emerge. That is why this report is important. That is why this House has a responsibility to reflect on it and to see what lessons we must learn from this appalling crisis in order to get back to rebuilding the country, rebuilding its institutions, rebuilding our communities and getting people back to work. In January 2010 the previous Government set out a framework to the Oireachtas for investigation into the banking sector. This investigation consisted of two distinct stages. The preliminary report published in June 2010 by the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, entitled The Irish Banking Crisis — Regulatory and Financial Stability Policy 2003- 2008, and the report by Messrs Regling and Watson, entitled Preliminary Report on the Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis, formed the first stage of this investigation. The second stage consisted of a statutory commission of investigation. The establishment of this commission was approved by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 8 July 2010, and an 649 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] order formally establishing the commission was made by the previous Government on 21 September 2010. The commission’s terms of reference, which covered the period 2003 to 5 January 2009, were to examine the following: the main causes of the serious failures within each of the covered institutions; the main reasons Anglo Irish Bank Corporation and Irish Nationwide Building Society adopted and implemented business models, strategies and lending practices which resulted in those institutions experiencing severe financial distress; whether external auditors of the covered institutions commented in their audit reports or other communications to the institutions concerned on the failures that were arising; and the main causes for the failures in the performance of the statutory roles and responsibilities of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland and the relevance in that regard of any advices or directions given by the Department of Finance. The previous Minister for Finance formally appointed Mr. Peter Nyberg as sole member of the commission of investigation on 22 September 2010. The commission submitted its report to me on 22 March 2011, in keeping with its remit to complete its investigation within six months. I thank Mr. Nyberg for completing his work so quickly and thoroughly and for offering an analysis that gives us plenty of food for thought. In accordance with the terms of reference of the commission, the report makes several findings. Mr. Nyberg found that the main reason for the crisis was the unhindered expansion of the property bubble financed by banks using wholesale market funding. Attendant risks went undetected or seriously misjudged by the authorities whose actions and warnings were modest and insufficient. The speed and severity of the crisis was made worse by worldwide economic events but, notwithstanding these external factors, the problems which led to the crisis and the scale of that crisis were the result of domestic Irish decisions and actions. The report states that many of the problems and failings in Irish banks and public institutions were similar to those in other countries. Banks set aggressive targets for profit growth which implied a partial change in business model and strategy without the necessary corresponding strengthening of governance, procedures and practices. Boards and relevant observers appear to have had little appreciation of how the banks were run at grassroot level, or at least they did not seem unduly concerned about the practices taking place. The inadequate attention banks generally paid to credit risk management is, in the end, evidenced by the extent and nature of their subsequent problem loans. Management and boards in general appear not to have fully appreciated the two key risks to which their banks were exposed, namely, increased exposures to funding-dependent development projects with future refinance risks, and volatile wholesale funding. Bank management and boards seem to have been totally unprepared for both of their key risks, property loan impairment and funding problems, occurring simul- taneously. The report also concludes that for several years before the banking crisis, the authorities operated under the assumption that financial markets generally were efficient and self-regulating. A banking system requires oversight, the report states, and, when necessary, the intervention of alert, aware and empowered authorities. This is because of the economic and social importance of banking, as well as its high leverage, public depositor support and a tendency to exhibit occasional problems. The core policy challenge for the authorities was to recognise early warning signs, within banks and the economy, so as to be in a position to take timely pre- emptive action and mitigate any potential threats to financial stability. In respect of auditors, the report states that their commentary regularly focuses only on issues they consider relevant to the accuracy of historic accounts. In practice, this means auditors look primarily backward and at technical issues that may influence the accuracy of accounts. The auditors clearly fulfilled this narrow function according to existing rules and regulations. There 650 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements appears to have been no challenging dialogue with the covered banks on their business models and growing property and funding exposures. The commission finds it unfortunate that sufficient, timely and challenging auditor dialogue was not used to influence the banks’ business models and lending practices. The findings and recommendations set out in the report in regard to auditors are a matter for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to consider, and I have written to him seeking his views. However, it is my view that auditors may be able to take on a more enhanced role in co-operation with supervisory authorities, while recognising their specific statutory functions. The Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland is already engaging with the audit profession to explore how it can assist the bank in exercising its supervisory functions. I am keen to see progress and developments in that area. I will outline some of the actions the Government plans to take to meet the recommendations set out in the report.The commission makes recommendations in regard to the structure of the banking sector, stating that it may be necessary to limit the size and growth of banks and the banking system relative to the economy. The State’s November 2010 agreement with the external authorities envisages a programme of deleveraging and restructuring to take place within the banking sector in the next two years. I have already announced the details of what will be done in that area. The commission’s report is highly critical of the role played by board members and senior management of banks in failing to oversee their institutions effectively. As a result of these board-level failures, I am setting out three measures designed to strengthen bank boards and management. First, the chairman of each institution will have to provide me and the NTMA with a board renewal plan This plan will have regard to company law and regulatory requirements and will set out, for each institution, the steps to be taken to ensure the skills and competence levels of board members are fully adequate to the demands of the current situation and the planned future of the Irish banking system. Second, the board of each institution will be asked to provide a management renewal plan This plan will set out, for the relevant institution, the steps to be taken to ensure the skills and competence levels of senior managers are fully adequate to the demands of the current situation and the planned future of the Irish banking system and that each senior manager will be capable of meeting the Central Bank’s new fitness and probity standards. Third, it is essential that boards of banks continue to have an appropriate number of independent non-executive directors. Having regard to the size of its shareholding in each institution and the necessity of ensuring the State’s interest is properly represented on each board, I will actively nominate members of the boards of each bank from among qualified individuals with appropriate skills and experience. The Central Bank also is undertaking a wide-ranging programme of reform of the way it regulates the corporate governance and board-level membership of the financial institutions. It also is important to continue to strengthen the Central Bank. Members will be aware that a number of measures have been put in place since the onset of the crisis. These 4o’clock include legislative changes to merge the Central Bank and Financial Regulator and to enhance the powers of the unified organisation. Further enhancements to the Central Bank’s powers will be introduced to the Oireachtas shortly in the forthcoming Central Bank (supervision and enforcement) Bill and these will be outlined at that stage. The report contains important messages and conclusions for the Department of Finance. While this report relates principally to banking matters, some of these messages may also be of importance to the Department of public expenditure and reform and to Departments generally. Critical assessment and review of past actions can sometimes be difficult and this is a challenge 651 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] to which everyone must face up. This is particularly important for Departments of State. I will take the report from Mr. Peter Nyberg, as well as a broader review of the Department that was chaired by Mr. Rob Wright, and determine how to reform and build the capacity in the Department to service the demands of the economy in these uncertain times. In addition, there must be ongoing adaptation and better definition of the roles and functions of the Department and the NTMA and its associated bodies to ensure the structures in place take full account of the developing situation. A stand-alone unit accountable to the Minister through the Depart- ment of Finance and with a clear set of objectives to manage the Government’s holdings in the financial sector will be created to fulfil the oversight role. The restructuring of the banks announced already by the Government must be implemented. This will require a hands-on approach by the banking unit in the Department of Finance, which will drive the reform. This unit will be strengthened as necessary and will draw on the resources of the NTMA to carry out its work. In the first instance, the unit will operate within the Department of Finance but in due course, it will become more independent of the Department while still reporting to the Minister for Finance. A detailed implementation plan will be developed in consultation with all relevant organisations. Before concluding, I will address one further point. The publication of the commission’s report yesterday and the statements on the report in the Dáil today provide an opportunity for public debate and consideration of the report. It is important that the Oireachtas have adequate opportunity to consider and discuss the report. Having consulted with the Attorney General, I can confirm that while the publication of the report will not prejudice any criminal proceedings that are pending or in progress, I also was advised that the Abbeylara judgement makes it very difficult for Oireachtas committees to effectively fulfil their important oversight roles. There- fore, as I stated yesterday, the Government proposes to hold a referendum on a proposed constitutional amendment by the end of this year to address the consequences of the Abbeylara judgement. The Nyberg report has identified the main causes of the banking crisis and, together with the two preliminary reports, sets out all the interlinked elements that each in its own way contributed to the financial crisis in which we have found ourselves since 2007. We must now learn the lesson from this crisis and put in place the building blocks for moving the economy on to growth. The Government is bringing about a radical restructuring of the banks to support economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, as has been seen in the report of the commission and other issues today, legacy issues remain in the banks that the Government must address and it is determined to so do. I commend this report to the House.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I also commend the report to the House and thank the Minister for his introduction to the report and the constructive tone of that introduction. The report is damning in respect of both the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank. It concludes that the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank were aware of the problems in Anglo Irish Bank and in Irish Nationwide Building Society in particular. The dependence on foreign funding and the concentration of lending in the property sector was clear from their balance sheets and the governance issues at Irish Nationwide Building Society appear to have been well known by the relevant authorities. If it had believed it necessary, sufficient information was available to the Financial Regulator to have taken decisive action in the case of both of these institutions. However, there does not appear to have been an appreciation at the Financial Regulator of the funding and lending risks that were building up in the banking system. As the Minister has pointed out, it appeared to rely on the boards of management of the banks to make the correct decisions in the best interests of their institutions. Lending practices were not scrutinised and 652 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements there was a general unwillingness to engage in any detail in what possibly was perceived to be intrusive verification to establish whether the banks were behaving in a prudent manner. This is very serious because those of us in public life believed there was a failure on the part of the political system to ensure there were greater restrictions on credit and fewer incentives to property speculation and property incentivisation. Similarly, I refer to a lack of requirement to pay deposits in the case of the acquisition of speculative land or land for future speculative purposes, a failure to insist on a requirement for deposits by lenders in such circumstances, as well as a failure to insist on the need for more restrictive mortgage conditions. These all are matters which never even entered the realm of consideration during the relevant period because the preliminary assessment that the actual position was drifting into a crisis, which would have been essential, was never made in the first place. This is highly serious. The interaction with the banks in the case of the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank was confined to bank governance and internal processes. Even where deficiencies or weaknesses were discovered, there was an unwillingness to take firm action. This undermined the authority of the regulator from the outset and the report does not accept that lack of resources or powers was the reason for the failure of the Financial Regulator to intervene. An understandable criticism that often is made of the Government and the political system concerns a failure to provide adequate resources or legal powers. However, the report finds there was no failure to provide adequate powers or resources to the relevant authorities. The report states that had the will been there, a number of possible approaches were available that could have reduced considerably the scale of what eventually emerged. It appears that the Central Bank seriously underestimated the extent and nature of the risks that had been building up in the financial system. It expressed nuanced and somewhat indirect concerns on possible risks. There was no exploration of worst-case scenarios and therefore, no full preparation for a crisis and no crisis contingency planning. Consequently, what one would expect to happen within the Department of Defence all the time did not happen at the Central Bank or the Financial Regulator as there was no contingency planning for disaster scenarios. The Central Bank believed it was the responsibility of the regulator to evaluate possible problems in financial institutions. While it was responsible for overall financial stability, it believed it should not question the regulator’s supervision of individual institutions. This is part of the institutional architecture prescribed and discussed in this House at length in the earlier part of the last decade. As the regulator did not raise any concerns in this regard, the Central Bank could not have been expected to detect existing or emerging problems. However, the report finds this to have been an unacceptably narrow interpretation of its responsibilities by the Central Bank. It states that financial stability should have been the overriding objective and the Central Bank, as well as other responsible authorities, should have done whatever was necessary to achieve this. Moreover, the report finds that an active and suspicious Central Bank would have had concerns about emerging macroeconomic data from mid to late 2005. While it notes the existence of financial stability reports that show an awareness of the emerging economic risks, the view was that such risks would not materialise. The financial stability reports referred to concerns about risks to stability but the overall conclusion was that the most likely option was a soft landing. “Monsieur Trichet, nous cherchons le soft landing”, appears to have been the dominant maxim within Irish finance at the time. The financial stability reports refer to concerns about risks to stability but, as I stated, the conclusion was that the most likely outcome would be a soft landing. Members now know of course that such a soft landing did not happen. The evidence in favour of this view was far from analytically compelling according to the report but had wide currency in banking circles and among the authorities. The report attributes this to herding and to group-think behaviour. This is a rather modest characterisation of what really amounted to a Gadarene swine-like phenomenon. 653 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.]

The report also criticises the failure of the Central Bank to foster critical debate internally on stability issues. It accepts the view that it would not have been in the best interest of stability to publish alarmist views but goes on to state there was nothing to prevent the Central Bank from voicing concerns confidentially to the Government. Crucially, the report finds there was no evidence that this was done. The report finds that the Department of Finance was concerned about the need to rein in Government expenditure and tax reliefs, but suggests the Department’s warnings were not vigorously articulated. It points out that, in the briefing given to Mr. Brian Cowen when he became Minister in 2004, there was no mention of concerns about credit growth. It also states that the ability of the Department and the Minister to convince the Government of the need for restraint was blunted by the fact that, from 2003 to 2007, tax revenues were consistently higher than forecast, leading to larger budget surpluses than planned. Political pressure to allow high rates of spending on social and other priorities was considerable. While the Department identified various risks to the economy, no single comprehensive analysis integrating these risks and assessing their implications for the economy was conducted. Regarding the construction sector, senior management at the Department was updated regularly on housing development and credit growth, including some warnings that the latter was unsustainable. Nevertheless, a briefing note to the Minister on the 2005 financial stability report stated: “all the evidence is that systemic risk ... to the financial system from a downturn in the property market is relatively limited”. The report finds no evidence that the Department was particularly concerned with prudential matters or financial stability concerns. There was no critical analysis of the reports coming from the Central Bank. Regarding the decision to guarantee the deposits and liabilities of the banking sector in September 2008, the report states that the lack of a paper trail makes it difficult to make judgments, but it finds that the lack of suspicion and the absence of correct information on the banks’ balance sheets impacted on what alternatives were considered reasonable on the night of the guarantee. Decisions were made in the belief that the banks were and would remain solvent and that the issue that needed to be addressed was one of short-term liquidity. Only on this basis does the commission understand and accept the need to give a broad guarantee. The report acknowledges the pressures under which the decision was made. However, it criticises the lack of options considered in the run up to the decision, which it puts down to the lack of preparatory work in the run up to the financial crisis by the relevant authorities. It points out that the contingency plans that had been made were based on the belief held by the regulator and the Central Bank that there was no solvency issue facing any of the banks. This position was maintained subsequent to the guarantee. The possibility of a systemic crisis was not considered. An internal Department of Finance presentation in February 2008 ruled out an open-ended legally binding guarantee on the grounds of the risk to which it would expose the Exchequer, but a later presentation in April 2008 noted: “there are circumstances where such guarantees may be unavoidable to maintain confidence in the overall financial system.” Mr. Nyberg should be thanked for his work. I understand that he has examined a great number and range of documents and interviewed a large number of personalities, including me, who were involved at various stages of these matters. I had an opportunity to examine a limited selection of the report prior to publication in so far as the report had anything to say about periods in respect of which I was in office. The bulk of the report deals with the serious developments in the banking system. The Minister is right and he has produced a number of practical proposals on foot of the report. The outgoing Government moved swiftly to merge the Financial Regulator and the 654 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

Central Bank into one entity. This decision was questioned by some at the time. In light of the report, though, it was the correct decision. We should never again be in a position in which the two are separate, as issues of financial stability and bank regulation should be inseparable. The report is curiously silent on the issue of the role and responsibilities of the European Central Bank, ECB, in respect of the national authorities, specifically the Irish Central Bank and the regulatory system. This is a germane issue for the Minister and the State in the negotiations he must undertake in Europe, yet it is not really touched upon in the report. A further look at the issue might be worthwhile. Although I hesitate to suggest a further commission or anything of that character, it deserves further study and preparation of material. Having summarised the findings, the Minister made the point that the question of the role of auditors is a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, which it is, but it seems that one of the core problems with the banking sector is the fact that, to acquire business, auditors depend on the goodwill of the institutions they are auditing. This inherent conflict of interest has clearly caused a great deal of difficulty in terms of accurate financial information on the banks. The Minister referred to the changes in the structures of the banking system and, crucially, addressed the question of the capacities of banks’ boards and managements. This must be at the heart of any response to the report. A great deal of change has already occurred at board and management level in the banking sector. While change comes with a price, it must be done. The Minister has formalised the approach of the former and current Governments in terms of a board renewal plan and a management renewal plan. These plans involve the phasing out of some residual elements of board presence that have been there from a time not long before the guarantee. It is appropriate that the Minister should put in a formal way the Government’s proposals in this regard. When public interest directors were appointed under the guarantee, I consulted the Oppo- sition parties about their appointment. This practice should be continued. Notwithstanding that, it is the case that the selection of these individuals is a matter of considerable concern. From my experience, I might suggest to the Minister that, while he can gather a large number of curricula vitae and examine many personalities, the actual skill and judgment required are the skill and judgment to form a view independent of the institution and not to be captured by the institution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has two minutes remaining.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I did not realise I had taken up so much time. I will conclude by referring to the Minister’s comments on the new banking stand-alone unit accountable to him through the Department of Finance. I can appreciate what he is attempting to do. At the time of the guarantee, responsibility for execution and formulation of policy rested exclusively with the Department. From 1 January 2010, elements of the execution of policy were devolved to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. I found this a good arrangement because the NTMA generally has more experience than officers of the Department in dealing with and handling financial transactions. The Minister will need to consider carefully the remuneration of the staff he proposes to assign to the banking unit and their precise legal relationship with him and the Department. As I understand his comments this afternoon, the staff will begin in the position of being directly part of the Department but, in time, may have a somewhat independent existence. It is a matter of difficulty — I am sure the Minister has encountered this difficulty already — that, in terms of banking policy, a Minister must make decisions on advice from his or her officials with the assistance of the NTMA, which is under the Minister’s direct direction, and 655 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] having regard to views expressed by the Central Bank and the regulator. A wide range of entities are involved and their priorities are not always the same. For example, the priority of the Central Bank is financial stability, that of the regulator is prudential regulation, that of the NTMA tends to be to make money and that of the Department of Finance tends to be to reconcile all of these different points of view. I have a word of caution for the Minister — if there is a new banking unit, he should make sure it is clear where this particular brick fits in the wall so that he can be in a position to make whatever decisions are the right ones in the public interest.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Too often in the clamour for ever higher profits in the years leading up to the crisis, the voice of reason was not heard and risks were ignored. The report has exposed this problem and revealed significant shortcomings in the risk control frameworks of financial institutions. In particular, the failure to assess properly the risks inherent in business models, portfolios and off-balance sheet activities has become evident. The seeds of the crisis were sown when the financial system began to lose its focus on core services. Incentive over risk business models meant that institutions no longer fulfilled their primary function of performing due diligence on borrowers. Banks purchased risky assets but were unable to undertake adequate due diligence of the instruments they held. The risk- involved lending strategies were not properly assessed, particularly the probability and impact of tail events. Rather than relying on deposits from private savers, financial institutions began relying on wholesale funding markets which they believed would continue to be available. The argument that markets by themselves lead to efficient outcomes has no theoretical justification today. In the past, the evaluation of regulations and regulatory regimes tended to focus more on quantifying the costs than on quantifying the benefits, to the extent that any measures that could restrict the risk-taking behaviour of financial institutions were not implemented. This was to the detriment of ordinary people. Nyberg himself states that “lending was seen (and rewarded) as selling a loan or service rather than as acquiring a risky asset”. The report has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the behaviour of financial institutions, regulators and governments has the power to inflict great harm on the real economy. As a result of the crisis, the financial system has been completely damaged; over 440,000 people are unemployed, 1,000 people are emigrating every week and at the end of 2010, some 44,500 mortgages were in arrears for over 90 days, with 80,000 mortgages in a distressed state. I have one serious gripe with this report. Nyberg attributes blame unfairly for this crisis to “large parts of Irish society [were] willing to let the good times roll”. We can we all agree that people who were too poor to buy property, even given the lax lending standards of the day, cannot have been to blame for the speculative frenzy of the time. What about the people struggling to rent property and who were on the ever-bulging local authority housing waiting lists? Can these people be blamed? What about those who were supposed to be leading, regulating and monitoring? These apparently educated and well-informed individuals were supposed to be fiscally responsible. Lest we forget, these supposed good times only happened because the people of this State were under a constant barrage of information from the Government, the Department of Fin- ance, the IMF, the EU and the ECB indicating that this was sustainable; there would be a soft landing. How could anyone stop these good times when at the same time any questioning of its sustainability was dismissed and written off? Market bubbles and crashes are not the result of the unco-ordinated interactions of ordinary individuals but come from strategic actions by governments, speculators, bankers, brokers and regulators. 656 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

One of the most striking points in this report is when Nyberg asks the question that many have now asked before: why did nobody say “stop”? We have heard the reprimands before but somehow it is all the more stark when illustrated in the graphs in the Nyberg report of banking activity before, during and after the bubble. These show how the amounts loaned out by the banks covered by the State guarantee grew to dwarf the amount they had on deposit; how the amount they loaned to domestic clients shot up from €94 billion in 2002 to €262 billion in 2008; the growth of risky construction and property sector loans; how the amount of property and business loans came to around the same as half of our national GDP by 2008; and how the pay packets of bank chief executives got fatter up to 2007. If there was a herd mentality in this State over the last decade then Sinn Féin were the black sheep. We did not support the consensus and we did not follow blindly when the property bubble was being inflated.

Deputy Robert Dowds: Sinn Féin were not the only party at that.

Deputy Michael Noonan: You were robbing the banks at that time.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The comment by a Minister accusing me of being a bank robber is absolutely disgraceful. The herd mentality also applies to that cheap sort of response.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The Minister was talking about republicans. The Deputy would know about cheap comments.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It is exactly the same response that came from others who sat on those benches who continually dismissed or disputed warnings from the other side.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I did not refer to the Deputy.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: He did. We can look at the blacks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Doherty, without interruption.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I am sure we all remember the 2007 election and the promises that the economy was on a sound footing. I have a 53-page document which I will make available to Members. It outlines what Sinn Féin continued to say in the period investigated in the report. The party repeatedly tackled Ministers regarding their failure to take any measures to stop the escalation of house prices. We repeatedly questioned Ministers regarding the development of a property bubble and we called for the introduction of a tax on second homes to curb growing house prices which were seeing investors price first-time buyers out of the market. We opposed the cutting of capital gains tax on the basis that it would fuel the property bubble and make it more profitable to speculate in property than to run a business. We called for the ending of tax breaks which were fuelling the property bubble and we warned of the dangers inherent in an over-reliance on the property sector for revenue and for employment. We also called for pre-emptive training of workers in vulnerable sectors of the economy, including manufacturing and construction. Any examination of Sinn Féin’sDáil record between 2002 and 2007 verifies this. Due to limited time I will not read from the document but I will make it available. The Nyberg report highlights Irish characteristics of the crisis specific to a deliberate and willful suspension of disbelief; the suppression and punishment of any dissent; and deliberate minimising of responsibility, with no accountability whatsoever. What is worrying is that there is a clear and present danger that after this report, the Government will declare that the problems and features leading to this crisis were confined to banking, banking supervision and 657 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.] financial regulation in this period. There is a danger that we will be told that they have now been addressed and that every other area in the Irish public sphere presents absolutely no evidence of these failings. The real problem is that many people holding positions of power, authority and influence will like us to believe this. Fianna Fáil would like us to believe that the omission from this report of any blame on its part is a pardon on its behalf when this was explicitly omitted from the terms of reference. Fine Gael and Labour would like us to believe that it was the bad governance of the previous Governments and the bad regulation and oversight of and within banks but we know a Government is only as good as the Opposition that checks it. They would like us to believe that swift and decisive action is being taken when they are blindly leading the people of this State into another crisis led by the EU and IMF and which could sink this country. The continuation of this mantra that all has changed is the principal reason Ireland is struggling to recover from this largely self-inflicted downturn. It seems that the more things change, the more they remain the same. The omens are not good, given that the same worn out and passive establishment is still indifferent to issues of reform and matters of process even though the lack of accountability and the lack of concern for conflict of interest remain at the heart of the current crisis facing Ireland. All we have to do is observe the stubbornness and pig- headedness of the same parties who refuse to burn bondholders and accept that Ireland’s debt burden is unsustainable. This new Government, similar to the last, is sleep-walking into a crisis. It is all too easy to blame the “herd culture” but the buck must stop somewhere. People want and deserve answers, and this report displays that every sector or link in the chain failed. The budget is the instrument used by the Government and Department of Finance to control the country’s finances. Throughout the period leading to the crisis, the Government incentivised risk, speculation and, essentially, the foundations of this crisis. It is not sufficient to look back and criticise what went wrong when the mechanisms and policies of the crisis are still in place and being implemented. We cannot just criticise the last Government when the new one is administering the same policies as those of the EU and the IMF. The real cause of our crisis has been the financialisation of economic policy, in which investors were incentivised to invest in financial speculation rather than in industry or services. Successive Irish Governments have bought into a policy consensus that believes long-term economic growth should be based on deregulation of domestic and international banking; withdrawal of the State from the functions of the central bank; incentivisation by government of speculative investment via low tax regimes and generous tax breaks; incentivising risk in banking and finance; and privatisation and market liberalisation. Given that this policy consensus has dominated the State for so long, it is little wonder that investors and bankers took such risks and regulators failed to regulate. The evidence provided in this report cannot be used in any criminal or legal proceedings. While Government members have indicated that they to see prosecutions and convictions, the most surreal aspect of this crisis is that most of the people instrumental to it did not break a single national law. The culture and mechanisms that sculpt the law are the same as those that fostered the crisis. While the law might never be able to prosecute those who have cost the State €100 billion and brought us under the receivership of the EU and the IMF, people who choose to feed their families instead of meeting their mortgage repayments could have their homes taken away. Someone who does not get a dog license will spend time in Mountjoy Prison, while someone who prioritised profit over risk will retire on a handsome pension.

658 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

The sick thing is that this has garnered large-scale acceptance. This is the norm, it is the dominant culture. From the start, this report was never going to draw a line in the sand with regard to the banking crisis. How could it, when we are still beholden to the bondholders who are being rewarded for their gambles? We predict that this House will be looking at another report in a few years’ time — one that will chronicle Ireland’s descent into disorderly default. We will pay yet another outside expert to use the gift of hindsight to tell us once more that a herd mentality threw us into economic, financial and social catastrophe. For the benefit of any such future report, Sinn Féin wants to put it on the record that the debt burden of the State is unsustainable, and that without organised burden sharing and acknowledgement that the Irish sovereign has taken on too much debt, there will be a disorderly default. We state again that our debt to GDP ratio could reach 128% if we continue along a path of fiscal consolidation without growth. The series of austerity budgets that the Government plans to introduce, as promised under the EU-IMF programme, will make the situation worse. Our unemployment rate for this year is already hitting levels predicted for adverse conditions. People are under attack from a raft of austerity measures to be imposed by the EU, the IMF and the Government. While Brussels, Frankfurt and Washington discuss how best to extract money from the battered Irish economy — and continue to avoid the elephant in the room, which is senior bondholders — the Irish economy limps from crisis to crisis and is slipping into another critical phase. The State needs debt relief proposals for those struggling to pay their mortgages. We need a proper stimulus package that will invest in jobs and the domestic economy. We need a substantial change in policy direction and an acknowledgement that tweaking the EU-IMF programme at the edges will not deliver substantive change. Our debt needs to be restructured here and now, and not some time in the long-term future. We need to impose burden-sharing on senior bondholders, given that Pimco, one of the largest bond funds in the world, has already stated that senior bondholders need to face losses. In addition, the recapitalisation of zombie banks must halt immediately. A tap has been left on. Resources are being drained from the economy. Funds that are urgently needed to allow the economy to grow have been diverted to pay off private investments. I am sure the Minister will dismiss, as he did earlier, everything being said here — all the warnings we have repeated today and will continue to repeat until they sink in. The Govern- ment, Fianna Fáil, the EU, the IMF and the ECB will dismiss everything I am saying. As in the period 2002-07, Sinn Féin refuses to be part of a consensus that will walk the Irish people into another crisis. We did not follow the flock. We spoke up — and, unfortunately, we were right. Just as reliance on the construction sector, consumption taxes and deregulation led us into this crisis, so will adherence to the EU-IMF diktat allow it to continue. This debt burden is unsustainable now. When we read reports about this crisis in a few years’ time, they too will tell us so.

Deputy Shane Ross: With the permission of the House, I wish to share time with Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Clare Daly and Thomas Pringle.

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

Deputy Shane Ross: This report, in its essence, produces nothing new. There is no news in it and no new figures. Indeed, there are no new characters to blame in it, and no institutions. Mr. Nyberg spreads the blame in an even-handed way, which has prompted a large number of people to suggest that this was deliberate and that the report is a whitewash. I do not believe that but it is ineffective in its production and its presentation because of this lack of blame and because it refuses, maybe because of its terms of reference, to name names. We do not come out 659 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Shane Ross.] better informed about what happened. Virtually everything, despite the number of witnesses interviewed by Mr. Nyberg, is already in the public arena. What is interesting is the relationship painted between the various leading players in the story of the banking collapse. It is a sinister and alarming relationship. Mr. Nyberg criticises the Financial Regulator for what he calls a lack of scepticism. He criticises the auditors for not being in what he calls challenging dialogue with their clients in the banks. He criticises the Department of Finance for being weak in its persistence in coming to the Minister and saying that too much money from the banks was going into property. He criticises, above all, the boards of banks for being inadequate in many ways. What this tells us is that there was a circle of people who were frightened of talking to each other in honest terms, because there was such a cosy relationship between them that anybody who raised the flag and said, “This has to end” would be ostracised. We saw that in Mr. Nyberg’s criticism of the fact that people whom he called “contrarians” were in danger of losing their jobs. He was not specific about where these people were — whether it was in the Central Bank or in the individual banks — but it looks as though they were in the banks. Above all, his criticism of the boards was damning. This is important, because there is something we can do about it. Mr. Nyberg said that the board members did not understand what was happening and were too dependent on management. They went for consensus agreements, meaning that they were frightened of speaking up about matters on which they were not suit- ably briefed or did not have a particular knowledge. That problem is one that the Minister can remedy now. Although the Government has the right attitude in wanting to reform the banks, the response has been pathetic. For the Minister to say that his remedy for boards of management is to ask the same boards to produce a board renewal plan is completely unacceptable. The last people he should be asking for a renewal plan for the board of AIB is the board of AIB. He should be doing it himself. That is the board that gave Colm Doherty the €3 million we have been discussing for the last few days, yet the Minister is going to ask the board to provide its own renewal plan. It is totally unacceptable. What does the Minister propose to do about the dummies appointed as public interest directors? These are the same people who stood over and signed the contract of Colm Doherty and allowed it to be honoured. Will those people — Mr. Declan Collier and Mr. Dick Spring — be allowed to stay on the board, or will the Minister remove them? Those people, and similar nominees on all the other boards, should be removed immediately.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: The Nyberg report spectacularly fails to identify the causes of the financial and economic crisis in simple and straightforward language. Some €1.2 million was spent on producing 100 pages of insipid financial jargon and meaningless psychobabble that blames everybody and nobody at the same time and explains little or nothing about what created the financial and economic crisis. It is evident, however, that both the former ruling party, Fianna Fáil, and the new Government of Fine Gael and the Labour Party welcome it precisely because it blames everyone and no one and tells us nothing about how the crisis started. As a result the report gives us no direction on how to deal with the crisis or its causes. The banking crisis did not result from herding, group-think or other psychological explanations and certainly did not come, as this report at times dangerously suggests, from the action of the majority of Irish people. It did not come from “misjudging risk”, as the title of the most misnamed report I can imagine suggests. It resulted from greed. The report should be called “Misjudging Greed”. The crisis came about because of the staggering greed of bankers, developers and super wealthy elites in this country and internationally who were cheered on by the political establishment on almost all sides, in both this country and the EU, where an economic 660 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements doctrine of greed and profit was promoted. They were also cheered on in that regard by much of the mass media. The idea that all of us, or even the majority, went along with this nonsense is insulting in the extreme. Ordinary people knew this. They could see the madness as hundreds of thousands of profit-driven private apartment blocks and office blocks were shooting up all over the city while ordinary people looking for housing on housing lists could not get a house for love or money. They knew this was mad and could see it as such, being driven by profit. Nonetheless, it was cheered on by the political establishment in this country and in Europe, was financed by the banks in both areas and cheered on by the mass media. The proof that no lessons have been learned about the real causes of this crisis, namely, the voracious, relentless greed of a minority in this country and across Europe, comprising bankers and developers, is that now, to punish these people, we talk about tinkering around with regulatory mechanisms. In reality, the real response of this Government to the greed of the people who caused the crisis was to pour €70 billion into the same banks that caused the crisis, thereby crushing our people with brutal cutbacks, austerity, mass unemployment and emigration. This Government refuses to reverse the policies of the last Government which caused the crisis in the first place. A further and even worse proof of the failure to learn any lessons from the crisis and its causes is the Government’s plan, by selling State assets, to do to the real economy what was done to the financial sector. It plans to hand over those valuable assets to the same corporate vultures who caused the financial crisis. They can then do the same to the real economy as they did to the financial system. This is a recipe to keep going down the same road of disaster at the expense of ordinary people. It is a load of rubbish and we should point the finger at those responsible.

Deputy Clare Daly: I am incredibly underwhelmed by this report. We could have gone across the road to Trinity College and paid somebody considerably less to produce a report which tells us what everybody knows. It mentions flawed lending overseen by silent observers and enabled by public authorities. We know all this. By blaming everybody, in essence the report states that nobody is responsible. I absolutely reject that viewpoint and, in particular, the impli- cation that the victims of this crisis, those people who were forced into buying property at the top end of the market, who paid considerably over the odds for structures that are, in many cases, unsafe, who are saddled with 40 year mortgages, somehow contributed to the crisis. I do not agree with that. The reality is the roots of the banking problem were not in misjudged risks but arose from pure naked greed, profiteering and speculation on the property market. It is a system called capitalism. It began at local authority level where members of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, in the main, facilitated the wholesale rezoning jamboree that made people overnight millionaires, a process that ultimately carried over into house prices. People did warn about what would happen. People such as my colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins, were told by the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, to go away and commit suicide because they were talking down the party. People knew what was going on. The problems were deliberately facilitated by a strategy of personal enrichment carried on by some of the wealthiest people in Irish society, such as Sean Quinn whose role was well highlighted today in an article by Vincent Browne in The Irish Times. What went on in regard to Sean Quinn’s shares was an unbelievable defrauding of, ultimately, the taxpayer. He was facilitated by Anglo Irish Bank executives, Morgan Stanley, the regulator and the Central Bank. Everybody knew about it yet nothing was done. There is no recommendation in the report for legislative changes concerning fraud, reckless endangerment or any other such issue. 661 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Clare Daly.]

The report is silent on the fact that it was German, French and British banks which lent to get in on the act, thereby fuelling the property bubble under the eye of the ECB which also continued to contribute to the situation. Now we are supposed to believe these are the people who will save us. The reality is those at the top of society, aided and abetted by their masters — or servants — in Dáil Éireann whom they had paid, gambled on the economy and we are paying the price for it. The irony is that we will sit here in the future to discuss another report on the current debacle and will make the same point, namely, that nobody knew. Everybody knew; then and now.

Deputy Thomas Pringle: The report of the commission of investigation into the banking sector in Ireland appears not to lay any blame on any individuals or institutions for the collapse in the banking sector and the economy. That is not the case. The blame lies squarely on all the bodies involved in Irish banking — the Government, the Department of Finance, the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator and the actual banks. It is beyond belief that nobody knew what was coming or that it had not been signalled. Rather it seems there was a culture of preventing a paper trail by giving verbal briefings on the difficult issues with a consequent lack of proper record-keeping by the parties at those meetings where verbal advice was given. Previous reports have highlighted the lack of note- taking at meetings. The Nyberg report criticises the lack of record of what was discussed at the fatal meeting in September 2008 when the bank guarantee was introduced. The report states that if accurate information on the banks’ exposure had been available at the time steps could have been taken to mitigate the extent of the disaster. However, at a later stage in the report it is stated there appears to have been a market perception that the Irish banks were excessively exposed to the property market and the consequent risk of bad debt. If the markets were aware of the problems, looking in from the outside, the information had to be freely available. The only conclusion is that the political will was that nothing should be done and the party should continue. I believe, as is stated in the report, the notion that a great number of people in very responsible management and watchdog positions insisted until the end they had no idea that a serious and acute problem existed is not true. They chose to ignore the signs. The Government must ensure the culture of shooting the messenger is never again allowed to carry the day. The most worrying part of the entire report is that contrarian views were marginalised and people who were concerned stayed silent to avoid sanctions. People believed they might lose their jobs if they spoke up. When the Taoiseach of the day could tell people who expressed concern they should commit suicide huge pressure was placed on those who had concerns to stay silent. That feeling was strengthened. The Minister missed two very important recommendations in his summing up of the report. The most important reforms that should come out of this include proper record keeping of verbal communications and meetings not only to protect the taxpayer, but also the advisers or officials who may be blamed for saying that they did not give certain advice. Also, a proper system is required that encourages debate and discussion of other outcomes, that does not in any way penalise the contrarian view but which gives such views a fair hearing and which ensures a reasoned argument outlining why certain advice is discounted. This is obviously necessary. It has been outlined extensively in the report and should be taken on board by the Government. I appeal for these two recommendations to be added to the Minister’s recommendations.

662 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): This is the third in a series of reports commissioned by the former Minister for Finance on the catastrophic banking crisis. The question of how much this reports adds to our knowledge should be asked given that its final cost will probably be significantly in excess of €1 million. Essentially, the report presents a European style format regarding its consideration of the wider failings that led to the catastrophe in Ireland. The commission and the two previous investigations were held in private and it is difficult for ordinary members of the public, including public servants who work hard and people working in jobs and businesses who find that they have personally suffered significant loss of income, employment or business, to make judgments. If Fianna Fáil is to be believed, the report blames everyone and in blaming everyone it blames no one. This is not so. There is a detailed analysis in the report of how the system in Ireland was overtaken by a mania, as it is termed, for property, based on greed and the notion that one could have a banking system or a bank that could grow at 25% per year and, further, that people who were otherwise seasoned observers, whether auditors, accountants, on the boards of banks or brokers, did not question this scenario. This is important in terms of the report and Mr. Nyberg. His is one of several people now studying Ireland. The person who has best painted the picture so far is Michael Lewis of Vanity Fair. He wrote an exhaustive article and interviewed many people on the record, including myself and the former Minister, Deputy Lenihan, with regard to how the crisis happened. The work of Mr. Nyberg reminds me in a way of an old book published many years ago on anthropology by Margaret Mead, entitled Coming of Age in Samoa. Now, academics are covering Ireland to identify what happened leading up to the Irish catastrophe and how it happened. Like tulip mania in Holland centuries ago, it is centred on greed and systemic failure. Even if the report does not address this issue, it is centred on the critical failure of the Government of 14 years to be in command and control of the institutions of the State. As members of the Government, the then Ministers were charged with being in overall control and oversight. That is a fundamental fact. While the report has addressed the tight terms of reference which Deputy Brian Lenihan, as the then Minister, gave it, it does not include consideration of the responsibility of the Govern- ment for what happened. The terms of reference of the report specifically addressed issues including the boards of the banks, the auditors, the regulatory system, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance. However, the Government and the Ministers were not put in the frame in this specific report. It is important to state as much in fairness to Mr. Nyberg. The report has several recommendations and the conclusions reached highlight weaknesses that must be addressed. However, the report does not contain new insights into what could be done to prevent a recurrence or a specific policy of administration designed to give the taxpayer comfort, although comfort is what our taxpayers and citizens require. They require a comfort that we will move away from this, reform and restart the banking system and put in place systems to prevent such a catastrophe from happening again. The collapse of the banking system was caused by a small number of individuals in a handful of privately-owned banking institutions. It was driven by a deadly combination of greed, arrogance and a self-serving disregard for the risks these individuals were taking and for those who sought to draw attention to those risks. It was not a comfortable space for people such as myself. I was accused in this House of not wearing the green jersey because I had the temerity to be critical of the mad tax breaks that were driving the bubble and the mania ever higher and higher. Certain people, especially from the former Government, failed to acknowledge this. The green jersey agenda was where it was at for a long time but, just like the former 663 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Joan Burton.] Taoiseach’s suggestion of committing suicide, basically it served to stifle debate and dissent. Let us bear in mind that Professor Honohan referred in his report to a culture of excessive deference in public institutions. That is hinted at in the report as well. There is a suggestion that perhaps some of those in the institutions formed an insight into what was happening but were deterred from expressing it robustly or from flashing a red warning light as to where all of it was leading. Since all these discussions were held in private the ordinary public is not in a position to make a judgment. However, it is mentioned and hinted at in both reports. The institutions that have brought the country and the banking system to their current position bear primary responsibility for the devastation of the economy and for the consequential finan- 5o’clock cial ruin, personal and public debt, unemployment and the shattered hopes of hundreds of thousands of families and communities. These individuals are personally culpable and should be made fully accountable for their actions. This is not only a matter of justice, but a vital step towards ensuring that similar devastation cannot be caused by other individuals or groups in the future. We must create a different and better Ireland from this debacle. The situation of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide is highlighted in the report as being the rotten core. The former Government should have taken action around the time of the Northern Rock issue when former Taoiseach Brian Cowen was the Minister for Finance. At the time he stated in an interview that there would be no bailing out of any banks. I took issue with him on and tested him on this. However, as soon as the flag went up he completely changed his tune. This report should form an argument around the need for a referendum that would give proper powers of inquiry to an appropriate committee of the House in a structured way to allow for questions relating to accountability to be put forward in an appropriate framework. That is one important point. The second thing absent form this report, which must be pursued by way of investigation, is that just as the person who takes a bribe is responsible for taking the bribe, the briber also has a responsibility. I believe the report skates too lightly over the responsibilities of the institutions of the European Central Bank in respect of the supply of credit. As all of the reports set out, the primary responsibility rests with Ireland and the greedy institutions and individuals who drove the bubble and the mania and that must be acknowledged. The European Central Bank, however, bears some responsibility for its involvement in the supply of credit to a peripheral economy in which the economic cycle was at a different stage, as it is now, from that in Germany. The eurozone and the euro have brought enormous advan- tages to this country, but that aspect must be examined in a serious way. It does not, however, absolve the previous Government of culpability, although the role of the ECB and the lack of measures it exercised must be addressed. To rebuild the banking system and restructure the public sector to do more with less money; to restructure the domestic economy to be more efficient and have lower costs, including for hard-pressed consumers; and, most importantly, to set the trading sectors on a path of sustained growth of output and employment, we must move quickly, decisively and expertly on our path to recovery. The Nyberg report tells us how Ireland lost the last war. The Government must now campaign to put the country back into full recovery mode. The measures outlined by the Minister for Finance set us on that path, but we must also bring to an end the culture of business impunity that has persisted for decades.

664 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

Deputy Sean Fleming: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Minister for Social Protection referred to the Government being specifically excluded from examination in this report by the narrow terms of reference drafted by the previous Government. She knows that is not the case; she knows that the former Minister and former Taoiseach were interviewed for it. The terms of reference specifically stated the Regling and Watson report and the Honohan report were to be taken into account in the work for the Nyberg repot; both commented on Government actions during the crisis. I welcome the fact that this report was completed within six months. Normally we set up tribunals of inquiry that we expect to report quickly but which are still ongoing years later. There is a trade-off between carrying out examinations in private, the public not being able to see interviews and coming up with a quick report and having an open tribunal continuing for as long as most people can remember, as has happened in Dublin Castle. It is important to conclude inquiries quickly rather than after ten or 15 years. This report is light. I use that word because there is a reference to it in the preconditions for the crisis in the executive summary, in which the author states international developments precipitated the crisis, although it did not create them in its own right. I recall the entry of the euro on 1 January 2002. That had a significant role because we were used to mortgage rates of between 12% and 17% and suddenly we had low European interest rates of 3%. People could now borrow a far greater number of multiples of their annual income to pay for a house because the interest rate was much lower. This led to them being able to take out much bigger mortgages which, in turn, pushed up the price of houses and property. The availability of credit resulting from our being in the eurozone and having easy access to substantial credit on international markets was not the case when we had the punt was a significant factor. Bor- rowing in a different currency attracted risk, but that was removed the day we entered the eurozone. Mr. Nyberg, being a good European, has been too light on his European colleagues; he left the role of the European Union out of this. The problem was that the day we joined the euro — I forget if it was following the Maastricht or Amsterdam treaty referendum — everyone bought into the currency because it was in our pocket straightaway.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: It was as a result of the Maastricht treaty referendum.

Deputy Sean Fleming: There was a conspiracy at European level not to spell out what would be needed to back up the currency. We had the front of house part of the currency without the architecture at the back, the things required to manage a currency and banking and financial institutions which were lending and borrowing under a new currency arrangement. That was not put in place — we are now beginning to put such a mechanism in place — and it led to ambiguity about whether a bank in the eurozone should not be allowed to fail. I am of the simple view that all businesses, including banks, should be allowed to fail and I regret that the Government has a strong policy to allow for two pillar banks. These will be sacred cows and no matter how bad they are and what mistakes they make, they will be too big to fail because each of them will have an amount almost bigger than the GNP of the State. Upon entering the eurozone, foreign banks opened here. I am particularly scathing of Bank of Scotland which offered 100% mortgages and claimed to be the Ryanair of mortgages and lending; it was anything but. Previously, a person had to borrow or have a deposit of €50,000, but Bank of Scotland Ireland put pressure on the domestic banks to follow suit or lose business. That is where the herd instinct came into play, with people following the leader like sheep following the one going through the gap. To an extent, the report captures the mood in Ireland 665 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] in that period. It is wholly unsatisfactory to many here because they wanted to see some people crucified in the report and they are unhappy that has not happened. Moving to the Government’s response, the report criticises the Central Bank for not having a proper handle on the issue. The previous Government appointed a new Governor of the Central Bank from outside the system to ensure the internal old boys’ network did not have control. The report highlights the faults in the financial regulatory system, states it was not up to the job and points to the actions of the previous Government which brought in Mr. Elderfield from outside who would also not be part of the old boys’ club. The third leg of officialdom that has been criticised is the Department of Finance. The Secretary General at the Department of the Taoiseach is advertising three new Secretary General posts, including the person who will oversee all Government expenditure of up to €50 billion per annum. The only people being invited to consider the job are members of the old boys’ club within the public service. I encourage the new Government to insist on that process being set aside because it is not in keeping with the current position in Irish society and the bringing in of outsiders into such posts. We should not continue to promote civil servants who have been in positions during the years because of time served. There is a strong case for that process to be set aside. I look forward to the Government following the good example set on these matters and moving on. The proposal to hold a referendum has been the main response of the Minister for Finance. It is, however, important to tell the people when we are holding a referendum to give more investigative powers to Oireachtas committees that no Oireachtas committee can achieve a conviction. In Ireland we separate the Judiciary from the Legislature. The only institutions which can impose criminal sanctions and send people to jail are the courts. The only report I want to see after all of this is on the trials I hope to see resulting from the work of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Director of Public Prosecutions, whereby those who have done wrong will be brought before the courts. I wish to put down a marker to the Director of Public Prosecutions and others involved that no one should be given immunity from prosecution in respect of any of the cases which may arise. There is always a tendency to give immunity to a certain person to provide evidence to convict another individual. If we pursue such an approach, it will help to undermine the system. Not providing immunity might make it far more difficult to obtain successful prosecutions. However, the public would be outraged if sweetheart deals were concluded with anyone who was implicated in any of the activities which caused such distress, harm and damage to the economy and the welfare of so many citizens. A large number of the people’s mortgages are now greater than the value of their houses and some of them will be obliged to pay them back over 40 years. The older Members of the House would have obtained either 20 or 25 year mortgages. However, there are those who have 30 and 40 year mortgages. We are heading in the same direction as Japan, with mortgages that span almost two generations, which is unfair, at the low interest rate. These are matters which should have been monitored across Europe. When the euro currency was established, those at European level who had experience of dealing with currencies and what happened in the aftermath of the Second World War should perhaps, given that they were better placed that those in the Central Bank, have taken a more direct, hands-on approach to managing and licensing Irish banks. The new Irish banks are going to be too large for an Irish regulator to manage. There is a case for banks to be managed on a Europe-wide basis rather than in the countries in which their head offices are located. I do not believe it is possible to have a system whereby 27 666 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements different regulators will have responsibility for regulating the affairs of banks in the 27 member states, particularly when banks can operate across borders. I also do not believe it is possible for banks to operate across the 27 member states and then be regulated by someone in a particular jurisdiction where a certain standard applies. A common standard should be adopted across Europe. That would be a good development and give confidence in respect of the banking system. In addition, banks which are not performing would be allowed, like any other business, to fail. There is no reason that banks should be granted indefinite guarantees. I will support any proposal put forward on holding a referendum in respect of detailed inquiries being carried out by the Oireachtas. I would be far more concerned, however, with seeing people being brought before the courts rather than being compelled to come before the Houses. The people want those responsible for our woes to be brought before the courts.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Alan Kelly): When reading the Nyberg report last night, I recalled a moment when the scale of the devastation the Irish banking crisis came to the fore at the European Parliament. In my former capacity as an MEP, I was attending a private meeting with Commissioner Almunia — the man in charge of state aid rules in Europe — to discuss the matter of the bailout of Anglo Irish Bank. The Commissioner, without the aid of notes, proceeded to list off every Irish bank and building society and had intimate knowledge of what he believed to be the ultimate debt of each institution. I recall feeling the blood drain from my face as he laid out, in concrete and unforgiving terms, the damage heaped onto the European financial system by the Irish banks. I remember thinking it would not be years but rather decades before we extricated ourselves from this mess. The level of transparency from Commissioner Almunia was in stark contrast to the previous Government’s claims that we had turned the corner and that ours was the cheapest bank bailout in history and its denial of accurate reports of financial problems. I remember thinking at the time that our business and political cultures were in an extremely unhealthy state. Why could Commissioner Almunia impart that information to me when the then Government and its Minister for Finance — who met the Commissioner on the day prior to my meeting with him — could not? I obtained the very distinct impression that the European Commission was entirely fed up with the misinformation of Irish banks and the then Government. The previous Government spared us, Europe and possibly themselves from the truth. Professor Nyberg certainly suggests nobody influential wanted to know the truth or communicate it to us. If there had been more transparency and if there had been greater honesty and analysis when it came to the banking and property sectors and the economy, could we have prevented the crisis? If we had analysed matters on the basis of a simple question with regard to who we were helping, would our position now be different? Did we ever ask who was getting rich and who was doing well. Did we ask whether innovation or speculation were driving the economy. Were we creating wealth or just moving money around? In the end, it was money belonging to the European banks that was moving around rather than our own. If we had engaged in a discussion of these matters, then perhaps the hysteria, the herd and the “groupthink” to which Professor Nyberg refers may not have taken over. There is one line in the report which, for me, best expresses the cause of this crisis. Professor Nyberg describes what happened in Ireland as “the spread of an ultimately irrational point of view”. How did we permit irrationality to take over? This happened because we allowed the agenda of greedy vested interests go unchallenged. There was a culture within the banks which rewarded recklessness. Anglo Irish Bank and the Irish Nationwide Building Society were lauded as the great property pioneers of the new 21st century. Many commentators with whom 667 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Alan Kelly.] Members will be fairly familiar also lauded these institutions at the time. They have, however, certainly changed their tune in the intervening years, which is amazing. The boards of our banks were stacked not with people providing prudent oversight, but rather with those who would rubber stamp decisions and pat the back of the likes of Seánie Fitzpatrick. The concept of risk seemed to evaporate, the voices of reason were drowned out by those of greed and a feeling of invincibility pervaded the highest levels of the banks. Aggressive targets for growth became more important than the concept of sustainability. If we did not have enough deposits in our banks, we could go abroad and obtain finance on the wholesale markets, and why not? Property never loses its value. If Anglo Irish Bank was doing it, then AIB had to do it and if they are doing it then they must have been right. As a result, all the banks followed suit. If the banks were doing it and if our best builders and property developers were doing it, then it must have been right. We know now that the premise upon which these assumptions were based was entirely false. While this culture may not have created the property bubble outright, it sought to feed and sustain it. In fact, it sustained it long past its due time. How was it sustained? Those within the culture were dealing with a complicit Government which never questioned what was going on in the way that it should have done. Said Government fed the property bubble with a series of tax breaks, whether under section 23, section 50 or whatever. When I was a lowly executive in Bord Fáilte — what is now Fáilte Ireland — in the early 2000s, I recall listening to people who were privately of the view that the then Government’s tax break policies for hotels were excessive and crazy but who felt that they had to support them. We ended up with multiple hotels in areas where there was hardly a market for one. Everyone present is aware of the areas to which I refer. I also recall being told that certain developers were becoming worried that the tax breaks would end but were confident with regard to ensuring they would be extended for a year or two by their friends in the then Government. What is the current position on the hotels to which I refer? Some hundreds of millions were spent and wasted and many of these hotels have either gone out of business, have been taken over by NAMA or remain in existence purely in order to retain the tax breaks. In normal circumstances such hotels would be unable to trade. It is in such establishments that people can avail of bed and breakfast rates of €29 per night. This, in turn, is creating an uncompetitive environment for other hotels, many of which are family owned and which are either struggling or closing their doors. The previous Government turned a blind eye to the warning signals because it did not want to interfere with the agenda of its friends, namely, the builders and developers. A cosy consensus was adopted and the bubble grew larger and larger. The then regulator seemed to believe that upsetting the property bubble would not be a good regulatory measure and consequently bought into the consensus to which I refer. When the bank guarantee was first brought into being, Mr. Patrick Neary, the then chief executive of the Irish Financial and Services Regulatory Authority, IFSRA, stated the banks were more than fully capitalised. He was technically correct if we accept one assumption, namely, property never loses its value. The concept of a property loss seemed to be extinguished for ever, even though the boom-bust cycle typically defines the operation of the property market in a modern economy. What did the Department of Finance do? It stated it was not its job and focused purely on the accounting aspects of government and was not encouraged to do anything else. The Department’s view was that money came in and was then spent. It was no one’s job to question how or why that money was coming in but rather it was the responsibility of the regulator to look after banks. The Department believed it had no responsibility at all in this matter. Every- body minded their own patch and bought into the greedy idea that property would sustain 668 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements itself forever. As a result, we neglected the real wealth creators of the economy — our manufac- turers and exporters. In that context, I refer to food co-operatives, farmers, software exporters and communications businesses which are the drivers of real growth and which make something tangible and then sell it. We prioritised speculators, builders, and the financial sector. The latter is the sector of the economy which merely moves money around but does not create it or distribute it fairly. When it all came crumbling to a halt and the competitiveness of the economy was eroded, we woke up and realised that primary jobs were needed. Lost in the mania of property hysteria, the most important sector of the economy was neglected. As a result, there are now 450,000 people unemployed and some 1,000 young people are leaving the country each week. That is an absolute disgrace. I have a final point on financial regulation which is worth making. If people believe lessons were learned once the crisis hit, they should recall the following. Last March, the Financial Regulator initiated a capital review of AIB as part of EU-wide banking stress tests. Three years after the crash started, that test gave AIB a clean bill of health in the summer of last year. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Joan Burton, in her criticism of EU institutions. They do not come out smelling of roses either. By September we had black Thursday and then the sovereign bailout. The bottom of the barrel has only now been found, four years from the start of the crisis. I hope yesterday was a watershed moment in Irish economic history when an objective and politically neutral analysis of our crisis was carried out. Spared the showmanship of electoral politics, Professor Nyberg articulated an interpretation of events many of us know to be true. Regretfully no individuals were named. I hope this can be dealt with by the courts. We all knew broadly what would be in the report and did not learn all that much that was new but it does provide a useful backdrop for us as a Government moving on from this crisis. As a Government, the challenge and the opportunity is to capture the knowledge and memory of Professor Nyberg’s research and to nail down the right legislation, regulation and working practices that will prevent such a crisis happening again. We have to take a number of specific actions arising from this. Oireachtas committees must be given the power of effective investigations into matters of serious public interest. Europe has already taken steps to curb the bonus culture paid by bankers. During my time in the European Parliament, we were successful in securing agreement for stronger European financial regulation of insurance, pensions, banking capital requirements and other financial products. In time this will lead to stronger financial regulation across Europe. However, there is much more to be done at home. Our financial regulation needs to be robust in order that our reputation as a place of doing business is restored. We need to re-engage with European countries, accepting and demonstrating that we learned from the mistakes of the past and that we are willing to work with them. We must not just approach them with an apology and a begging bowl but as a committed member fighting our own corner. We need to bring a new type of thinking to the economy. We need to reward those who create real and tangible wealth over and above arrogant speculators and professional gamblers. We need to set the tone for how business is done in this country and show we are serious by having whistleblower protection legislation. Whistleblowers should be rewarded and protected, not isolated and undermined. The Government will change this. We will be more transparent, more ethical and critical in our operation of the financial system. That is what we owe the voters. As a Government we must remember that the financial regulation agencies, the banks and the wider business community all take their cue from the signals being sent from the Government. We need to demonstrate the values of fairness and community in everything we 669 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Alan Kelly.] do and create a business culture that rewards innovation and hard work and where we can make the best products in the world and sell them for our own profits. That is the future but the lesson we must learn from all of this is that we should be sceptical when things that may seem instinctively unreal become accepted conventional wisdom. Whether one is of the right or the left or independent, a lack of willingness to critique the powers that be of the day is dangerous.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I was struck, while listening to one of the previous speakers, by the fact that the phenomenon we are describing as herding, group-think and mania predates the bank crisis in the political culture of the State. I was struck by this when I heard a Member from the Fianna Fáil benches talk about the jeopardy that entry into the eurozone brought on the State. He recalled the time of the Maastricht treaty and its passage. I have a clear recollec- tion of that time. When we were making a momentous decision about our currency and our sovereignty there was no debate. It did not happen in the public domain but worse, it did not happen within politics. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Albert Reynolds, went to Brussels——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It was Edinburgh.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: ——and secured a very hefty sum in Structural Funding, returned to our shores and the debate was over.

Deputy Robert Dowds: Was Deputy McDonald in Fianna Fáil then?

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: It is only now, when the limitations and jeopardies of membership of the euro are clear, that we are having this discussion. When Professor Nyberg makes reference in his report to group-think and to the herd mentality he is referring to that phenomenon. Given that the incoming Administration is largely pursuing the same path as the previous one, which it so heavily criticised, we are not out of the woods yet with regard to the group- think phenomenon. I agree with previous speakers that the report tells us nothing new. I am also conscious, as we debate this matter, that people outside the Dáil are sick and tired of rehearing the story of the failures of governance, regulation and political and professional leadership. They are doubly sickened by the fact that taxpayers, homeowners and those who are now struggling carry the burden of this catastrophe. I will focus my remarks on chapter 3 of the Nyberg report, which deals with the role of external auditors of the banks prior to and in the immediate aftermath of the banking guarantee. The report notes that all of the banks covered by the guarantee received unqualified audit reports throughout this period; therefore, the question that arises is, why did the banks require State support in 2008 so soon after each of them had received an unqualified audit report from various auditing firms? The report does not offer a definitive conclusion on this question. It does point out that the ongoing recapitalisation of the guaranteed banks by the State has protected external auditors from legal challenges, which are commonly mounted by liquidators against auditors when businesses collapse soon after clean audit reports. The report’s reference to “the extent to which large parts of Irish society were willing to let the good times roll on until the very last minute” will stick in the craw of families throughout this country struggling to keep their heads above water. Let us be clear. There is a very particular section of society who chose to let the good times roll. I mean by that the political classes and definable sections of the professional classes. Fianna Fáil and the Greens, like Govern- ments across the OECD, bought into a policy consensus that believed long-term growth should 670 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements be based on deregulation of domestic and international banking. Government actively incentivised people to invest in financial speculation rather than in the real economy. Fine Gael were and still are part of that consensus Auditors gave clean bills of health to banks that most would have believed were insolvent. Ernst & Young was paid €1 million each year for the nine years prior to the bank guarantee for auditing the accounts of Anglo Irish Bank. It is worth noting that just last week the formers auditors of Anglo took a High Court challenge to halt an inquiry by the Chartered Accountants Regulatory Board into the firm’s role in auditing the bank’s books. In 2009 Ernst & Young also declined an invitation to come before an Oireachtas committee hearing on Anglo Irish Bank. On 20 Feb 2009, after Anglo Irish Bank had been nationalised and five months after the bank guarantee, the 2008 accounts for Anglo Irish Bank were published and Ernst & Young presented its audit report. The report was clean and unqualified and stated that Anglo Irish Bank had made a profit of €784 million in the year to 30 Sept 2008. Let us consider this. In September 2007 the issue of sub-prime lending first raised its head in the United States. On St. Patrick’s Day 2008 the share price in Anglo Irish Bank dropped like a stone. In July 2008 the former Taoiseach met Seán FitzPatrick in Druids Glen. In September 2008 Lehman Brothers collapsed in the United States and on 29 September 2008 the now infamous Government guarantee was conceived and born. In the months that followed we heard the reports of the window dressing with Irish Life & Permanent, the golden circle and the concealed loans to directors. Despite all of the above, the auditors accepted the view of the directors that this bank was profitable and solvent. They had a bad debt provision of just 2% of the loan book. It stretches all credibility. The professional auditors could not see how misleading these accounts were. That was then and this is now. Now there is a question for the Minister for Finance as the sole shareholder acting on behalf of the State. Will the Government take action in respect of the auditing firms who clearly played a disastrous role in this crisis? The people want accountability. The conclusions of the Nyberg report on the role of external auditors also point up specific gaps in the law. In the absence of an express requirement for auditors to have a challenging dialogue with the banking sector on its business models and growing property and funding exposures, many culpable accountancy firms will use whatever gaps they can find in the law to dodge their accountability. The legal, accounting, banking and political classes continue to be protected with no individual or sector properly held to account for what is the worst recession in the history of the State. Funding of public expenditure will be cut year on year as a direct result of the actions of sections of what I call the political and professional classes, those who inflated the property bubble, availed of unsustainable wholesale market funding to line their own pockets and now leave the unemployed, the low paid, middle-income families, PAYE workers and rural Ireland to pick up the tab. The troika and the Government continue to protect a small cabal by refusing to restructure the banks’ unsustainable debt. I will finish by asking a second question. Will the Government tell the House what contracts have been awarded to auditing firms by the State or State bodies such as NAMA since the banking crisis? Are any of the auditing firms linked to our failed banks still on the Government’s payroll? The Government needs to tell us. Sinn Féin Deputies Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and Arthur Morgan, questioned the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on numerous occasions about the continued use by the State of auditors linked to the banking crisis. The former Minister would not answer their questions. I hope the Govern- ment and the Minister will do so. Mention was made of public ire and the demand for crucifixions. No crucifixions are required but what people want is accountability and to see individuals brought to book. They also want 671 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Mary Lou McDonald.] a new approach and that is what they voted for not so long ago. I have put two specific questions to the Minister for Finance and await his responses.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I am delighted to contribute to this debate. The Nyberg report is very wide-ranging and has much in common with the previous reports but it has also dealt with new areas. It goes over old ground which was also dealt with in the other reports. The lack of proper regulation was probably the most critical factor in the banking crisis. Proper regulation from the regulatory authorities would have ensured that banks would not have been able to go mad in their lending practices and would have ensured proper capital adequacy ratios and the type of stress test to be applied to mortgage applicants. It was madness that mortgages of 100% were given to first-time buyers. Some people were even given mortgages higher than 100%. This is a result of lack of proper regulation. The banks lost sight of their business. The Nyberg report states that providing credit is not a sale of bank services but rather is the acquisition of a risky asset. This is a fundamental rule and the banks lost sight of it. They concentrated on sales and took no notice of the risk. The taxpayer and the ordinary citizen paid the price. Not only taxpayers but also those on social welfare have been affected. The use of the term, “taxpayer” is not correct because the banking crisis has affected every person living in Ireland. The Nyberg report highlights the lack of proper planning. In mid-2007, post-Northern Rock, the planning was inadequate. Deputy Brian Lenihan referred to the scoping exercise carried out by the Department of Finance in early 2008. It carried out further exercises in February and April 2008. A domestic standing group met from June 2008 onwards. The special resolution regime was examined but it was stated it might undermine the market. However, Mr. Nyberg is of the view it could have been carried out in a confidential manner and it could have been parked, so to speak. I refer to the Watson and Regling report and the Honohan report and the troika. The Honohan and Nyberg reports are ad idem that the records are sketchy with regard to the decision on the bank guarantee when Deputy Lenihan was Minister for Finance. We do not know what happened or who made the decisions. Mr. Nyberg states the absence of a paper trail is perhaps understandable but it seriously complicates the allocation of specific responsibility with respect to a major policy decision with far-reaching financial consequences for Ireland. Why was a temporary measure such as a six-month guarantee not introduced? Why was a blanket guarantee given that was twice our gross domestic product, a total of €275 billion? Mr. Nyberg refers to the guarantee being an initial success but this was a pyrrhic victory. The Government was indecisive thereafter and it undermined Ireland’s credibility in the eyes of the market. It was a dreadful decision in the way it came about. The Government took the opposite decisions to what should have been decided. It is critical now to have a comprehensive, accurate picture of what happened when this guarantee was put in place. The consequences of the Abbeylara decision should be dealt with by referendum in order that an Oireachtas committee could examine all of the issues involved. At the time of the guarantee it was clear that Ireland was not alone as this was a European- wide problem of varying degree requiring a European solution. It would be interesting to hear Deputy Brian Lenihan’s thoughts on why, at the time he put the guarantee in place, he did not seek to discuss with our European partners precisely what could be put in place on a structured basis. The horse had bolted by the time the banking guarantee had been in place. That issue needs to be dealt with. I would like to refer to how the report deals with some issues other than the guarantee. It is quite critical of the Department of Finance. It claims that departmental officials sometimes sat 672 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements back and waited to see what way the Minister was jumping. I note that in 2004, the Department of Finance prepared a memorandum for the incoming Minister — former Deputy Brian Cowen — requesting, in effect, that tax-driven property reliefs be pulled back. That did not happen, however. If one examines the history of our property bubble, one will appreciate that it took off with a vengeance in the 2002-03 period. Ireland was an export-driven nation until 2002. Exports dropped in volume terms from 2003 onwards, with property going up. That created a property bubble. The report is highly critical of the role played by the Financial Regulator. It refers to the lack of expertise in that office, the Department of Finance and the Central Bank. I welcome the decision of the Minister for Finance to establish a dedicated unit in the Department to deal with bank restructuring. The report suggests that the Financial Regulator’s officials engaged in light touch regulation of the banks but seemed to be quite heavy-handed in terms of consumer affairs. Did they feel comfortable in that area? Did they not have the skill sets to deal with the banks? I will conclude on a positive note. I welcome the Minister’s intention to expand the role of the auditors. In America, the auditors have a far wider remit, which involves expressing their views on whether CEOs and financial controllers are engaging in reckless activities. That has led to people being held accountable. I welcome the Garda investigation into Anglo Irish Bank. I am pleased that the Director of Corporate Enforcement is reaching conclusions and intends to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This report indicates that we are through the process and need to get conclusions. I suggest a public inquiry by the Oireachtas, after the Abbeylara restrictions have been overcome, is needed.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly: I would like to share time with Deputies Mattie McGrath and Joan Collins.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly: As has been said, the Nyberg report confirms what some knew and everyone suspected — that the institutions of the State failed to protect the people; that political decision-making, particularly with regard to the blanket guarantee, was ill-informed; and that a culture of greed and incompetence prevailed in the banking sector. Now that we have seen the Nyberg report, we need to reflect on what we can do and what we can change. I wish to add a little context before I make some suggestions in that regard. We learned yesterday that the chief executive of AIB is to receive a €3 million pay-off. Last week, Moody’s rating agency downgraded Irish sovereign debt to one notch above junk status. Yesterday, Moody’s downgraded the unguaranteed senior debt in the banks to junk status. The Minister for Finance has understandably made wide reference to the positive market reaction to his announcement on bank restructuring. The yield on ten-year sovereign debt fell from 10.2% to 9.1%, which was fantastic. That has climbed again in the past week due to the return of market uncertainty, however, and was back to 10.2% today. In other words, every piece of market optimism in reaction to the Government’s ideas on bank restructuring has been completely wiped out in approximately ten days of trading. I am sure there are many reasons for this, but I would like to focus on one. The Nyberg report tells us that the banks failed in the past, which we knew. The multimillion euro pay-out to the chief executive of a failed bank tells us that the banks are still failing today. The fact that the banking debt is junk and the Irish sovereign debt is just one level above junk tells us that the markets believe the same institutions will fail in the future. I ask the Government to rethink its policy options in light of all of this evidence. We are pinning our hopes on borrowing a vast amount of money, which we cannot afford to borrow, and stuffing it into institutions which we know have failed 673 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Stephen Donnelly.] in the past, are failing today and — the markets believe — will fail in the future. I ask the Government to consider that all of us can do better than this. During one of the first sittings of this Dáil, the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, asked for ideas from the opposite side of the House. He said he was not hearing any ideas. I would like to finish by offering a few ideas to the Government for its consideration. I suggest it should not repay the €35 billion in outstanding bonds. If this is a problem, the Government should get creative. It could consider freezing them for five or ten years and finding a halfway house where we can take the pressure off. It could implement a debt-for-equity swap on the others. The Government could remove the sovereign guarantee from all the banks bar one — it could choose Bank of Ireland or the AIB and accept it will be tough for a while — and thereby minimise our liability. I suggest a national reconstruction bank that was mentioned in the programme for Government should be established as a matter of urgency. The Government could take out insurance on the remaining bank liabilities, the commercial loans, the non- NAMA development loans and the mortgages. I propose the removal of the senior teams from the banks. Clearly, that is not happening at the moment. Deputy Shane Ross spoke well on this matter. I suggest the Government should set up a failure regime and instigate radical reform in the Department of Finance with the assistance of banking experts and economists, etc. I would be much obliged if the Minister of State, Deputy Dinny McGinley, would bring those ideas back to the Minister for Finance and his team.

Deputy Mattie McGrath: This is another costly and expensive report that tells us little or nothing we did not already know. Mr. Nyberg has concluded that a national speculative property “mania” led to the Irish lending splurge. He has found that the banks engaged in lending to the point of self-destruction. He has failed to attach any blame to the various players. To the best of my knowledge, the players in question were individual bank board directors and executives; internal and external auditors, who seem to have done nothing; former Central Bank regulators; banking recruiters; and individual politicians and political parties. There is no point in passing the buck as it has been passed for long enough before we came to this sorry stage. I know the electorate will be disappointed with the new Government, which made many commitments and promises but has adopted the same policies that were pursued before the general election. Fundamentally, Mr. Nyberg has suggested that the various players in this crisis, like the nation as a whole, invested in the frenzy and played a role in the boom and bust cycle. I do not think that is true. I do not believe ordinary citizens played any role in it. Given that they had no say and no involvement in this affair, it is outrageous that they are now being asked to take the full blame for it. The production of the report cost €1.3 million. It is another report on top of previous reports. What is wrong with us? Why can we not get to the bottom of the matter? Why can we not come clean? Why are we not honest with ourselves and with the public? As it is Holy Week, it is not good enough that the ordinary men, woman and children of this country are being crucified. The people will not tolerate it. This is the latest in a series of toothless reports about the financial crisis. Certain investigative journalists have done more and better work to examine the causes and to identify the sources of the crisis. I am disappointed that the Garda Síochána has not brought charges against anybody. We seem to be trudging along with an intolerable debt that we have no way of repaying. I am aware of people involved in community groups and ordinary business people who are putting their hands in their pockets to try to pay their wage bills, maintain people in jobs and keep society afloat. The banks are not lending a shilling to anybody. They are not laughing all the way to the bank anymore — they are laughing at us because they are getting away with so 674 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements much. They know they are getting away with a great deal, yet there does not appear to be any desire to require accountability. On the contrary, senior bankers and regulators are being rewarded for not doing any work and people are being constantly paid off. This approach is sick and would be laughable if it were not so serious.

Deputy Joan Collins: The Nyberg report is the third report done on the banking crisis and, as other speakers noted, we are no wiser about what occurred. The report does not name names and we still do not know what happened on 29 September 2008, the day on which the bank guarantee was given. The 200,000 word report includes only five paragraphs on what occurred at the meeting in question for which minutes were not kept. According to the Nyberg report, discussions up to and on 29 September were based on very deficient information. The assumption was that there were no solvency issues in the banks, merely temporary liquidity problems caused by international factors. Why was the information so deficient? The report states that from mid-2007 onwards, there was improved co-operation between key institutions and important preparatory crisis management work was put in place. What does this mean? What crisis management measures were taken? What prompted increased co-operation and why were the then Taoiseach, former Deputy Brian Cowen, Mini- ster for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and senior officials in the Department of Finance so unprepared and ill informed that it resulted in such disastrous decision making? Despite the publication of three reports on the matter, we still do not know the answers to these key questions. One does not need to be a banking or financial expert or to have read the three reports on the crisis to know that there was a cartel of consensus at work, some of which was driven by fear. When opposition voices pointed out that the market was crashing, they were ridiculed. Speaking to an ICTU conference, the then Taoiseach, former Deputy Bertie Ahern, told critics to commit suicide and, to my dismay, the delegates present responded with laughter. While the Nyberg report does not name names, I will name a few familiar names today. Of the total salary package of the executive directors of the three largest banks in 2007, Brian Goggin earned €3,998,000, David Drumm earned €3,274,000, Eugene Sheehy earned €2,105,000, Colm Doherty, whose name has become more familiar in recent days, earned €1,663,000, John O’Donovan earned €1,581,000, and William McAteer earned €1,427,000. The list goes on. It is important to name and shame these people time and again. Their names continue to crop up and people are angry that they are getting away with such salaries and pensions. Mr. Doherty, we learned in recent days, walked away with a pension of €3 million. Why will the Government not impose a 95% tax on the pensions of these individuals? We do not need to change their contracts. If we imposed a 95% tax on their salaries and pensions, we would then be able to invest more in the economy. I do not accept the Government’s repeated statements that it cannot address the issue of massive and ludicrous payments and pensions to those who brought the country to its knees. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, pushed all the right buttons in speaking about the previous Government. Why is the Government of which she is a member pursuing the same economic agenda as the previous Government of bailing out the banks? It will also potentially privatise crucial State assets and hand them over to the same profiteers who caused the economic crisis in the first instance. Those who pay the price for the crisis were not responsible for it. Neo-liberal capitalism and greed destroyed the economy. Today, the parents of autistic children gathered outside the Dáil to fight for the rights of the children because money is no longer available for special needs assistants. We must start to make the right choices on behalf of citizens. 675 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I wish to share time with Deputy Peter Mathews. To respond to Deputy Stephen Donnelly’s constructive contribution, the reasons for the change in Irish market dynamics in recent weeks include continuing rumours and commentary on possible developments in Greece and the sovereign downgrade of the United States earlier this week by the ratings agencies. These events create an environment within which economies such as that of Ireland will struggle. Deputy Stephen Donnelly made valuable points which should be discussed. When the Oireachtas committees are established, I hope Members will have an opportunity to have their ideas discussed. One of the important conclusions of the Nyberg report was that dissent and critical discussion were repressed. It would be a tragedy in the current phase of economic depression if such repression were to be repeated. I hope the Oireachtas, through the structures that will be established in the coming weeks, will provide a forum for policy options and ideas to be evaluated. The most striking line of the Nyberg report is on page 100 which states, “Because the real reason for the crisis is the spread of an ultimately irrational point of view, regulations and watchdog institutions cannot be counted on to be efficient preventers of a systemic crisis”. The latter part of the report, which has not yet ignited significant commentary, notes that if all the improvements that are sought in our regulatory regime were delivered, they would not, of themselves, guarantee that a future crisis of this magnitude would not occur again. This is a deeply sobering thought for those who have been elected to govern and to ensure we exit this stage of the economic crisis. The Nyberg report states there have been only a small number of crises of the magnitude of that experienced by Ireland. This is not the case. In the past 100 years or thereabouts there have been many examples around the world of banking crises triggering profound financial crises in the states concerned. The second half of the report makes recommendations on changes to the structure and culture of banking and the culture of society in general. These are the areas in which the most radical change needs to be made. The perception among citizens is that taxpayers bail out banks which, in turn, impose costs on taxpayers which they cannot shoulder and 6o’clock ask them to condone behaviour that they will not condone. We have observed many examples of such behaviour, most recently in the form of a payment which was publicised earlier in the week. The costs imposed on citizens are vast. The State will have to shoulder €31 billion to bail out Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. A more subtle cost, however, is the profound crisis of confidence in our ability to govern our way out of our current difficulties. The Nyberg report illustrates that for a period leading up to and including 2007, the State did not have the ability to govern itself. It states clearly that a herd mentality, groupthink and consensus not only resulted in the misuse of critical faculties but led to their virtual suspension in the institutions tasked with protecting the national interest and citizens. As we seek a way out of our current difficulties, it would be unforgivable if we were to make the same mistake again. One of the recommendations in the report which we must address is the size and cost of the banking sector. The Government has made progress in this respect by seeking to reduce the size of the banking sector and its potential cost to the taxpayer. We must not lose sight of these issues or the need for regulatory improvement.

Deputy Peter Mathews: The Nyberg report does not bring any startling news; neither did the Honohan report. What is startling in some ways is the fact that the Honohan report had as its termination date the date of the blanket guarantee, while the termination date in the Nyberg 676 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements report is 15 January 2009. What has really torn the country apart, what we have all agonised over and what we have failed to scope properly is what has happened since. In April 2009 the NAMA project, the mechanism for beginning to recognise the loan losses in the banks, was mooted. Only then was there an awareness that there were massive losses in the economy that had to be measured. Having been measured, they have to be allocated and borne by either the investors in the banks which created the assets that imploded, the long-term investors such as bondholders and the citizens of the State. Is it not an awful shame that we did not have people skilled and articulate in reviewing what had happened and that they did not address what had happened in the period post-15 January 2009 to date? We should remember that Professor Nyberg only received his instructions in September 2010; therefore, between January 2009 and September 2010 there is a brain dead period in this country. That is a shame because we could learn a lot. I wish to move on to discuss where we are. I commend Deputy Paschal Donohoe for com- mending Deputy Stephen Donnelly, which is what it is all about. We must get into sharp focus in a new Dáil the exact picture of where we are, in so far as we can, and tell that story to the people, on whom we rely. At this point, the banks rely almost exclusively on the European Central Bank and the Central Bank — a mixture of both — at a level of €170 billion or €180 billion. On top of the sovereign debt to date as a result of the fiscal imbalances and deficits, the total debt adds up to some €240 billion or €250 billion when one bears in mind the oncoming debt of the package entered into last November, because there are losses of €100 billion that are only now being acknowledged. That is too much for the country to bear. We must have a banking sector that works; we must capitalise it and energise it with fresh, new, cleaned out management and boards. That operation has begun and will take a little time to complete, although the energy and purpose are applied. We must make sure our creditors — the European Central Bank, in the spirit of solidarity, because that is the phrase which allows it to give assistance to a country such as this, and the remaining bond investors — will take on their share of the losses that have emerged in our banking system. We must do it together in a spirit of co-operation and truth. We must do what is right and again find our courage to do it.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the report of the Commission of Investigation into the Banking Sector in Ireland, known as the Nyberg report. The report builds on the work done in the preliminary reports by Professor Patrick Honohan and Max Watson and Klaus Regling and provides further insight into the causes of the Irish banking crisis. Mr. Peter Nyberg is to be thanked for producing a comprehensive report which addresses in a very straightforward way the origins of the crisis. The Irish banking crisis is a truly sorry chapter in the country’s history. The direct cost to citizens is now estimated to be in the order of €70 billion — excluding the work of NAMA which we hope will pay for itself over its lifetime — with incalculable damage inflicted on our reputation. In addition, the cost of not having a banking system that properly meets the basic needs of the economy and has not done so since 2008 is unknown. There can be little doubt but that the frail and limp state of the banking system since the onset of the crisis has impeded our economic recovery. The inability of the banking system to meet the needs of the economy has cost thousands of jobs and made life miserable for so many. Some reports estimate that up to 5,000 people working in the banking sector will lose their jobs as a result of the downsizing and de-leveraging in the banking system. In addition, it should be remembered that thousands of shareholders in the Irish banks lost all of their money, including many who invested their life savings. 677 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Michael McGrath.]

I welcome the work of the new Government in seeking to draw a firm line under the crisis, building on the banking policy of the previous Government and the agreement reached last November between the State, the European Union and the IMF. I sincerely hope the strategy outlined by the Minister for Finance at the end of March, underpinned by the comprehensive bank stress tests, will work and that we are well on the road to fixing the problems in the banking system. While we all wish there were easy answers to our banking problems, the truth is there are not. I welcome Deputy Peter Mathews’ contribution. He made many predictions in recent years in regard to the banking crisis, many of which turned out to be true. One thing that concerns me, coming from an expert such as him, is his prediction that there is a further €20 billion of losses on the books of the Irish banks above and beyond what was identified in the stress tests. The fact that somebody of his expertise would make that assertion is a concern because all of us hope we have identified the bottom of the black hole in the banks. I hope his analysis is carefully examined and a conclusion reached in regard to it. It is clear from reading the report and the two earlier reports that the primary responsibility for the near collapse of the banks rests with the banks. To varying degrees, the different banks departed from the traditional deposit-based business model, abandoned any semblance of proper risk management and engaged in a sustained and aggressive level of lending that threat- ened not just their own future but the economic future of the country. The report sets out the failures that occurred at a series of levels. The basic ingredients of the crisis have been known for some time: banks engaging in a frenzy of reckless lending to one particular sector, without any regard to risk management, aided and abetted by a hapless regulatory system; free flowing funding from wholesale lending markets; an insatiable domestic appetite for property consumption, and an inappropriate monetary policy at European level. All of this, it must be said, was actively encouraged and supported by public policy for many years. I am glad Mr. Nyberg highlighted the issue of the reward culture in the banks which played a not insignificant role in the crisis. In paragraph 2.6.3 he notes:

. . . rapid loan asset growth was extensively and significantly rewarded at executive and other senior levels in most banks . . . Targets that were intended to be demanding through the pursuit of sound policies and prudent spread of risk were easily achieved through volume lending to the property sector.

Mr. Nyberg cogently remarks on the herd mentality between different institutions but within the banks executives were rewarded on the basis that the more they lent, the bigger the bonuses they received. In so many respects, the behaviour of the banks has been reprehensible since the beginning of the crisis. They have sought at every turn to conceal the full extent of their loan losses and misled the Government and the authorities about their true financial position. They resisted change that was blatantly necessary. They have sought to have it their own way on each occasion. Senior bankers have rewarded themselves handsomely, seemingly oblivious to the opinion of the people who have come to their rescue. Second only to the banks in the hierarchy of blame are the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank, with the report being especially damning of their role. In essence, they utterly failed in their duties and the State is paying a high price for their incompetence. Some of Mr. Nyberg’s observations in this regard are worth noting:

678 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

The CB [Central Bank] was not powerless; it had the right to direct the activities of the FR [Financial Regulator] and it could advise the Government. There are, however, no records of such direction or advice or even efforts at such... The problems in Anglo and INBS in particular, were not hidden but were in plain sight of the FR and the CB... The DoF [Department of Finance] and the Minister for Finance were regularly provided with a Financial Stability Report, officially jointly written by the CB and the FR... The report occasionally made reference to the frothiness of the Irish property market but did not explicitly infer serious risks to the banks from this emerging bubble.

In other words, some warnings were given, but they were not forcefully expressed and not sustained. As far as the Central Bank and Financial Regulator were concerned, everything in the garden was rosy. The regulator came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service on several occasions and was clearly delusional about the risks before his very eyes. The Irish authorities, however, were not alone in being remiss in their duties. Mr. Nyberg notes: “Generally, international organisations (IMF, EU, and OECD) were, at most, modestly critical and often complimentary regarding Irish developments and institutions”. The appointments of Professor Patrick Honohan and Mr. Matthew Elderfield and the reform of the Central Bank-Financial Regulator structure by the previous Government were important steps forward. I welcome the new Government’s indication that it is determined to build on these reforms to ensure we have a Central Bank and financial regulatory function that is fit for purpose. Mr. Nyberg gives a balanced appraisal of the extensive bank guarantee introduced at the end of September 2008. In paragraph 5.3.11 he states: “The discussions for alternative measures before and on Sept 29, 2008, were conducted on the basis of very deficient information”. That the Government of the day had to make a decision of this importance in the absence of full information from the relevant authorities is an absolute indictment of those authorities. Their lack of preparedness for the looming crisis was inexplicable. Paragraph 5.3.13 states: “Given the information provided, the Commission understands the Government’s decision to provide a broad guarantee for the banks; if no major solvency problems were expected the Guarantee would not have to be called upon”. It is clear from the report that the guarantee decision was made with inadequate information on the policy options. If the true picture was known about the banks, a different decision might well have been made involving perhaps a limited guarantee to secure short-term liquidity for the banks pending the adoption of a resolution regime. However, Mr. Nyberg acknowledges that even that approach was not without serious risk and difficulty. The banks were not honest with the Government about the extent of their problems and those responsible for advising the Government failed miserably in their role. As the report observes:

Crisis management in Ireland, therefore, was rendered less than fully effective by long- standing insufficient appreciation of bank exposures on the part of all the authorities. Decision makers and their various advisors, in autumn 2008, still mainly shared the common view that the banks were, and would remain, solvent.

It is clear that the economy was allowed to become grossly over-reliant on the property and construction sector. The Government of the day has to accept full responsibility for this and should have moved much earlier to reduce this reliance. Instead, for too long, petrol was thrown on the fire and the apparent boom. It all seemed fine for as long as property prices kept rising. In general, public spending was not adequately controlled, especially in the early years covered by the Nyberg report and pro-cyclical policies fuelled the boom. 679 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Michael McGrath.]

Many private citizens contributed in no small way to the madness. I recall the scramble when new phases of residential developments were being released. Those in the right circle, with access to lending, were putting their names down for six or eight houses in the days leading up to the official release of a development phase. By the time the next phase was released, such investors could be up €20,000 or €30,000 per unit. It all seemed so easy. The young couples who queued to pay exorbitant prices were easy fodder and are the ones ultimately paying for the frenzy. Part of the terms of reference for the investigation was to examine the role of external auditors. As someone who worked in audit and qualified as a chartered accountant with a big four firm, it saddens me that my profession failed to highlight adequately the serious risks building up in the banks. While auditors fulfilled their narrow function according to rules and regulations, Mr. Nyberg confirms they did not generally report excesses over prudential sector spending limits to the Financial Regulator. Even if they had, he notes, it appears unlikely that anything would have been done about it. The only issue over which we now have control is that of ensuring lessons have been learned and that corrective steps are taken. In that regard I welcome the Minister, Deputy Noonan’s, statement today. I look forward, together with my colleagues in Fianna Fáil, to working in a positive and constructive way with the new Government to address the issues raised in the report.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on this important issue. It is interesting to hear the inputs from Members on different sides of the House. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, set out a potted history of the crisis. In outlining the strategy adopted by the previous Government he observed:

The second stage consisted of a statutory commission of investigation. The establishment of this commission was approved by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 8 July 2010, and an order formally establishing the commission was made by the previous Government on 21 September 2010. The commission’s terms of reference, which covered the period 2003 to 5 January 2009...

This period, from 2003 to the beginning of 2009, was critical in terms of the crisis we face. From the start of 2003 it was patently obvious to any observer of what was happening in the banking and property sectors that the country had gone off the rails. The former Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is a decent guy. He called issues and sought advice, but it seems the advice he received was poor. He might not admit this in the House, but the reality is he received bad advice. A critical lesson we must learn is that when expert advice is sought, it should be questioned before it is relied upon. No expert should be able to walk away and say, “That was my best opinion at the time.” Such expert opinions can be changed at a later time, as we all now know. Every Minister — any person in management in any organisation — should always remember, regardless of how expert an opinion may be, that advice should be questioned. As well as an over-reliance on expert opinion, there was an over-reliance on audits which turned out to be inadequate in many instances. The odd aspect is that some years earlier, during the DIRT inquiry, it was shown that audits had failed, where and why they had failed. This was pointed out to the banking fraternity and financial services sector and anybody else who wanted to see it. I do not accept there was no failure in terms of compliance with the Companies Act; on the contrary, there was clearly a serious failure in terms of an avoidance of the principles of that legislation. There was malfeasance and misfeasance. People must have 680 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements known what would happen. There was clearly an abdication of responsibility, about which nobody was concerned. There is no use in saying what was happening was not known. All of the principles of lending and borrowing established internationally in the last 100 years were turned on their head. We all know that is the case, including the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan. Why was it allowed to happen? Of course, there was greed. However, another factor was the historically low interest rates which were of great benefit in terms of economic expansion but in respect of which control and oversight were required to defend against inflation taking off in all directions. The European Central Bank seeks to control inflation through interest rates manipu- lation. That is not the right approach, given the regional differences across the European Union. We must have a methodology for controlling inflation which does not apply the same measures across all borders. I will never understand the reason credit controls were not introduced at a time when property prices had inflated by 300% within a three or four-year period. It is unthinkable this could have happened. What really happened is that where the banking system used to control property values and property was the collateral, the positions were switched, whereby the banking system became the collateral and the property became the bank. Members now know why and how it happened, as well as the sequence in which it happened and the issue now is how do we get out of it. While one could continue in this vein, I do not wish to hold up the debate, but suffice it to state——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The Deputy should note the report does not suggest I received expert advice. It suggests I received no expert advice at all.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I assure the Deputy that were his time to come again, he would ask many more questions. There also was a consensus of business interests that had converged and polluted one another because they were all going in the same direction. The reason for this is Irish company law which obviously differs from that which obtains in other countries. If something is done to jeopardise a company in the United States, the principals end up in jail. They go straight in because if they jeopardise the company, they jeopardise the interests of the shareholders as a result and anyone who is culpable in a situation where a company or the service provided by it is put at risk is in trouble. In Ireland, as Members have heard again in recent days, the shareholders, the non-executive directors and the management were all thinking in the same way and going in the same direction. They were all thinking this was wonderful and that if one deposited one’s money in the bank, one could only get a return of 2% but if one was to invest it in property, one would get a return of 40% or perhaps 50% over a three or four-year period. That is both unsustainable and absolutely crazy and the sad part is that all of these weaknesses were identified during the DIRT inquiry. I refer to weaknesses such as bad governance, a failure to recognise when things were going wrong, malfeasance, fellows who simply would not stand up and accept responsibility, and misfeasance, where they simply walked away and took no responsibility. I wish to discuss two other issues, the first of which is the problem Ireland now faces in mending its image across Europe. I strongly urge that this be perceived by the Government as a priority. Most parliaments, as opposed to governments, throughout Europe do not regard us highly. They consider us to be a bunch of chancers and grabbers who are not honourable and who do not tell the truth. Consequently, we must address these issues. This will be a difficult job, but it must be done as a matter of priority. Moreover, while the Government will do this at governmental level, it should also be done at parliamentary level where nothing is happening. For example, I refer to a Schuman report issued last November that was an appallingly scurri- 681 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Bernard J. Durkan.] lous report on Ireland and the entire scenario under discussion. It was gratuitously insulting and the issue must be addressed. The final point I wish to make pertains to something I came across recently. Our costs, salaries and wages are too high. As the latter are among the highest in Europe, everyone criticises us. I refer to the recent OECD report. Funnily enough, very little time, attention or focus has been placed on property prices in parallel with salaries and wages. The simple reason salaries and wages are higher in Ireland than in most other European countries is people here could not afford to buy or rent a house in the market that prevailed between 2003 and 2009. This is the appalling fact. Consequently, when our European colleagues complain and criticise, with justification, that we are the highest paid in the eurozone, they must also recognise that through whatever system was in operation, we reached a point where we also had the highest property prices which reached an appallingly high level. I will conclude by noting that two years ago I saw a property advertised in the south of France. It was a former Cistercian monastery on 25 ha with 15 bedrooms, Gothic architecture. It was a period residence with everything one could ask for. Its asking price in Irish newspapers was €1.1 million and the theory was that were a similar property offered for sale in Ireland, one would be talking about a price of at least €10 million for such a trophy. That comparison spells out the mistakes we have made and the stupidity of what went on. Moreover, there is a case to be answered and I do not believe people in Ireland can walk away with impunity. Instead, charges could be levelled. I believe there were cases in which there was misgovernance and malfeasance of a serious nature that those responsible will be held accountable in the courts at some stage.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Nyberg report published yesterday places the blame for Ireland’s financial crisis squarely in the hands of Ireland’s troika of incompetence, that is, the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator and the Department of Finance. Regulation was weak, banks were greedy, profit was king, the media were complicit and so on. While the Nyberg report places blame on the Irish players for the economic catastrophe, one glaring omission as a result of the limited terms of reference is an acknowledgement of the central role played by the IMF, the ECB and some of our stronger European partners in getting us into this sorry state. The ECB and French and German banks, in particular, were only too willing to funnel endless streams of cheap money into the Irish banks which are now insolvent. Is it not ironic that these are the same countries that seek the amendment of our corporation tax rates? The funds of those European bondholders are now guaranteed by Irish taxpayers who must pay for the sins both of our reckless bankers and those of the ECB and European bankers. I refer to an interesting statistic, albeit dreadful for Ireland, pertaining to German and French banks. Although such banks hold €10 billion of Ireland’s sovereign debt, they hold €74.5 billion of Irish bank debt. If one joins up the dots, this tells one that those vested interests, namely, the German and French states in defence of their banks, are determined to bail out the banks to save their own bacon. Consequently, this is not a bailout for the Irish people. It is as much a bailout for the European banking system as it is for us and for German and French banks, in particular. This is a European problem and reflects a structural imbalance between the core and the periphery. A total of 1.8 million Irish taxpayers simply cannot afford to pay the creditors of private European banks which lent recklessly to Irish banks, thereby accumulating more than €150 billion in debt. An important point to note is that the Government has done nothing to stop the false narrative that is developing and spreading like wildfire across Europe to the effect that Ireland alone is responsible for its economic breakdown and crisis. It was interesting to observe the 682 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements recent Finnish general election in which a party made gains based on a belief the Finnish people were contributing towards bailouts that only benefited other countries. This is part of the myth and the Government must make it clear this is a bigger issue which pertains as much to a European as to an Irish failure of the banking systems. I now turn to the other troika of incompetence, namely, the European Central Bank, the IMF and some of our stronger European partners. The ECB, the European Union and international money markets must be exposed for their share in creating the crisis. The report examines the Irish Financial Regulator and Irish Central Bank but what about the European regulators and the European Central Bank? One of Mr. Nyberg’s key conclusions or reasons for the bubble is the flood of cheap funding from the wholesale money markets given carte blanche by the European Central Bank and other institutions such as the IMF. Elite policy makers across the European Union are responsible for the eurozone debt crisis and it is long past time for the Government to acquire some backbone and spell this out to its European counterparts. The IMF and the ECB are demanding that Irish citizens bear the burden of the mistakes made by international financiers. The policy of socialising the losses of European banks remains, while the gains can continue to be privatised by many of these same banks, investors and bondholders across Europe. The European political project has failed to acknowledge any hand, act or part in the Irish debacle. Those involved prefer to wash their hands, turn their backs and walk away while leaving the Irish taxpayer to be crucified. Let us be clear about what was being done to people across the State. Pages 5 and 6 of the Regling and Watson report on macroeconomic developments in the State which was published last June stated when referring to the IMF’s analysis of the Irish financial sector and system: “Equally, the IMF was not strongly or consistently critical of the underlying dynamics of fiscal policy”. It also stated: “The IMF’s major Financial System Stability Assessment of 2006 did not sound the alarm, and there is no evidence that its private warnings did so either”. The said IMF 2006 assessment which Messrs Regling and Watson are condemning claimed that the Irish financial sector had continued to perform well since its participation in the financial sector assessment programme, FSAP, in 2000 and that financial soundness and market indicators were generally strong. This was the international culture at the time. It even went on to state the outlook for the financial system was positive and that good progress had been achieved in strengthening the regulatory and supervisory framework in line with the recommendations of the 2000 FSAP. As the Nyberg report spells out, “International organisations (IMF, EU, and OECD) were, at most, modestly critical and often complimentary regarding Irish developments and institutions. This gave the authorities and the banks additional reason to assume that all really was well”. Clearly, the role of the International Monetary Fund and particularly the ECB needs further examination. While the Government, the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator were blind and indifferent to what was going on, the ECB and the IMF which are supposed to monitor European and world economies and ensure financial stability did not see any cause for alarm. I am sure that, like every Deputy, I was researching reports and reading some stories on- line last night. I read something written by Mr. Nick Leeson, the man who brought down Barings Bank many years ago, on TheJournal.ie. He wrote about his experiences and how everything was fine and he was ignored when he was delivering profits until he eventually brought down the bank. He commented on what lessons had since been learned in the international financial sector. These questions must be asked. Likewise, is the IMF as reliable and credible as we are led to believe? What changes are under way within both organisations to prevent this problem recurring? Can their reports and analyses be taken seriously? If the euro collapses, as some commentators claim is now possible — I hope they are wrong — what credence does the ECB have? How is 683 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.] it any different from the regulators, central banks and governments which failed to predict and prevent this crisis? During Private Members’ business last night on the motion on oil and gas fiscal licensing terms the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, stated:

The 2007 tax terms do not apply to the Corrib gas field, as they do not apply to exploration licences granted prior to 2007. To do so would have been to introduce what would, in effect, have been a retrospective form of taxation and such an action would not have been in Ireland’s interest.

I hope these comments will not be characteristic of the Government’s approach to what clearly are injustices. If something is wrong, it should be righted no matter what it is. I wonder what the Minister meant by “would not have been in Ireland’s interest.” Significant responsibility and blame lie with those controlling the purse strings and delivering financial advice at EU and IMF level, those who promoted the very deregulation and liberalisation of the domestic and international financial regimes that created the crash and those politicians and figures who introduced waves of tax incentives for people to invest in financial speculation rather than the real economy. I put it to the Government that all three reports to date — the Regling and Watson, Honohan and Nyberg reports — have referred to the international dimension of negligence. On that point, will the Tánaiste who is undertaking a diplomatic initiative extend the remit of his European diplomatic mission with a new objective, namely, to communicate this crucial point to the Independent Evaluation Office, established in 2001 as an internal watchdog for the IMF, and also appeal to the 186 other member governments of the IMF to review its complete failure in operating successfully in the case of the State? The Government’s members are now Mini- sters. They are in charge of the country’s future. They should give young people a reason to stay and fight for their futures.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): I understand Deputy Olivia Mitchell wishes to share her time.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell: With Deputy Billy Timmins.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell: I thank the Chair for giving me an opportunity to speak in this debate. When the report was published, there was a great deal of disappointment that it did not name individuals and that no silver bullet of clear blame was apportioned, given that blame was so widely spread. In defence of Mr. Nyberg, the legislation under which the commission operated provided that, if there was any question of prejudice, the Minister of the day would need to apply to the courts for permission to publish. If there is anything people want, it is for the guilty to pay, not to be paid. That the public was appalled by events yesterday was understandable. People would never have forgiven us had future court cases been prejudiced. The previous Government has taken some comfort from the fact that blame was spread widely, but it should not. It was in charge, which is what being in government means. The responsibility for governance and good regulation is a political one, particularly in the case of bank excesses. We are not referring to a single incident but to sustained overspending and credit provision in a particular sector. This continued for many years, while dissenting voices — irrespective of what people say, there were dissenting voices, not least from the then Opposition 684 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements benches — were subdued in favour of the imperative to accrue the revenue being yielded by the property bubble. Various actors were undoubtedly complicit in the banking disaster, but I do not want this fact to exonerate the former Government or implicate the entire population of Ireland. To refer to herd mentalities, “group think” and a national speculative mania is to suggest we were all involved in the frenzy, but that is not the case. We are not all guilty. For example, young people who paid well over the odds for houses at the time are not guilty. They were participants, but they were also victims. They had no choice but to do what every generation had done, namely, go out and try to provide for their families. They have a burden around their necks, whereas those who caused the crisis have long since sailed off into the sunset to play golf or whatever. Two myths that have been dispelled are that we were all somehow part of a problem started by Lehman Brothers and that ours was just one of the countries affected, including Greece and Portugal. There was a worldwide banking crisis, but other countries dealt with theirs. Britain bailed out its banks and got over the crisis. Its banks are profitable and contributing to its Exchequer again. Greece, Portugal and, more than likely, Spain have significant problems, but they are fiscal deficit issues. They do not have a banking problem. Unfortunately, Ireland has the largest banking problem in the developed world and we have a fiscal problem to boot. The report states that, on the night the fateful guarantee was given in September 2008, information was deficient and, had information been presented, other decisions might have been taken. For example, Anglo Irish Bank might have been taken into national administration and gradually wound down. Unfortunately, this did not occur. I question the extent to which there was a lack of information. I accept that the Government might not have had all of the information available, but I cannot believe the banks did not have it. It is not credible that those whose job it was to know what was going on and who were involved daily in banking business believed Irish property was the most valuable on the planet or that every bank lending large amounts of money into a single sector was sustainable. The banks knew it was not just a liquidity problem but a major solvency problem. That summer money was pouring out of the banks. The deposits pouring out were not just domestic, they were from international investors who were reducing their deposits in Irish banks. The professionals must have known this, as the dogs in the street knew it that summer. Those who should have been advising the Govern- ment and were well paid to do so stayed quiet, perhaps in order to hide their own failure to alert the Government at an earlier stage. Perhaps they hoped for the best and thought it was just a liquidity problem. We will live with the consequences of these decisions and the piece- meal choices which followed that always seemed to be insufficient. It is important for us to learn from the mistakes of the time. I, therefore, welcome the announcements made by the Minister that there will be a change of regime and that there will be regulation in the future. A completely new regime will be in place from now on.

Deputy Billy Timmins: The initial reaction to the Nyberg report has been one of disappointment. Irish people like facts and names; they like to know what actually happened. The report is a generalisation; we already knew most of the information provided. We wanted to know what advice was given to both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance prior to the giving of the bank guarantee and who gave the advice. The advice given was known to be incomplete and incorrect. The former Minister is in the Chamber but is probably not in a position to enlighten the House. I hope that at a later date an Oireachtas committee will investigate the matter as I strongly believe the information given was inaccurate and that somewhere along the line this inaccurate information was knowingly fed into the system and resulted in a catastrophic decision being made by the previous Government, supported by others in the House. 685 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Billy Timmins.]

The banking difficulties which led to the IMF and EU deal have created a certain vulner- ability in Ireland, which should not be the case. We have seen our consolidated tax base coming under attack and this is as important as our corporation tax rate. We must maintain these rates as fiscal policy is our responsibility. I attended a meeting with President Sarkozy at the French Embassy and if my memory serves me, he clearly stated tax matters were for the Irish Govern- ment alone to decide. I took notes at the time and hope to dig them out shortly to confirm this, but that is my clear memory. We should not allow ourselves to be bullied in Europe. Some people have adopted the deny, attack and reverse victim and offender, DARVO,principle, most notably Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, a member of the European Central Bank since 2005. I do not know why he made his recent comments because if he had carried out a close examination of the banks in Germany, Italy and France, he would have found many questions to be answered there also. Deputy Bernard Durkan mentioned the rebuilding of bridges in Europe, but we have nothing of which to be ashamed. We have suffered from greed, but that is as old as time itself; it is not a quality unique to the Celts. Many nations have carried out grave atrocities and made mistakes through generations. We should proceed with a positive and progressive approach. Until there is an alignment of interests where banks and bankers are congruent with the good of the economy and its shareholders, there will be a problem. The report outlines lessons to be learned and one of the most worrying aspects is that measures we have taken to date may not prevent a recurrence of what happened in the past. There are many policy issues referred to, but it behoves us to decipher what is in contained in the report and implement measures to ensure, in so far as we can, that we will not have a repeat of the current crisis.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Deputies Catherine Murphy and Seamus Healy have until 6.50 p.m. to speak, at which time the Minister will respond.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: I will be sharing time with Deputy Seamus Healy. The report states the commission’s remit was to identify the causes of the crisis and related failures rather than to assign individual blame or responsibility. I cannot see what additional value the report brings over and above the reports already done. It is a very expensive report and it is unfortunate that it does not attach blame. If we are to change the culture that prevailed, responsibility must be assigned to individuals rather than the institutions which were managed. That responsibility must be taken on a personal level. We know the consequences, with 1,000 people leaving every week to go into exile, rather than emigrating, and 440,000 people on the dole. At the same time we can see people walking away with golden handshakes, which is really sickening. According to the report, the problems of Anglo Irish Bank were in plain sight as the funding strategy was concentrated on the speculative part of the market. The report investigates the banking system, but the system of development we embraced led to speculative development. I know that at local government level several of us fought for up to two decades to apply sense to the rezoning of land, but we were called nuisances and the anti-development crowd. We were accused of driving up house prices because we were trying to limit the availability of land. There is a relationship between speculation and land rezoning and perhaps we should revisit the Kenny report. In doing so we might avoid future problems.

Deputy Seamus Healy: The clear impression given by the Nyberg report and the media in general is that we all lost the run of ourselves and that we were all in it together, but nothing could be further from the truth. We did not all lose the run of ourselves and we were not all 686 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements in it together. Unfortunately, the report is a whitewash and a cover-up for the Irish Establish- ment which supported the banking process that brought about the current crisis and recession. The report is a cover-up, but we must name and shame those involved. Generally, they include the Irish super-rich who still have €250 billion worth of assets, Irish and European bankers, developers, politicians, the Government of the day, the Department of Finance, the former Minister and the former Taoiseach, as well as the board of the Central Bank and the Economic and Social Research Institute. They are responsible for our current position, not the people in my constituency, in towns such as Carrick-on-Suir and Tipperary where there was no Celtic tiger. They suffered three, four or five times the average level of unemployment during that period. They live in RAPID areas and make up some of the 50,000 families on local authority housing lists and the thousands of first-time home buyers who have been forced into a position of negative equity, with large mortgages that they are unable to meet. All of the political parties bought into the process, as we will see if we examine each of the manifestos for the 2007 general election. Worst of all, no political party — either in the previous or current Government — is prepared to deal with those singularly involved in creating the crisis, the people who are still very rich and who still have significant amounts of money. None of the main political parties is prepared to tax the rich or make them pay an assets tax in order to obtain a fair share for society. There is an urgent need to do this.

Deputy Arthur Spring: As the debate is of such importance, I ask the Ceann Comhairle to extend the time allowed for discussion in order that we can hear statements from Members with an interest in the matter.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): The Order of Business was decided this morning.

Deputy Arthur Spring: I request that the debate be extended. We were told there would be speaking time.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): The Deputy can make that case in another forum.

Minister without Portfolio (Deputy Brendan Howlin): I thank all Deputies for their contributions which have been useful. I understand the frustration of some. I accept Deputy Arthur Spring’s point that we need detailed consideration of this matter and I hope that can happen within the committee system of the House. I hope the committees, once they are up and running, will have new powers to carry out the in-depth analysis for which Deputies were crying out during the course of the debate. The inquiry was started by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who is present in the Chamber and has led to the publication of three reports to date: the macro- level investigation into the causes of the crisis carried out by Messrs Regling and Watson; the investigation into the regulatory and financial and stability policy of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland between 2003 and 2008 carried out by the new Gov- ernor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan; and the report of the commission of investigation into the banking sector in Ireland carried out by Mr. Peter Nyberg. Deputies have asked why the commission did not name individuals. While this is a matter in the first instance for Mr. Nyberg, the commission states in its report that it could not assess the actions or inactions of single individuals in organisations and did not think it was appropriate or fair to do so. However, there is no doubt that the Members of this House can and should do this. The responsibility falls on us to do so in the fullness of time. I invite Deputies not to cry at the darkness but to ensure, when the committee system is up and running, that we will have the accountability the people demand. 687 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

Deputy Sean Fleming referred to the need for European supervision of the banking system. The new European bodies — the European Systemic Risk Board, ESRB, and three new Euro- pean supervisory authorities — are important for the future monitoring of financial stability and regulation of the European banking sector. The ESRB monitors and assesses risks to the stability of the financial system as a whole, providing early warning of systemic risks that may be building up and, where necessary, making recommendations for action to deal with these risks. Three new European supervisory authorities have been established for the banking, insurance and pensions, and securities sectors. These are all important in ensuring effective oversight. People will say this amounts to locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but we do need to learn from the disastrous mistakes that have had and will have consequences for the people of this country and to ensure these mistakes are never repeated. I would like to touch on the decision made to introduce the guarantee — probably the most disastrous decision made by any Government since the foundation of the State.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Nonsense.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: That is my view and I am entitled to it. Its introduction, the report states, was based on “very deficient information” and a lack of suspicion. The commission finds that crisis management in Ireland was rendered less than fully effective by insufficient appreciation of bank exposures on the part of all the relevant authorities and that decision- makers and their advisers during that fateful time in the autumn of 2008 maintained the view that the only relevant problem was the threat to the liquidity position of the banks. No major solvency issues were expected to arise and the guarantee would not be called upon — that was their misapprehension. The possibility that banks might experience disastrous losses in asset values did not appear even to have been considered. If accurate information on the banks’ exposures had been available, it seems to the commission that a more limited guarantee, combined with a State takeover of at least one bank, might have been seriously contemplated. We need to ensure that in the future the authorities will have access to up-to-date and comprehensive information and that it will be shared appropriately among the relevant authorities in order that they will not end up, as the previous Government clearly did, flying blind. I know the former Minister opposite has views about this. The decision was catastrophic for the State.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The current Government has given a bigger guarantee with full information.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy can shout us down if he likes.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I am not shouting the Minister down.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The decision made was catastrophic. We need to get behind the information the Government had available to it on that fateful night because it is the view of the commission in the report before the House that the decision was taken on the basis of inadequate information. The commission’s report notes that the authorities had developed, in line with EU requirements, a framework for information exchange, crisis management and contingency planning in a domestic standing group on financial stability. This provided a structure for ongoing co-operation between the Department, the Central Bank, the Financial Regu- lator and the NTMA. In the light of the commission’s findings on the evident information deficit, we will need to look closely at how the arrangements for information gathering and exchange can be improved. The structure of the domestic regulatory and banking system has 688 Commission of Inquiry into 20 April 2011. Banking Sector: Statements changed significantly in the years since the crisis hit. The Government will be presenting legislation later this year to further enhance our regulatory and supervisory regime. The issue of payments to senior bankers, particularly the payment to Mr. Colm Doherty of AIB, the details of which were published yesterday, was mentioned. As the Minister for Fin- ance, Deputy Michael Noonan, stated, we have many legacy issues to deal with. There was nothing, unfortunately, that the current Government could do about Mr. Doherty’s payment because when he stood down in November, he was given the remuneration to which he was legally entitled at the time. All of this occurred before we arrived in office. There may be other senior bankers who have legal entitlements to similar deals. The Department of Finance is examining the situation. In future we will be carefully examining any new remuneration arrangements, particularly bonuses. There are similar developments in Europe, with European directives on the remuneration of senior bankers, and the bonus culture is being addressed head on. We will be moving to establish a new regime to replace the old one. However, we live in a very litigious state and the Minister is conscious of the fact there are still people who have legal entitlements that may be difficult to disentangle. We will do our best to address the issue. Deputy Shane Ross raised concerns about public interest directors and boards in the covered institutions. As a result of recent events, the Government now has, or will have, a substantial stake or a full controlling interest in six credit institutions. We are determined that proper governance arrangements will apply and that the board of each institution will continue to be responsible for management and policy within the institutions. Deputies Brian Lenihan and Mary Lou McDonald raised the issue of auditors. As the Mini- ster stated, the report’s conclusions with regard to auditors are in general accord with the widespread view that auditors may be able to take on an enhanced role in co-operation with supervisory authorities, while maintaining their specific statutory functions. The Central Bank is already engaging with the audit profession to explore how it can assist the bank in exercising its supervisory role. The Minister will be keen to see progress and developments in this regard. Deputies Brian Lenihan, Pearse Doherty and Shane Ross raised questions about the role of the Department of Finance. As the Minister stated, the report contains important messages and conclusions for the Department. While it deals principally with banking matters, some of the messages will also be examined by me in my role as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The report, in conjunction with the Wright report, will inform the future direction of the Department. Deputies will recall that the recommendations set out in the Wright report cover a wide range of issues regarding organisational structures, skills within the Department, staffing and procedures. The exact reconfiguration of the banking division within the Depart- ment will be developed in the coming weeks. As I said, it is important that the Oireachtas has a role in considering the report. I am conscious that some Deputies who wanted to speak did not have an opportunity to do so. As Deputies will be aware, the Oireachtas has been involved in the stages of the process to date and there must be more to come. On behalf of the Government, I am anxious to ensure that today will not be the end of this. We must learn the lessons of the report and ensure proper accountability. We must use the institutions available to us and strengthen them, as the Govern- ment announced yesterday, by asking the people for greater authority for the committees of this House in holding public institutions and individuals to account. The report provides an expert, authoritative and structured examination of the crisis. It does not lay the finger of blame in the way some would have liked but identifies the causes of the crisis in the banking sector and the wider financial impact it has had on the economy. It enables us to understand the origins of the crisis and helps us to learn lessons which will inform our 689 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] future management of the banking sector. I hope we have embarked on a process that will ensure the catastrophic collapse in our oversight of the banking sector will never be repeated.

Private Members’ Business

Energy Resources: Motion (Resumed)

The following motion was moved by Deputy Martin Ferris on Tuesday, 19 April 2011: That Dáil Éireann: conscious of the declaration in the Democratic Programme that ‘the Nation’s sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the Nation, but to all its material possessions, the Nation’s soil and all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing processes within the Nation’; and in view of the vast untapped potential that exists off our shores in oil and gas reserves, estimated by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in 2006 to be ten billion barrels oil equivalent, which at current prices amounts to a potential value of around €700 billion; calls for: — a complete review of licensing and revenue terms and the immediate revoking of the consents given to the Corrib consortium and the licence for Lough Allen pending such a review; — the establishment of a State oil, gas and mineral exploration company that would hold a 51% majority share in all oil and gas finds and would have its own research facility in order to collect full and up to date information on reserves; — the imposition of a 50% tax on oil and gas profits; and — a 7.5% royalty; and that the revenues that would accrue from this would provide towards the resources for long term and sustainable growth in place of the current indenture to the EU and IMF because of the unsustainable bank debt.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2: To delete all words after Dáil Éireann and substitute the following: “recognises that the true potential of Ireland’s indigenous petroleum resources can only be established through effective exploration and calls on the Government to continue to take measures to attract an increased share of mobile international exploration investment to Ireland by: — maintaining fiscal licensing terms that appropriately reflect the risks and rewards of investing in petroleum exploration in the Irish offshore and onshore, relative to investing in exploration in other competing jurisdictions; and — offering appropriate licensing opportunities designed to attract new companies to Ireland, supported by an active promotion campaign underpinned by petroleum research projects; and further recognises that, having regard to the fact that only four commercial discoveries of petroleum have been made in the Irish offshore since the 1970s and to the significant costs involved in exploring for oil and gas in the deep waters of the Irish Atlantic Margin, 690 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

that the cost of such exploration should be borne at this time by industry and not by the taxpayer.” —(Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources). An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: There are two minutes apiece for Deputies Boyd Barrett, Collins, Flanagan, Murphy and O’Sullivan.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: Nuair a smaonaím ar cheist na Coiribe ceapaim go bhfuil sé do-chreidthe gur theip orainn ár n-acmhainní nadúrtha a choimead ar son muintir na hÉireann. The previous Government took a number of decisions in regard to Corrib gas that have been proven to be, according to one journalist, “at best incompetent and at worst downright reckless”. The rot began when that Government neglected to pay proper attention to regulating the exploration industry in the best interest of the country. Now the exploration companies can join the bankers and developers who contributed to the current state of the country. Everything seems to have been done by previous Ministers to ease Shell’s passage through Erris, with compulsory purchase of farmland and the ignoring of communities and areas of conservation and the fact that the gas pipeline was close to a village. All this went to a multinational company with massive profits and a poor record in human rights and looking after the environment. Governments throughout the world will ensure that any deals negotiated with gas and oil companies will bring a fair share of the revenue to their countries. At this point, however, instead of bringing revenue to our country it is costing us money, with an enormous bill for Garda overtime. It must also be asked if burning yet more fossil fuels is justified when we consider global warming and global justice and the effects on the fishing and tourism industries in the area. Another natural resource is forests. It seems Coillte may also join that elite group which have mismanaged millions of euro in grants and payments and are now in debt. There is merit in both the original motion and the amendment, which takes on issues in the motion. This issue is not about the upcoming vote but about maintaining our natural resources, both those current and those to date untapped, for our country rather than to swell the profits of multinational companies. Let us be guided by principles of justice and ethics when we look at the resources in oil, gas and minerals and in consequence do what is in the best interest of this country.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: The Shell to Sea campaign has done this country a service in that it drew attention to the great resource giveaway. The Atlantic margin off the west coast contains 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent, amounting to €800 billion at 2011 prices. Although very considerable sums have been expended in finding and extracting that gas the fact that we get little or no return on it is a complete scandal. We have not only given away this resource, which is increasing in value all the time, but have given away security of supply. In addition, we will not get much needed onshore jobs and in return will have to pay the full international market price to reimport the product. International studies seem to show Ireland is at the bottom of the league in terms of state share of revenue in contrast with most countries which retain either some of the revenue or, at very least, some control. A disgraceful decision was made on the day the last Government fell, whereby a licence to explore onshore gas in the Lough Allen basin was granted although an estimate of a potential €94 billion of gas could be extracted there. That is not a deep-sea area and the gas would be cheaper to extract. 691 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Catherine Murphy.]

At a time when we are counting our pennies in terms of the public services — the Minister will know all about the penny-pinching that has to go on — we are giving this away, directly. It is an absolute disgrace. At the very least those contracts need to be revisited and altered in order that there is a return for the people of this country.

Deputy Joan Collins: I support this motion and oppose both the Fianna Fáil and the Govern- ment’s amendments. Fianna Fáil must make up its mind on this issue. A type of split personality syndrome is developing among the party’s Deputies. Are they in favour of taking back what Fianna Fáil Ministers disgracefully gave away? One of them, Ray Burke, was subsequently found to be corrupt. This amendment is nothing more than a kicking to touch. Regarding the Government amendment, do the Labour Party Deputies on the opposite side have any bottom line? Is there any depth below which they are not prepared to go, or is being in Government the only policy or principle left to them? The key issue is the establishment of a State oil, gas and mineral exploration company as the best way to ensure the estimated €800 billion worth of oil and gas, onshore and offshore, is developed in the interests of the people. It is the best way to ensure there is maximum financial benefit to the State, that jobs, infrastructure and expertise are developed in Ireland, there is security of supply, and the oil and gas are supplied to industry and homes in this country at reasonable prices. The maintenance of the status quo does none of these things. It gives a measly financial return to the State. There are no guarantees of jobs or security of supply and oil and gas will be sold at home at international prices. We will gain nothing. The licensing system can be changed. This is an international trend as in, for example, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Norway etc. There is a choice for the Government. This is an even bigger giveaway than the bank bailout. It is not only economic treason but treason of the highest order.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Most of the points have been made. It is extraordinary that the Labour Party would not wish to do something urgently about this unbelievable giveaway of natural resources. In responses I have heard so far from the Government, it seems to be hiding behind lame excuses, claiming the finds of billions of euro of gas and oil equivalent off the west coast are not proven and consequently this justifies the extraordinary licensing arrangements whereby those who will develop——

Deputy Tom Hayes: How does the Deputy leave it?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: ——our gas and oil fields will give no royalties to the Irish people. We will have no security of supply for any gas or oil that may be found off the west coast and even in regard to the taxes which are in place the companies will get tax write-offs and effectively will pay no tax whatsoever. One could not get a better definition of a giveaway. We are discussing a resource estimated to have a possible value of up to €800 billion or €900 billion at current oil and gas prices. It is extraordinary. Why do we have a licensing arrangement? Why do we continue to stand over such arrangements? When these companies find gas and oil we hand ownership over to them instead of having our own State gas and oil company which would retain ownership. Of course, we may need to have production sharing agreements or other arrangements with foreign gas and oil companies when we need their expertise but the notion of handing it all over to them is just extraordinary. The people of Rossport and Erris have suffered the consequences of Shell controlling the whole process. 692 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

I appeal to the Government, for God’s sake, to do something about this unbelievable giveaway of our natural resources.

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: We seem to have a major problem with breaking contracts with big multinational firms but if one is a student nurse with a promise to be paid in one’s fourth year there does not seem to be any problem about breaking such a promise. I noticed on the Department’s website in advance of the election a description stating we had one of the most attractive giveaways in the world. For many finds the State will make no more than 25% of corporation tax charged on profits after allowances are made. Any two-bit accountant would be able to move the money around in such a way a company need never have to pay on any profits. For very large finds the percentage goes up to only 40% which compares very unfavourably with other parts of the planet. One need not be necessarily left wing or right wing. It seems we got a bad deal full stop, no matter what way one looks at it. According to a report prepared by the former Minister of State, Conor Lenihan, in North America the minimum government stake is 42% and may rise to 60%, South American governments get between 25% and 90%, and the take in sub-Saharan Africa ranges from 44% to 85%. For some reason, we seem to settle for less, as usual. Favourable licensing terms have been defended in the past on the basis that we still need to prove the potential of Irish waters to yields of sizeable oil and gas finds. That may have been a valid argument before but what is the point in changing the rules after everything is given away? It appears to me we will get nothing out of this and I cannot understand why other countries have managed to get something out of it but not us. Then again, all one need do is look back at the name of Ray Burke to see who is connected to this. One need not be a genius or expert on political history in this country to see that much. I would not have him sell my car and expect to get the full value back.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: I am not unsympathetic to much of what is contained in the Sinn Féin motion but I welcome the Government amendment which takes on board the issues raised by Sinn Féin. The amendment recognises the need to maximise the value of any natural resources to the Irish people. It establishes that there will be an in-depth examination of the issue of how to maximise the gain for the State from exploration and future finds. This is set out in the amendment and it provides a specific time for when the committee would report, within six months of referral of the matter in question to it. The proposed committee would examine best practice worldwide and would be given the resources to invite world experts in the field to appear before it. All the people who have expressed a view could contribute to the work of the committee. I believe this is the correct approach. The Sinn Féin motion refers to a 51% stake for the State. However, a study of the issue suggested a stake as little as 10%. For example, if this was applied to the Corrib gas fields, it could have given the State €1 billion. We must examine these matters and make a decision on the best approach. The Government amendment embraces the potential for different points of view, including that of Sinn Féin, to be examined, considered and taken on board. The issue of the stake the State receives from natural resource finds should be examined. A former Labour Party Minister, Justin Keating, introduced the 50% stake on royalties and that issue should be re-examined. I do not accept the argument put forward to the effect that the arrangement is too expensive for the present regime. The companies which tend to carry out exploration take the risk. Shell is an obvious example. It takes the risk and a stake only kicks in once there is a find. I see no logic in the argument nor do I accept that because a business takes a risk, it should not have 693 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Joanna Tuffy.] to pay tax on the profits it makes. I agree with the idea of a stake. The issues of geothermal and wind energy must be considered, as must the issue of proper planning and public participation.

Deputy Noel Harrington: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. I live on the south-west coast and I have had the pleasure of fishing in the north-eastern Atlantic once or twice. Any time I go outside the door of my house I cannot smell oil or gas, I smell only salt. There is no resource there at the moment. It is an exploration effort.

A Deputy: What?

Deputy Tom Hayes: It is just like the Deputy.

Deputy Noel Harrington: Oil companies drill for oil.

Deputy Tom Hayes: The Deputy cannot smell it where she is living either.

Deputy Joan Collins: Is that the Dáil bar or someplace?

Deputy Noel Harrington: They have been drilling for oil since 1891 and they are the companies that do it best. However, it is a good debate. There is no question about having a good debate on this matter. In any other country where there is potential for oil finds or oil fields, it is invariably followed by civil strife, war or invasion. We are holding a debate in the House which must be welcomed. There is a bigger picture. Neither oil nor other resources have been found although there has been a strong effort to locate them. There are difficulties in drilling in the north-eastern Atlantic and in Irish territorial waters. The further out one goes, the average depth of the Atlantic becomes a little under 3,500 m. The deepest well in the globe at the moment is pumping at 2,500 m. A technological problem arises aside from the location of resources by a desktop study. Let us consider the matter from a global point of view. We have heard debates on the possible life remaining for the fossil fuel industry. I am unsure but some say up to 25 years and others up to 50 years. However, if it comes to pass in 50 years that we no longer depend on oil or gas as our global fuel, then it does not matter what is down there. It could be turf but there would be no point to it. I predict alternative technologies under development at the moment will drive the energy needs of the globe. There is a white line which must be reached between the investment, reaping the reward, providing for a fuel efficient economy and inviting the experts to discuss exploring and investing in finding natural resources. Another debate arises which is more parochial and which relates to coastal communities. It is probably less romantic than the ideal of capturing billions from black gold. I am pleased there are Deputies from coastal areas present. Coastal communities could benefit from exploration efforts.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Who will own it? That is the question. Who will own wind energy, wave energy and tidal energy?

Deputy Noel Harrington: We should benefit in the immediate term from the oil exploration effort but this is not happening. If we were to have some investment in our coastal communities to service the industry it could and should be welcomed. It is more parochial and is not as romantic as drawing out billions from black gold but we simply do not have it. I do not see the Americans seeking to invade us because we have wells of oil. 694 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: They are running the place already.

Deputy Noel Harrington: I do not see the tankers coming from Whiddy Island or the Conoco- Phillips project in Bantry Bay. Financially, they are practically on their knees at the moment. There is a reality here. Sometimes it is easy to look at the downsides of this industry, of which there are many. However, one must come back to reality at times and suggest the need to promote an industry and the exploration effort. Sometimes, God knows, one may need to support an industry that is best able and equipped and that has had the expertise since 1891 to find oil. They have not found it yet and I do not believe anyone in the Chamber can claim to have the expertise to overrule that view despite all the desktop studies which have been carried out. This is the crux of the matter. It is good to have the debate because in other places they have wars. We hope we can find it and benefit as best we can.

Deputy Michael McCarthy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this evening’s motion, particularly given the role of south-west Cork in previous years in proving to be a successful base for commercial gas discoveries in this country. In over 40 years drilling in Ireland, there have only been four commercial discoveries in total. Three out of these four discoveries were in the gas fields off Kinsale. This had the net effect of creating jobs for people and improving the local economy. I welcome the fact Sinn Féin is moving this motion because it is important we have a robust and pragmatic debate on the future of oil and gas exploration in Ireland. There is a need to increase the level of exploration activity and to deepen our knowledge of the petroleum potential of the Irish offshore. There is, however, also a need to be honest with people and suggestions by Sinn Féin that there are vast reserves of oil and gas potentially worth €700 billion, which Sinn Féin claims as justification for the imposition of a 50% on oil and gas profits, are completely at variance with reality. Sinn Féin should no longer be allowed to propagate this myth. The party’s arguments are unrealistic and misleading, and ignore some basic but important facts, including the reality that the petroleum potential of the Irish offshore is largely unproven. Reports that Ireland has a reserve potential of 10 billion barrels of oil relate to potential reserves only. The truth of the matter is that Ireland’s proven reserves are only a fraction of 1 billion barrels. The actual reserves will not be known without a dramatic increase in the level of exploration drilling. The cost of exploring offshore Ireland is prohibitive due to the remoteness and water depth of our jurisdiction. To drill a single deep water well in the Atlantic can cost more than €100 million. We have limited infrastructure in terms of pipelines, termini and platforms that further push up the cost of development, which in turn adversely affects the commercial viability of small and marginal gas and oil discoveries. There have been only four commercial discoveries in 40 years of drilling in this country. This compares with 300 commercial discoveries in Britain, primarily in the North Sea. Sinn Féin’s tendency to pitch our circumstances against those in Britain or Norway is as insincere an approach as is possible. It is completely out of sync with the facts of the situation. Last night, in an eloquent rebuttal of the motion, the Minister for Energy and Communi- cations put forward clear and convincing explanations for the rationale underpinning Ireland’s tax terms for oil and gas production. By contrast, it was disconcerting to see Deputies from Sinn Féin constantly referring to countries like Norway and Britain having a higher petroleum tax rate than Ireland. There comparisons are wholly inappropriate and do not stand up in terms of comparing like with like. 695 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Martin Ferris: That is what the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, was saying two years ago.

Deputy Michael McCarthy: Sinn Féin argues that a high rate of tax has not stopped Norway and Britain from being successful petroleum producers. This is not a reasonable or logical line of argument. The fact that Norway and Britain are successful petroleum producers allows them to charge a high rate. Other Deputies also suggested Ireland could draw on the experiences of countries like Russia and Venezuela. If anything, drawing comparisons between Ireland and Russia or Venezuela is even more inappropriate. Russia has the world’s largest reserves of natural gas, while Vene- zuela has over 200 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Like everyone else in this House, I am committed to the notion of generating revenue where possible and putting a stop on public expenditure in terms of getting value for money. If we pursue the logic of Sinn Féin not alone in its ridiculous approach to our involvement in the European Union but also in the leprechaun style of motions like this, we do nothing but raise the hopes of people in very difficult circumstances. All that is missing from this motion are black shoes, golden buckles and green hats. It is laughable.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Labour Party has become the supporter of the multinationals.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. The primary reason for it is the Corrib gas debacle, which has been handled in a way that no one would see as an example for the development of natural resources. It is like the tourist in the middle of the bog in the midlands asking for directions to the Wicklow mountains and the local saying he would not start from there. We would not start from here if we were trying to optimise the value of our natural resources. The problem is that we have been told we have 10 billion barrels of oil reserves, an accurate estimate but 93% of Irish territory is underwater, with most of that in the Porcupine Bank and Seabight on the north-west seaboard. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Deputy Ferris sat with me on the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, where we proposed an agreed Bill on foreshore licensing to allow for the development of offshore wind and wave energy. The template involved the Marine Institute, the exploration and mining section of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to do the research. To develop a company to do this is like asking Ireland to develop a car manufacturing company that can fine-tune electric vehicles, when there are already experts abroad and we get vehicle registration tax. Why would we do it? It amazes me that the Government is challenged to ensure we protect our 12.5% corporation tax rate, which is an incentive to attract investment, while we have a 25% regime on profits from these natural resources. This must be changed we are saying it is not high enough — but Sinn Féin cannot have its cake and eat it. We must get wells drilled and explore so we find the hot-spots that are then attractive to people so they come to us to ask for permission to drill wells.

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: There is nothing left to give away.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: One bad example does not mean we cannot amend it. We have a 25% tax regime on profits. If we do not license extra wells and find the bloody stuff, we will never create an industry. Deputy Flanagan does not know where they are, no more than I do. 696 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: Inappropriate use of language. I was pulled up for the same thing.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: We have a general idea the resources are located in the 93% of our territory but we do not know where they are.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Deputy Doyle is accepting what the company tells him.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: The idea of a company is to take on all the risk. I accept that we give the task to our Marine Institute and that the oil exploration division of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources be given extra resources to assist but not to do the drilling at €100 million a pop, with a 10% hit rate.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Where is that figure coming from?

Deputy Andrew Doyle: That is what it costs.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Those figures are coming from the companies. Whose figures are they? Where do the geology reports come from?

Deputy Andrew Doyle: Does Deputy Ferris dispute that? I come in here to make reasonable points. We want to find and develop our natural resources. We will not achieve that by having an adversarial debate here. The Government amendment recognises the need to evolve the whole tariff and tax regime. Both Britain and Norway have abolished royalties, they have tax regimes. As we find oil and gas and develop an industry, people will come to us looking for a piece of the action and we will then be able to charge higher tax rates; it is recommended they increase from 25% to 40% . We can do this but the manner proposed by Sinn Féin will not achieve it, it will turn people away. If we even had €1 billion left where we could dig 20 wells at €50 million each with the chance of finding one oil field, I would not recommend it. However, we do not have that money.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The banks have it.

Deputy Tom Hayes: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important and emotive issue.

Deputy Martin Ferris: There is a lot of oil in Tipperary.

Deputy Tom Hayes: It is vital that we should debate this matter at a time when so many people are unemployed and when the phrase on everyone’s lips is “jobs, jobs, jobs”. There are over 400,000 individuals who cannot obtain employment but who would give almost anything to get a job. These people have begun looking in different directions, and particularly towards our natural resources, in order to see if there is any hope for our country. There is always tension with regard to the risks and rewards which mark all aspects of the energy business and the exploration and development sectors generally. Retrospective changes in the terms of licences would send a negative message to our foreign direct investment partners and, specifically, to the high-investment exploration business which relies on highly skilled employees. At a time of such unemployment, the taxing of this sector out of existence could hardly be considered a wise move. While the Government is seeking to open the door to development and exploration and is declaring the country open for business, the motion tabled by Sinn Féin clearly intends to slam the door shut. Everybody agrees that the regulatory process in Ireland is cumbersome. That fact is recognised in the programme for Government. It is the aim of this Administration to streamline the 697 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Tom Hayes.] system. That aim was welcomed by Engineers Ireland at its recent conference. It will be discussed further at the forthcoming Energy Ireland conference. We will all benefit from exploration relating to and development of our natural resources, be they mineral deposits, hydrocarbon reserves, wind or wave energy. In view of the high investment potential for the economy, such exploration and development must be encouraged. Killybegs has shown that the industries to which I refer can coexist in harmony with indigenous industries such as fishing. To progress the development and in order to understand the reality of the reserves, investment is necessary to obtain new and additional data from seismic and drilling results. I fully support the efforts of the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and I welcome the 2011 offshore licensing round as a positive step in attracting the necessary investment. The licensing round must be endorsed because the investment to which I refer provides badly needed jobs. In addition, it will assist us in more accurately determining the extent of our hydrocarbon reserves. The figures relating to untapped potential have not been established as fact. The oil in question has yet to be found. There is no guarantee with regard to the billions of euro to which the motion refers. There must, therefore, be investment in the exploration sector. Until the oil is discovered, it is not an asset because 100% of nothing is nothing. This is a fact of which other sectors of the economy are all too well aware. Gas is universally recognised as a bridge to a fully renewable energy economy. It is a transition fuel to the green energy future. The motion tabled by Sinn Féin is incredible in that it seeks to retard our economic and energy progress through future taxation and through the intention to kill off any future investment in discovering our natural resources.

Deputy Martin Ferris: We want to take ownership of our own resources.

Deputy Tom Hayes: Let us bring ashore what has been discovered and then go and discover more in order that we might create jobs for the 450,000 people who are out of work and the 200,000 who have left our shores for America and Australia.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Why did they leave?

Deputy Tom Hayes: We all have good jobs but the people to whom I refer——

Deputy Martin Ferris: They did so because they could not obtain employment in this capital- ist economy that those in government are trying to operate.

Deputy Tom Hayes: Each week the members of the new Opposition engage in rhetoric rather than discussing jobs. They have not devoted any time to informing us how jobs will be created.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: What is the Government doing about jobs?

(Interruptions).

Deputy Tom Hayes: They have tabled a motion which would stop the young people of Ireland from obtaining employment. As the father of three unemployed people, I wish to state that those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. It is time they identified the areas in which jobs will be created.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: They will be created through public works programmes. 698 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: It was that lot who occupy some of the seats which the Deputy’s party used to occupy on this side of the House who lost all the jobs. Deputy Tom Hayes should not blame us for what they did.

Deputy Tom Hayes: Okay. I accept that.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important issue. It is vital that this country should utilise its mineral resources to the best possible advantage of the economy. The quicker we do this the better. Unfortunately, the only thing we appear to do with any speed is allow matters to move inexorably in a downward direction. Having previously served as a member of the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, I understand why the motion was tabled. Other speakers referred to the emotive nature of the motion. Some of the information that is available in the public arena in respect of the potential that exists with regard to gas, oil and other minerals is not accurate. In fact, it is vastly exaggerated. Proof of this is the fact that exploration efforts to date have shown only limited results. The comparison with other countries such as, for example, Norway is not well made at all. The fact is that located close to Norway’s shores are reserves that are something of the order of seven times the known reserves of gas off our shores. We are not, therefore, comparing like with like. As far as I am aware, the success rate for wells drilled off our coastline is one in 34 or one in 37. The success rate in some other locations is one in seven. There is a vast difference. The issue which arises is whether this country has the resources to engage in oil or gas exploration. In other words, is it in a position to purchase the drilling rigs and equipment that would be required? I accept that one of the Members opposite has experience in this area. That experience may be excellent but I assure those who tabled the motion that the information it contains is not accurate. There are plenty of studies which underline that point. Let us consider the options.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Department provided the information to which the Deputy refers.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The Deputy has had his say. The position is that it is in the interests of the nation to maximise the economic benefit of whatever resources are at its disposal. It is also in the nation’s interest to bring those resources to shore by whatever means possible and as quickly as possible. There appears to be a reluctance in certain quarters to do this but that is a matter for another occasion. It is important to recognise that if the Government wanted to invest in the drilling equipment required, then it would be obliged to have some answers for the people if it did not produce the desired results. It is as simple as that. At a time when the country is broke, there is no point in telling the people that a well was unsuccessful or that a find was not commercially viable. If we had resources to squander on exploration, then by all means we would proceed. How should we move forward? The Government is taking the correct approach.

Deputy Martin Ferris: That is the Fianna Fáil way.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The Deputy already had his say.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Government has adopted the Fianna Fáil approach.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The case will be made to the effect that there are huge resources available and that we should turn on the tap for the benefit of the people. I will provide a 699 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Bernard J. Durkan.] comparison. We have plenty of water in this country but we still cannot provide water in the way that would be envisaged by some Members to the vast majority of people.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: And the Government wants to charge people for it.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: We are not obliged to drill for water because it is easily found. In fact, it falls on our heads with monotonous regularity and is impossible to miss.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: The Government wants to charge for it.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: However, there is still not a proper system for delivering water to all citizens. If the case that has been made was accurate, then surely we would have begun producing and selling water to the rest of the world a long time ago.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: The Government wants to sell it to the people.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: It is in our interests to do what is right and what is best for the people. We should not mislead them and provide them with inaccurate information. My final point also involves Norway and the Troll gas field which is located off its coast. That field is approximately 50 times the size of the Corrib gas field. We talk about investment in drilling and oil exploration. We should have it. Is it wise for the nation to take responsibility for it at this time? Following the 2007 licensing arrangement, it is not true that it is free. It may be that our resources were given away readily in the past. However, from the 1970s a rigid regime was in place that did not produce anything, because the risk was too great. Should the private sector or the public sector take the risk? Should the taxpayers take the risk in this case? I say, no.

Deputy Brian Stanley: With the permission of the House, I will share time with Deputies Sandra McLellan, Michael Colreavy, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and Seán Crowe. I have listened to the bluster about jobs and the economy. Nearly two years ago, Sinn Féin put forward job creation proposals. We are willing to discuss them with Members on the other side of the House. It is unfortunate that only one representative of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, remains in the Chamber. Labour Party Deputies have spoken like propagandists for Shell, instead of members of a political party that represents ordinary working people. I wish to address some of the environmental concerns regarding the siting of the refinery at Bellanaboy. An Taisce has argued against the siting of the refinery at Bellanaboy because it locates a gas processing terminal within the catchment of a major water supply. It is very unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Agency inspector who carried out the investigation into this judged the Bellanaboy site acceptable, based on comparison with the St. Fergus terminal in Scotland. There are two key differences between the two sites. St. Fergus is less than 500 metres from the landing point adjacent to the coastline, whereas the Bellanaboy site is miles inland. Second, St. Fergus poses no threat to drinking water because it is not located in a place where it could pollute public drinking water. An e-mail from the Scottish EPA to An Taisce reads: “When consulted on the location of major industrial facilities, Scottish EPA would normally recommend against placing such facilities at locations which could affect public drinking water sources.” Yet, as An Taisce points out, the Bellanaboy refinery is too close to the Carrowmore lake, which provides drinking water for more than 10,000 people. During the process of constructing the site in 2006 and 2007 Mayo County Council’s monitoring system discovered substantial increases in the amount of aluminium in the Carrowmore 700 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed) drinking supply, often substantially in excess of the World Health Organisation’s recommended maximum level of 200 micrograms per litre. Even after Shell installed treatment equipment designed to deal with the problem, results dated 31 January 2007 showed aluminium levels at more than 200 times the maximum limit. This is unacceptable. There is another reason to revisit this deal with Shell. Shell is a major polluter. Global warming is accepted by everyone in this House as a major threat to us all. One of the sources of global warming is increasingly being recognised as gas flaring, the practice where surplus combustible vapours are burned off from a well. It is the most significant source of air emissions from oil and gas installations. In 2009 The World Bank estimated that around 150 billion cubic metres of natural gas is flared every year, the equivalent of 30% of the gas consumption of the entire European Union. Gas flaring has caused more greenhouse gas emissions than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa combined, thereby worsening climate change, which has damaging consequences for us all. Nigeria, and in particular Shell’s operations in Nigeria, are one of the worst offenders. This will continue until governments around the world, but especially those in the global north, put pressure on the big oil and gas firms. We need oil and gas, and we need to deal with exploration companies to get it if we have not established our own State company, as Sinn Féin have called for. Why must we reward the big polluters? Why do we have to work with corporations whose brand name is a byword for environmental destruction and unethical practices? Why can we not, both in Corrib and in any future licensing system, say to certain companies that we will not work with them until they clean up their act, not just here in Ireland, but in the global south as well? Shell argues that the EPA, which is the competent authority in terms of integrated pollution prevention control licensing in Ireland, has confirmed that emissions from the Corrib gas terminal “will not adversely affect human health or the environment and will meet all relevant national and EU standards, when operated in accordance with the conditions of the proposed licence”. That is the key point. They are safe “when operated in accordance with the conditions of the proposed licence”. As has been shown in the Mayo Courts, Shell has a habit of not acting in accordance with planning permission, building where it has no right to build and attempting to annex land. What gives us reason to believe it will act in accordance with the conditions of the proposed licence? Where exactly does Shell get off giving us a car salesman smile and saying “trust me”? In Shell, we are dealing with a group of people whose approach to the environment has been to commission glossy advertising and hire PR firms around the world in the hope people will either not notice what they are doing elsewhere or will simply ignore it. There may be a new Government, but Shell is still calling the shots in Mayo, given what we are hearing today. On this basis, I urge Members to vote in favour of our motion.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: Following on from my colleague, Deputy Brian Stanley, I would also like to raise some environmental concerns regarding the pipe Shell is building. The current plan from Shell sees a pipeline going up the Sruwaddacon through Broadhaven Bay. In late 2007 Shell consultants rejected this route, arguing that the estuarine and inter-tidal approaches were habitats within the meaning of the EU Habitats Directive and the bay was an integral part of the Glenamoy river salmon fishery. It is a special area of conservation and a special protection area. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government defines a special area of conservation as one of the “prime wildlife conservation areas in the country, considered to be important on a European as well as Irish level”. As a special protection area, the Department describes it as “one of the most important wetland complexes in the west, 701 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Sandra McLellan.] supporting an excellent diversity of wintering winter-fowl species”. It is of note that seven of the species that occur regularly are listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and are supposed to be the subject of special conservation measures. This is where Shell wants to put a pipeline. In March, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, granted a foreshore license to Shell. This allows the developer to construct the final 8 km section of pipeline linking the gas field to the terminal built inland at Bellanaboy. An Taisce criticised the decision as it has legal proceedings with An Bord Pleanála on the decision to put the pipeline through a special area of conservation and felt the Minister should have waited until legal proceedings were finished. The Irish Times observed:

Former Minister for the Environment John Gormley had earlier pointed out he did not anticipate a foreshore licence recommendation for some time, due to the volume of up to 700 foreshore applications before his Department. However, last week, the Department of the Environment told The Irish Times that a decision on the Shell EP Ireland application, lodged in June 2010, would be made “as soon as possible”. It denied yesterday there had been any “fast-tracking”.

As my colleague Deputy Brian Stanley said earlier, there may be a new Government, but it’s still Shell calling the shots in Mayo. In many countries, oil and gas reserves are not used to the benefit of the people. Energy multinationals operate as if they are above the law. In Rossport, Shell operates on this basis and the State actively facilitates it in doing so. However, there is no reason Ireland cannot take a different approach to the benefit of everyone equally. If the Government did what we suggest, took ownership of our natural resources and set our terms of engagement with the oil companies rather than dancing to their tune, there would be an opportunity to transform Irish society. If Norway can find oil and ensure it remains a more egalitarian welfare state, there is no reason Ireland cannot. For five years, Hugo Chávez delivered free heating oil to low income Americans when prices were sky-rocketing. Chávez kept donating fuel to poor Americans even when his oil revenues were decreasing. It is a pity that Fine Gael does not look to Latin America for some inspiration when it comes to our own natural resources. The Government should look to other more progressive countries where control of oil and gas activities has been harnessed for the good of people rather than for multinationals. There must be a national dialogue about how to use our wealth of natural resources to our collective benefit. There has been much talk with little reason from the people who oppose the Sinn Féin motion. A total of €420 billion worth of oil and gas has been discovered under Irish waters over the past 15 years but the Irish people have not seen much of it. What we are seeing is more recession, more cutbacks, more poverty, more inequality and more profit-making by multinationals. I will end my contribution to the debate with a quote from James Fintan Lalor which, although it must be at least 200 years old, is still appropriate. “The principle I state, and mean to stand on this, that the ownership of Ireland, moral and material, up to the sun and down to the centre is vested in the people of Ireland.” This includes the rights of the Irish people to our natural resources and is as true now as it was when it was first said.

702 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Michael Colreavy: I had a speech prepared for this debate but I will ignore it, having listened to what has passed for debate on this topic earlier. I will address some of the issues that arose during the so-called debate. I always seek to try to find areas in which agreement can be found and everyone will agree that this nation, our people, our economy and our dignity, demands that all negotiations regarding natural resources and exploration and extraction, should be professional, open, transparent and accountable. Also we would all agree that all exploration and extraction must be done using only proven safe technology and must be done in consultation with and with the informed consent of the majority of the people living in the areas where the exploration or extraction is being carried on. I think also that we would all agree that there must be a fair economic return to this State from the profits of whatever oil or gas or whatever, is extracted and that all estimates and claims of amounts extracted and potential amounts to be extracted, must be verified by qualified scientific and technical staff working on behalf of the State and not on behalf of the exploring or the extracting companies. I believe that only then will we have fairness and equity and transparency in the area of natural resources usage in this country. I am saddened when I read the Government’s proposed amendment to the motion, the last paragraph of which states:

“That Dáil Éireann...further recognises that, having regard to the fact that only four commercial discoveries of petroleum have been made in the Irish offshore since the 1970s and to the significant costs involved in exploring for oil and gas in the deep waters of the Irish Atlantic Margin, the cost of such exploration should be borne at this time by industry and not by the Irish taxpayer.”

If this is the best opening position for a debate that this Government is using with the EU and the IMF, then good God, it is no wonder we are in the position we are in today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has two minutes remaining.

Deputy Michael Colreavy: What more can I say about it? Fine Gael and Labour are singing from the same hymn sheet and in fact, it is probably the same script. It is as if by repeating a mantra often enough people will believe it, particularly Labour people. I thought that Deputy Michael McCarthy’s contribution was, frankly, a little ill-mannered but it shows that the Labour Party is having difficulty with its about-turn on the policies and principles on this and other matters. Sinn Féin will probably lose what will be a vote on our motion later this evening but I can guarantee that we are not going away and we will contribute forcefully but fairly in an Oireachtas committee which undoubtedly will be set up and must be set up to fix this patently broken and flawed policy. We will not give up and we will not sell out.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: I too have a speech drawn up but I will move away from it. I was sitting in my office listening to the debate — as do all Deputies — to keep in touch with the debate before the time for my contribution. A Labour Party Deputy referred to this motion as a leprechaun motion. He spoke about black shoes and golden buckles and so on. He reminded me of Bertie Ahern when he was in my county of Donegal when he was challenged on the wisdom of the economic crisis and he referred to suicide. Now, Bertie Ahern is rightly damned. My warning to Government Deputies, in their arrogance and with their huge majority, is to very careful about statements like that at this time as they could come to bite them on the backside at some stage in the future. I will e-mail a copy of this report from the Centre for Public Inquiry entitled, The Great Corrib Gas Controversy, to all Labour and Fine Gael Deputies. I challenge them to read it. It 703 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.] is a damning indictment of Government policy over the years. It is a very comprehensive report. The Centre for Public Inquiry was taken out by the political establishment, working with the media establishment, in order to block it from getting under the skin of what we all now know led to this economic catastrophe. There are very serious lessons for Labour Party Deputies in particular who would share many of our values. They should not come into the House to refer to a leprechaun motion. It is clear that the Government moved away from what were shaping up to be very good policies in the 1970s to set up a State oil and gas company to implement the promise of the 1916 Proclamation and the words of James Fintan Lalor and to start to do something right by the people. At one stage, the Norwegian Government was going to assist in that process. Somehow we moved from that approach in the 1970s through to Ray Burke’s giveaway, his selling out show, to Bertie Ahern’s continuation of that policy. This was the agenda to the point that compulsory purchase orders were given in the interests of private companies. Compulsory purchase orders are meant to be used in the public interest, where private land is subservient to the public interest. Here was a compulsory purchase order introduced in the interests of private companies in order to make a profit in this 8o’clock country. We then wonder how we ended up in this economic mess with that type of culture. This was the prevailing culture. I do not need to remind the Deputies in this House of Ray Burke as he sat on the other side of the Chamber and gave all the assurances and how his political legacy now reads. This is the man who stood over the transition from the possibility of a State company to a wholesale selling of our resources. It ended with five, decent, honourable, salt of the earth men being locked up in jail for standing up for their rights. They were vindicated eventually by An Bord Pleanála. This is not leprechaun politics; this is a Sinn Féin party with an enhanced strength standing up for the interests of the communities we represent. I was privileged to go down to west Mayo. I was ashamed to see private security officers and gardaí facilitating the destruction of a beach to allow a pipeline to be laid by a private company. Some of those security personnel have had interesting journeys in their lives since then. That is what we have. It is a shame and a scandal. It is part of the culture that led us to economic catastrophe. It was remarkable to hear the new Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, speaking last night. With the arrogance of his Govern- ment’s big majority, he said it would be wrong to change retrospectively the tax arrangements that are in place for Shell. He asked what message it would send to international investors. If that is the approach of those trying to negotiate a better deal with the EU and the IMF — God help Ireland if it is — what chance do we have?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I regret that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, has had to leave the Chamber. He was here earlier. The Minister made an interesting accusation in his speech about Deputy Ferris. He said “the Deputy was 30 years behind me then [in 1975] and he is 30 years behind me now”, which opens up an interesting debate about the political paths that have been travelled by people in this Chamber across the political spectrum. I suspect that time does not permit me to pursue that further. It is likely the Minister will be relieved to hear that. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, might like to reflect on how far behind him he considers his party president, the much respected former Deputy, Michael D. Higgins, to be. Mr. Higgins has said that the decision of the then Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Pat Carey, to sign key consents for the last section of the Corrib gas pipeline on the day of this year’s general election was “very wrong”. He continued:

This is not a decision that one would regard as clearing one’s desk as Minister, as it has very serious implications. This project has been dogged by decisions taken which were not before the public gaze, and this will just add to the lack of accountability. It is very unhelpful. 704 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

In his response to our motion, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, did not reflect the points that had been made by Mr. Higgins. The Minister seems to think he is way ahead of all of us, including his party’s prospective presidential candidate. In this regard, as in so many others, there has been a smooth handover and a remarkably trouble-free transition in policy terms from Fianna Fáil and the Green Party to Fine Gael and the Labour Party. The current Government is singing from the same hymn sheet as the previous one with regard to Corrib and our natural resources. It cannot be disputed that the Govern- ment’s amendment to the Sinn Féin motion before the House could just as easily have been written from the pen of the last Government. During the debate on the banking disaster report, Deputy Doherty reminded the House that during the 2002-2007 Dáil, Sinn Féin warned about the property bubble, the tax cuts for the wealthy and the failure to build the economy on solid foundations. We also warned about the giveaway of our natural resources. During the 1997-2002 Dáil, when I was a lonely voice as the only Sinn Féin Deputy, I was among the few to raise the issue of the Corrib gas field as a prime example of the giveaway or robbery of the resources of the people. When I spoke during a debate on western development in 2001, I said that the giveaway of our natural resources from the Corrib field “could emerge as one of the greatest scandals”, which is exactly what has happened. I continued:

I refer to the sweetheart deal enjoyed by the consortium currently exploiting the massive Corrib gas field off the coast of County Mayo. This gas field is a hugely valuable national resource but it has been virtually handed over to a private company. The deal ... was done in 1992 and the Minister responsible was [none other than] former Deputy Ray Burke. I call for an investigation into Ray Burke’s role in negotiating the deal, enabling the consortium led by Enterprise to benefit from what is the lowest tax regime in Europe. My party, Sinn Féin, has consistently argued for the deal brokered by Ray Burke in 1992 to be renegotiated. The deal ensured that the consortium led by Enterprise has not had to pay one penny in royalties to the Government [or indeed to the people of Ireland] for the Corrib gas find and the consortium can write off exploration expenses against any tax payable ... It is a scandal that Irish national resources have been sold off at a knock-down price particularly when we look at the region involved, the neglected western seaboard. That somebody with Ray Burke’s track record was centrally involved in this deal must raise questions about the nature of the negotiation and its outcome. These matters need to be addressed and answered. SIPTU representatives who represent Irish oil workers have called for an inquiry and the Western Development Commission has questioned the Government’s handling of this resource.

A decade later, the truth is till being denied. I will conclude by calling again, as I did ten years ago, for a full investigation into the deal. We should not continue with this scandalous sell-out of the people’s natural and national resources.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Deputy could be——

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Go raibh míle maith agat, a iar-Aire.

Deputy Seán Crowe: I suppose those who have spoken about leprechauns are referring to the perceived pot of gold which, as we have said in our motion, we want to go to the Irish people rather than to private companies. When the Minister responded to our motion, he did not say whether he thinks the current terms and conditions governing oil and gas represent a good deal for Ireland. Does anyone not working for Shell believe it was a good deal? Was the deal brokered by the bold Ray Burke a good deal for Ireland and its people or was it a good deal for Ray? We now know he gave unbridled access to the oil company applicant. Officials from his own Department advised against meeting representatives of the oil company, but Ray 705 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Seán Crowe.] knew better. He thought it was for the greater good. The deal that was signed was said to be great, but great for whom? Was this not a great little country for making deals? Without entering into libel country, most independent people who examine Ray’s cosy deal will probably say that the people and the Exchequer came off worst from it. I listened to Deputy Ó Cuív last night when he proposed that the process of awarding offshore oil and gas exploration licences, and the controversy surrounding them, should be re- examined. In my view, any future inquiry by a committee should concentrate on the deal agreed by the disgraced politician Ray Burke. We know that local residents do not seem to think it was a good deal for them and their families. In 2005, five ordinary men from Rossport went to jail after Shell took out an injunction to try to prevent them from engaging in legitimate protest at the location or site of the pipeline, which the men claimed to be in dangerous proximity to their homes. We know that Shell made some alterations to the original route even though it had claimed that could not be done. Many people in the local community remain strongly opposed to the pipeline, for which consent was given on the day of the election by the former Minister, Pat Carey. He signed the deal on his way out the door because he was unable to leave paperwork cluttering the desk. Was the deal that was signed by Pat Carey in the final days of the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government a good deal for Ireland and its citizens? It reminds me of the last-minute deal with the religious orders that was signed by another former Fianna Fáil Minister, Michael Woods. That is an example of another great Fianna Fáil fair deal that is costing hard-pressed Irish taxpayers millions of euro. Any future committee inquiry should also examine the last- minute decision of the former Minister, Mr. Carey. Although both Fine Gael and the Labour Party have protested about the manner in which this consent was given, their Government has stood by it. Is it not reasonable to ask why that is the case? What has changed? There is something of “Lanigan’s Ball” among the cast of characters who handed over our oil and gas. I refer to Ray Burke, Charlie, Bertie, Michael Lowry etc. Cameo appearances have been made by oil and gas executives. All of these people are part of the unhealthy relationship between certain people and those in power. Ray Burke was found to be guilty of corruption by the Flood tribunal over his role in securing planning permission for those with friends in court. Many of those decisions were not only corrupt but have proven to be disastrous for the development of Dublin. Much more money was involved and many more people benefitted greatly from it all. The potential value of the changes that Ray Burke made to the terms of the oil and gas deal is vastly more than the worth of all the rezoning scams in which he was involved. This is a clear case for making all the changes that were made subject to review. Those who oppose the motion claim the State cannot afford to become involved in developing and controlling our natural resources. It is highly ironic to listen to those who are willing to pour massive amounts of money into the banks claim that public investment in areas that would create jobs and growth is a waste of money. The same people believe it is acceptable to condemn hundreds of thousands of people to poverty as a consequence of the bank bailout and austerity programme. They talk about job creation but refuse to consider ways of ensuring that the means to invest in jobs is made available. It has been argued that locating oil and gas requires a great deal of science and a bit of luck. The science in the Ray Burke deal is more of the science fiction variety and the luck is with Shell and Ray Burke who appear to have got away with it.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The motion on gas exploration tabled by Sinn Féin is a prime example of the Darby O’Gill school of economics. 706 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Here we go again.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Sinn Féin would like us to believe there is a crock of black gold at the end of the rainbow which has been ignored by government. There is no such thing.

Deputy Brian Stanley: The Labour Party has changed its tune.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: There is no magic wand that we can wave over the ocean to make millions of barrels of oil appear. It is a myth presented in this debate that our economic difficulties will be abated by the proposals in the motion. It is disingenuous for Sinn Féin to place before the House a motion which states there is oil and gas worth €700 billion off the coast of Ireland. An exploratory study was done which indicated that this quantity of oil is potentially available in Irish waters. It is inaccurate to claim it is in our waters because the figure is notional and based on an estimate.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Government accepted Shell’s figures.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Sinn Féin has presented a one size fits all approach to the tax and royalty regime for the oil industry. Such an approach ignores the fact that the oil and energy industry operates on a global basis. Ireland, in the current circumstances, cannot act in an isolated manner which discourages the investment required to uncover whatever natural resources are available off the coast. In the past 40 years, four oil and gas finds have been made, three of which were gas finds off the coast of County Cork at Kinsale while the fourth, which is under development, was a find off the coast of County Mayo at Corrib. Last night, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, explained that the Government’s position is to encourage and improve the rate of exploration and drilling to enhance the country’s prospects of a successful find. The performance, as distinct from the promise of the 1970s, has been relatively poor to date and greater activity should be encouraged to improve the prospects of a commercial find off the coast. The Minister also indicated that once the reform committee structure is in place, he will be willing to go into committee for as long as is required to debate Government policy in this important area. He further indicated that it would be a matter for the committee to decide which other interests it wishes to hear from. I am sure that if the committee’s deliberations result in new, useful and affordable insights, the Minister will be glad to take them on board. Tax incentives or penalties are not the issue in oil exploration. The issue is one of geology and economics and balancing risk and reward in a manner that will incentivise exploration and extraction. I will cite the example of one field that was drilled in the 1980s. It lies approximately 250 miles off the coast of Fenit in what is known as the Porcupine Basin. As Deputy Ferris will know, having frequently sailed the waters in that area, the area is treacherous.

Deputy Brian Stanley: Fair play to Deputy Ferris.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Drilling took place in these waters in summer months when there are swells of 20 ft. and 30 ft., which is the equivalent of two storeys in height. As a result, weeks can go by without a hole being drilled. That is the position at the height of the summer in Irish waters. In the North Sea drilling takes place in waters that are 200 ft. or 300 ft. deep, whereas drilling along the Irish coast is usually in waters that are in excess of 1,000 ft. deep. The quality of the oil extracted here is also different. The oil extracted in the Sahara Desert looks like a pint of Beamish, whereas in the North Sea and along the Irish coast the substance extracted is much thicker. 707 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Ciarán Lynch.]

It is curious that Sinn Féin proposes to impose a tax rate of 50% on certain corporations when two weeks ago it argued in favour of protecting our 12.5% corporation tax rate. It should take a consistent position. When the programme for Government was debated in the House, I argued that Opposition parties as well as the Government had an obligation to produce realistic proposals. Ireland is in a dire state and the Government and Opposition have a responsibility to help the country get back on its feet. Sinn Féin, through the motion, is perpetuating a myth, one which reflects the Darby O’Gill school of economics. Its policy on this matter does not stand up. Notwithstanding the party’s motivation, its motion is completely unrealistic. The days of instant gratification, which was the style of politics pursued by the Fianna Fáil Party, are over. The idea that there is a quick fix solution to our economic problems is no longer accepted. It is regrettable, therefore, that Sinn Féin tabled this motion. I call on other Opposition Deputies to vote against the motion and see it for what it is.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Labour Party is putting forward Fianna Fáil policies. It has embraced them.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I wish to share time with Deputy Pearse Doherty. To listen to Deputies from the Government benches, one would imagine that Shell, Statoil and the great and good of the exploration world were in Ireland to enjoy the air or perhaps take to the high seas with Deputy Ferris. Deputy Lynch should go with them because he is clearly in need of some oxygen. It has become clear in the course of the debate that the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has adapted quickly to his new role, accepting on face value the advice given by his officials. What this means is that he has become a mouthpiece for the position first adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party. I note the Minister wants to have things both ways, a position echoed in Deputy Lynch’s contribution. On the one hand, he is happy to quote from the 2007 departmental review to justify changing his mind and abandoning Labour Party policy while, on the other, he dismisses the same Department’s estimates of the extent of our natural resources. We are informed that these are notional estimates, to use the Minister’s words. Is the Department correct that we should continue to provide among the most generous terms in the world to the multinational oil and gas companies but wrong to place a figure on the extent of the reserves it believes lie off our coast? Either the Department is right or it is wrong. The Minister appears to be utterly conflicted on this point. In his contribution last night, the Minister also outlined the reasons for the various changes that have been made to the terms and conditions governing oil and gas exploration over the years. It clearly slipped his mind that, speaking in the Dáil in 1987 after Ray Burke’s change to the regime, his former party leader, Dick Spring, who some Deputies will remember, described Mr. Burke’s changes as an act of economic treason. Does that statement ring a bell? The Labour Party has used the same description on subsequent occasions. As with the Labour Party’s Saul-like conversion to the benefit of selling off a substantial chunk of State assets, the Minister appears to have immediately realised, on arriving in his new office, that all of the changes to the benefit of the oil and gas companies were made correctly. This is not what he or his party were saying when they were on this side of the House, nor is it in line with the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to review all the terms and conditions governing the exploration sector. The Minister concluded his speech by describing the existing tax regime as fit for purpose. The real question is: fit for whose purposes? The Minister also claimed yesterday that the Corrib field will strengthen this State’s energy security and move us away from a situation 708 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed) where 95% of the natural gas used here has to be imported. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that this will be the case as there is no onus on the consortium to supply gas here. It could if it wished send the gas out of the country via the interconnector pipelines to Scotland. Even if the Corrib gas is pumped into the Irish grid, the companies will charge the going market rate, which means that consumers here will still be paying the same as they would if the gas were to come from another jurisdiction. Reference was made to the Fianna Fáil amendment, which is interesting. We hope such a committee will be formed. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, yesterday gave a positive nod towards it, and while I understand the Chief Whip has since knocked that off course, nonetheless, we believe it should happen. I will conclude by quoting the following:

Under Article 10 of the Constitution all natural resources, including all forms of potential energy, belong to the State. Despite this the people of this country have got relatively little return from the minerals or the gas reserves that have been discovered to date. We need to keep the licensing regime under review; we need to do an assessment of the returns for the Irish people; and we need to learn from the experience of other countries that have been far more successful in ensuring a return for their own people from oil and gas discoveries.

I trust the Government benches, particularly the Labour Party colleagues, recognise this because it is a quote from a 2005 press release announcing the tabling of a Labour Party Private Members’ Bill not far removed from the intent of the motion before the House today. So, to the Darby O’Gills, the lepreachauní, to those who are fond of claiming that they wear the green jersey, I say stop defending the indefensible. They know full well a review is required.

Deputy Joe Carey: It is happening. A review is taking place.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: They know full well that the benefits of the natural resources of this State are not being returned to the people. They should get out from under the shadow of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and support this motion.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The debate has been full of interesting language. Deputy Ciarán Lynch has added to that language with his latest contribution and the reference to Darby O’Gill, a great film concerning an Irishman who was conned by a leprechaun. It is very clear who the leprechauns are in this Chamber today and who are trying to con and trick the Irish people in regard to our oil and gas resources.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The Deputy would know a lot about that.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: This is critical, in light of the previous debate on the Nyberg report, which referred to the group think which is happening and the dismissal of consensus as being wrong and ill thought out. The Deputy should listen to and, in particular, pay attention to what is being said. Our motion refers to the potential realisation of assets. If Deputy Lynch reads it, it is in black and white and is mentioned twice in the document. Before he gets up to speak, it is worthwhile to note what the other side has to say in the contributions we have made. It was not long ago, on 8 February this year, that the Labour Party — I see Deputy Lynch nodding his head because he now realises he has made a mistake in his contribution and his whole argument is flawed.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: If I can, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will read into the record what the Sinn Féin motion states—— 709 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Pearse Doherty: With regard to the U-turn in which the Government is involved, with the Labour Party in attendance, the Labour Party clearly stated its position on the review of oil and gas conditions in the run-up to the last election.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: It is Darby O’Gill economics.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It stated it in its manifesto and in regard to extending the royalty regime to the Corrib gas field. There is now no mention of that and the Labour Party Minister in office, the conster and trickster that he is in fooling the Irish people into voting for him, has said nothing about that but is instead willing to continue with the terms and conditions as they exist. We also read from the Labour Party’s former Deputy Liz McManus, who at the time said the Labour Party would review the tax regime relating to oil and gas companies. No such words echoed from the Minister yesterday. The Labour Party continues——

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order, please.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The Labour Party continued by referring to the implications of applying royalties to the existing finds, stating that it can happen and there is no legal barrier to this, with the only issue being that it would cause reputational damage, something the Labour Party was at that time unwilling to comprehend but today is willing to sign up to because its members have their positions. The trick has been completed and they are happy in their positions today. When the Minister responded to our motion yesterday he dismissed any State involvement on the basis that the State would not be able to come up with the money needed. As we all know, the State is well able to come up with the billions to pay off the bank debt in order to ensure that each and every citizen is burdened under a huge amount of debt. However, for banks, which are private institutions and include zombie banks like Anglo Irish Bank, which will never return a penny to the State, the billions can be found. Let us remember that on 31 March the Government Members were sitting on the other side of the House when €3.1 billion went into the zombie banks Irish Nationwide and Anglo Irish Bank. Billions could be found for those causes. Let us consider the potential which the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, acknowledges may exist off our shoreline, although we cannot find any money to try to reap the rewards and harvest our resources, which God has provided for us to benefit the Irish people. If it benefits the bondholders, speculators and banks, the billions can be found, and they are found by picking the pockets of ordinary working people who, through the proposals of the Government and the IMF, will see increased carbon tax, oil prices, home heating costs, and all so the Govern- ment can find the money to bail out the zombie institutions that have destroyed our economy. The two Government parties have taken to all of this like ducks to water. There is barely any discernible difference between this Administration and the last where it applies to oil and gas, and the same applies to the disastrous bank bailout and the austerity programme. It is rather strange to listen to Labour Party Ministers and Members dismiss out of hand any State involvement in oil and gas exploration in the exact same manner that the former Ministers, Mary Harney and Michael McDowell, might have done in the past.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: That is incorrect.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It is also perhaps fitting that we should be debating this motion on the same day the McCarthy report on State assets and liabilities was published. That report 710 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed) recommends a massive sale of State assets, which will mean throwing away decades of public investment, with the only beneficiaries being the bondholders and the IMF, who will pick up the proceeds, as is clearly stated that they should in the report. Of course, private interests will pick up their own wee bits through the profitable parts of the companies that will come under the hammer. The losers under the previous Administration and now under the current Administration will be those workers who will lose their jobs, and the rest of us, who will see the level of service provision decline. This entire society is being undermined on the back of this mess, which will have untold consequences in terms of social disintegration and poverty unless we stand up and say that enough is enough. The Labour Party was willing to say that six weeks ago but it is unwilling to say it today. Page 3 of the McCarthy report outlines that the State holding in the banks will be sold off at some stage but not yet, as it is too early to consider it at this point in time. What does this mean? It means that with regard to the banks we are bailing out, and into which we are pumping €70 billion of Irish citizens’ money, once they start making a buck and becoming profitable, we will sell them off so that private interests can take the benefits and screw the citizens of the State again. Where the McCarthy report is relevant to the oil and gas sector, it represents a continuation of the surrender of vital State interests and natural resources. These are resources which have the potential to be the basis for sustained long-term growth. Given this Government’s embrace of the policies of the last one, we can expect that the anti-national manner in which our mineral resources have been let go will also apply to the sale of State assets. They may protest but I suspect that, like all their other bluster about how they were going to stand up to Frankfurt and the bondholders, they will meekly do as they are told to. The most important people who will read that report, the people who tell the Government what amendments to put down to our motions in this Chamber, are the EU and IMF officials who insist on the recommendations——

Deputy Robert Dowds: The Deputy would support the bailout it if his party were in government. He has some cheek.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Every puppet and every muppet needs to have their strings pulled or a hand up their ... to work the magic. That is what is happening here; it is puppets and muppets.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The Deputy’s party voted for the bailout. He may not be aware of that because he was not in the House at the time.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: We can already see who the beneficiaries of the McCarthy recommendations will be. Wages in State companies will be reviewed — and we all know what that means — while shareholders in the companies will be bought off and guaranteed an annual dividend of at least 30% of profits. There are no economies there. I could go on longer about all of this; the report deals with it all. We are discussing the consequences of earlier acts of national treachery. Most of the economic aspects of the oil and gas sector have been dealt with. We have been told that our proposals are unrealistic, would make us uncompetitive and would scare companies away. However, the most recent international experience has been a trend toward a greater state 711 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.] shareholding and increasing taxation rates. Russia, for example, has been referred to, and Norway continues to enjoy a thriving exploration sector despite its high level of tax. Where revised terms have been offered, and in many cases imposed on, companies there has been resistance but none has walked away. They will not walk away here either. To modify what the Minister said in regard to tax rates, 49% of a lot is still a lot. The Government is telling us that if we introduce a tax at 50% or 51% on these companies they will simply walk away. We need to get them to do a wee bit of exploration and we will get the wee breadcrumbs from the table. We had the same arguments from Fianna Fáil and the Green Party in regard to regulation of the property sector and the housing bubble. There was wonder at why we should take that approach when we were taking in all these taxes. The same arguments are being perpetuated by this Government in regard to the oil and gas reserves, the assets that lie off our coast. There is potential there which can be realised. It is insane that this Government, despite Labour Party policy to review the terms and conditions of oil and gas exploration, has put forward an amendment proposing to continue with the existing regime. It is a complete and utter U-turn by the Government and Members opposite should hang their heads in shame.

Deputy Colm Keaveney: The Deputy’s party has done a U-turn on the bailout.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 117; Níl, 22.

Tá

Barry, Tom. English, Damien. Breen, Pat. Farrell, Alan. Broughan, Thomas P.. Feighan, Frank. Browne, John. Ferris, Anne. Burton, Joan. Fitzgerald, Frances. Buttimer, Jerry. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Byrne, Catherine. Flanagan, Charles. Byrne, Eric. Flanagan, Terence. Calleary, Dara. Fleming, Sean. Cannon, Ciarán. Griffin, Brendan. Carey, Joe. Hannigan, Dominic. Coffey, Paudie. Harrington, Noel. Collins, Áine. Hayes, Brian. Collins, Niall. Hayes, Tom. Conaghan, Michael. Heydon, Martin. Conlan, Séan. Howlin, Brendan. Connaughton, Paul J.. Humphreys, Heather. Conway, Ciara. Humphreys, Kevin. Coonan, Noel. Keating, Derek. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Keaveney, Colm. Costello, Joe. Kehoe, Paul. Coveney, Simon. Kelly, Alan. Cowen, Barry. Kenny, Seán. Creed, Michael. Kitt, Michael P.. Creighton, Lucinda. Kyne, Sean. Daly, Jim. Lawlor, Anthony. Deenihan, Jimmy. Lenihan, Brian. Deering, Pat. Lynch, Ciarán. Doherty, Regina. Lynch, Kathleen. Donohoe, Paschal. Lyons, John. Dooley, Timmy. Maloney, Eamonn. Dowds, Robert. Martin, Micheál. Doyle, Andrew. Mathews, Peter. Durkan, Bernard J.. McCarthy, Michael. 712 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Tá—continued

McConalogue, Charlie. O’Dowd, Fergus. McEntee, Shane. O’Reilly, Joe. McFadden, Nicky. Penrose, Willie. McGinley, Dinny. Perry, John. McGrath, Mattie. Phelan, Ann. McGrath, Michael. Phelan, John Paul. McGuinness, John. Quinn, Ruairí. McHugh, Joe. Rabbitte, Pat. McLoughlin, Tony. Reilly, James. McNamara, Michael. Ring, Michael. Mitchell, Olivia. Ross, Shane. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Ryan, Brendan. Mulherin, Michelle. Shatter, Alan. Murphy, Dara. Sherlock, Sean. Murphy, Eoghan. Shortall, Róisín. Nash, Gerald. Smith, Brendan. Naughten, Denis. Spring, Arthur. Neville, Dan. Stagg, Emmet. Nolan, Derek. Stanton, David. Noonan, Michael. Tuffy, Joanna. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Twomey, Liam. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Varadkar, Leo. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Walsh, Brian. O’Donnell, Kieran. White, Alex. O’Donovan, Patrick.

Níl

Adams, Gerry. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. Boyd Barrett, Richard. McDonald, Mary Lou. Collins, Joan. McGrath, Finian. Colreavy, Michael. McLellan, Sandra. Murphy, Catherine. Crowe, Seán. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Donnelly, Stephen. O’Brien, Jonathan. Ellis, Dessie. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Ferris, Martin. Stanley, Brian. Flanagan, Luke Ming. Tóibín, Peadar. Healy, Seamus.

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

Amendment declared carried.

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

The Dáil divided: Tá, 115; Níl, 21.

Tá

Barry, Tom. Collins, Áine. Breen, Pat. Collins, Niall. Broughan, Thomas P. Conaghan, Michael. Browne, John. Conlan, Seán. Burton, Joan. Connaughton, Paul J. Buttimer, Jerry. Conway, Ciara. Byrne, Catherine. Coonan, Noel. Byrne, Eric. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Calleary, Dara. Costello, Joe. Cannon, Ciarán. Coveney, Simon. Carey, Joe. Creed, Michael. Coffey, Paudie. Creighton, Lucinda. 713 Energy Resources: 20 April 2011. Motion (Resumed)

Tá—continued

Daly, Jim. McGuinness, John. Deenihan, Jimmy. McHugh, Joe. Deering, Pat. McLoughlin, Tony. Doherty, Regina. McNamara, Michael. Donnelly, Stephen. Maloney, Eamonn. Donohoe, Paschal. Martin, Micheál. Dooley, Timmy. Mathews, Peter. Dowds, Robert. Mitchell, Olivia. Doyle, Andrew. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Durkan, Bernard J. Mulherin, Michelle. English, Damien. Murphy, Dara. Farrell, Alan. Murphy, Eoghan. Feighan, Frank. Nash, Gerald. Ferris, Anne. Naughten, Denis. Fitzgerald, Frances. Neville, Dan. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Nolan, Derek. Flanagan, Charles. Noonan, Michael. Flanagan, Terence. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Fleming, Sean. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Griffin, Brendan. O’Donnell, Kieran. Hannigan, Dominic. O’Donovan, Patrick. Harrington, Noel. O’Dowd, Fergus. Hayes, Brian. O’Reilly, Joe. Hayes, Tom. Penrose, Willie. Heydon, Martin. Perry, John. Howlin, Brendan. Phelan, Ann. Humphreys, Heather. Phelan, John Paul. Humphreys, Kevin. Quinn, Ruairí. Keating, Derek. Rabbitte, Pat. Keaveney, Colm. Reilly, James. Kehoe, Paul. Ring, Michael. Kelly, Alan. Ross, Shane. Kenny, Seán. Ryan, Brendan. Kitt, Michael P. Shatter, Alan. Kyne, Seán. Sherlock, Sean. Lawlor, Anthony. Shortall, Róisín. Lenihan, Brian. Smith, Brendan. Lynch, Ciarán. Spring, Arthur. Lynch, Kathleen. Stagg, Emmet. Lyons, John. Timmins, Billy. McCarthy, Michael. Tuffy, Joanna. McEntee, Shane. Twomey, Liam. McFadden, Nicky. Varadkar, Leo. McGinley, Dinny. Walsh, Brian. McGrath, Mattie. White, Alex. McGrath, Michael.

Níl

Adams, Gerry. McDonald, Mary Lou. Boyd Barrett, Richard. McGrath, Finian. Collins, Joan. McLellan, Sandra. Colreavy, Michael. Murphy, Catherine. Crowe, Seán. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Ellis, Dessie. O’Brien, Jonathan. Ferris, Martin. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. Stanley, Brian. Healy, Seamus. Tóibín, Peadar. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.

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

Question declared carried.

714 Arts 20 April 2011. Funding

Adjournment Debate

————

Arts Funding Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Chair for allowing me an opportunity to raise this matter.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): Could the Members having discussions in the outer areas of the Chamber please leave the House and afford Deputy Donohoe the opportunity to deliver his contribution?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Acting Chairman. This matter refers to the status and future of the Light House Cinema in Smithfield, Dublin 7. My constituency colleague, Deputy Costello, raised the matter in the House a number of weeks ago. In that time, the legal process surrounding the cinema and its future has wound on. During the past week, the court decided to put in place a process whereby the cinema could be closed and the site could be handed over to the developer. In evaluating the issue, three points are pertinent. First, the taxpayer has delivered nearly €2 million in funding to the project to date. This significant amount was justified, as it came through the Irish Film Board and the Arts Council. The money was used successfully in supporting film making and the enjoyment of film in Ireland. That €2 million was invested in an enterprise that now looks like it will be wound up. Second, the only use for the site allowed by its zoning status is as a cinema. Anything else that assumes the Light House Cinema’s place must use the site for the same purpose. Third, this business was doing well. Like many other businesses of its time, it took on a lease that turned out to be unsustainable, in that the cinema could not meet the needs as required under the lease. However, the business had been doing better in recent months. Given the amount of money the taxpayer has invested and the large cultural benefit it was delivering to our city and to an industry we are trying to support, will the Minister find a way to intervene to ensure the use of the money and the restoration of an important cultural benefit to the city?

Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): I thank Deputy Donohoe for raising this matter. The background of the State’s involvement with the Light House Cinema goes back to February 2006 when the then Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Mr. John O’Donoghue, approved an offer of a capital grant of €1 million towards the development of the cinema in Smithfield, Dublin. Construction began on the project in March 2007 and it was officially opened in May 2008. The grant was provided for the fit-out costs of the project rather than the construction costs. Further State funding of €750,000 was provided from the Cultural Cinema Consortium, which comprises the Irish Film Board and the Arts Council. The capital funding for the Light House Cinema was provided from the Department’s capital development subhead for arts infrastructure. The purpose of the subhead is to support the development of arts and culture in Ireland. Integrated arts centres, theatres, museums, cinemas and galleries, as well as arts studios and other creative and performance spaces, have been provided with funding. The programme has been widely acknowledged as a significant intervention in the provision of quality cultural spaces throughout the regions. The State’s investment in the Light House Cinema is protected through a legally registered charge on the property. This charge allows, that in the event of the Light House Cinema ceasing 715 Tax 20 April 2011. Code

[Deputy Jimmy Deenihan.] to operate from the premises in Smithfield in the first five years of its operation, I as Minister can choose either the repayment of the State grants or agree to allow another art house or cultural cinema to occupy the building for the remainder of the lease so that the premises remains in use as an art house or cultural cinema centre. As the cinema was opened in 2008, this five-year agreement has a further two years to run. On 15 April 2011, the High Court placed the Light House Cinema into involuntary liqui- dation and appointed a liquidator. As this House is aware, the Chief State Solicitor represents the Government in cases such as this and my Department was represented at the various court cases by officials from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. Officials from my Department are continuing to work with the Chief State Solicitor’s office which, in appropriate legal consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, will advise me and my Department on the next steps necessary to protect the State’s interest. It is a tragedy that such a fine facility has closed and I am deeply disappointed that an amicable solution was not found to resolve the difficulties involved. I hope that a new tenant can be found to continue to operate the premises as an art house and cultural cinema centre. Film and film making is of great value to Ireland, both financially and as a cultural 9o’clock asset for the country. Now more than ever there is greater global competition in securing film and television productions. Despite our recent economic difficulties, Ireland continues to hold its own in the audiovisual and film sectors. This is thanks to the work of the Irish Film Board and our impressive talent pool of directors, writers, actors, technical crews and various State supports on offer. The most important of these is the section 481 tax incentive for film and television production in Ireland, which runs until the end of 2015. The Irish audiovisual sector plays an important part in Irish society, both in economic and cultural terms. Film, as part of the audiovisual medium, is an area in which Ireland continues to excel, as evidenced by the success of Irish productions which have secured numerous awards at international level in the last few years. Deputy Costello has raised this matter as well and requested that I meet a delegation of people interested in this project. I would suggest that the Deputies accompany that delegation next week.

Deputy Joe Costello: Deputy Donohoe has already mentioned that.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: There are some guests in the Gallery from America who have a deep understanding of and interest in the film industry. They are very welcome to Ireland.

Tax Code Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): Deputies Mac Lochlainn and Doherty have two minutes and 30 seconds each in which to speak.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: These changes to the commercial vehicle tax rules kicked in late last year having been introduced by a former Minister, John Gormley. The Fine Gael Party and our party came out against this at the time, as well as Mr. Conor Faughnan. It was made clear that the system would create a mess and have an impact on Garda resources, as gardaí would have to chase workers in their vans to see if the people had left their mothers to mass or children to school. It is a nonsensical regulation which reflected the lack of understanding of rural Ireland from the former Minister, John Gormley, backed by the Fianna Fáil Government of the time. In rural Ireland a vehicle is needed for everything and public transport is unavailable. A vehicle is a core part of living and getting by in rural areas. Deputy Doherty and I have been inundated with complaints from across Donegal and we have checked with other rural Deputies, who also report an impact. Essentially, this is another 716 Tax 20 April 2011. Code device to take money from people to pay the EU, the IMF and banks; the money is not even going into schools, hospitals or roads. It is another tax affecting this area. My colleague and I call on the Government to review this immediately so that a bit of common sense can be introduced. We must realise that it is outrageous to place this tax on small businesses, with most of the affected people from rural areas. The rule is that a commercial vehicle can only be used for work purposes. I ask for common sense to come through in an immediate review of the issue.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: This is an appeal to the Government for common sense. We note the Fine Gael Party initially opposed this measure and up to now, colleagues in the party in Donegal and elsewhere in rural Ireland have called for a review. Sinn Féin has had the opportunity to raise the matter for the first time in this new Dáil. Boiling the matter down, it is a tax on rural Ireland and small businesses. It is a silly measure that was just another way to find money. There is more to the issue as the penalties involved are quite severe. This new rule will apply an average tax of approximately €1,200 instead of a reduced rate for a commercial motor vehicle of €288. It is an average increase of €900 for people moving from the commercial to the private tax. As Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned, this involves people dropping kids off to school or collecting them from a childminder. It will take in people going to the shop on the way home from work. They will not be allowed to do any of this as they are bound under this rule to sign a declaration in a Garda station indicating that the vehicle will not be used at any time for social, domestic or pleasurable purposes. If these people break the rule, they can fined or imprisoned. I spoke earlier about bankers walking away scot-free but under these rules, ordinary people will suffer severe penalties. The Minister of State may not have a direct response to this tonight but I ask for the issue to be considered in the context of the upcoming jobs initiative or budget, where the Govern- ment, like all of us, is seeking to create jobs. We can do that here. It does not make sense for us to ask the self-employed man or woman, who needs a van for work and who may want to collect their children or go to the shop, to buy a separate car. That will place an unnecessary burden on people. These people must have tax clearance certificates and other red tape, which we all want to reduce. If the Minister does not have a direct reply tonight, I ask for this measure to be eliminated in the jobs initiative. As my colleague has mentioned, much of this is taking up Garda resources, with gardaí checking the back of cars to ensure there is no shopping from Aldi, Dunnes Stores or the local grocer. It does not make sense.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Fergus O’Dowd): I thank the Deputies for raising the matter and I will bring the points made to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan. The position regarding the taxation of goods vehicles has not changed. In August 2010, the Department of the Envir- onment, Heritage and Local Government issued a circular to motor tax offices reminding authorised officers of existing provisions with regard to the taxation of vehicles on a goods basis. This circular reiterated the terms of an earlier 2005 circular. To be taxed as a goods vehicle, a vehicle must be constructed or adapted for that purpose and used solely in the course of trade or business. The Deputies are raising issues where such a vehicle is used in the course of ordinary family life, such as in going to mass or picking up the newspaper on the way to work. These are normal social interactions as people drive their vehicles. The points made at that time have validity: why should a farmer not stop off at a shop to get a newspaper, just as anybody else does? 717 Asylum 20 April 2011. Applications

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd.]

If a vehicle is adapted, it must have the same characteristics as a goods vehicle with regard to space and accommodation for carrying goods. The vehicle must also be used in the course of trade or business. Under section 2 of the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952, if a vehicle is used in a condition or manner which would attract motor tax at a higher rate, tax then becomes payable at that rate. In other words, if a goods vehicle is used at any time in a private capacity, it must be taxed at the private rate of motor tax. The key point is that common sense must apply. Under Article 3 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regu- lations 1992, a licensing authority must be satisfied that it is authorised to issue the licence applied for and, accordingly, that it is the appropriate licence for the vehicle. It is thus open to a motor tax office to seek documentation to support an application. Such documentation could include, but is not limited to, a certificate of commercial insurance, evidence of registration for VAT or a tax clearance certificate, or any other document that would assist in satisfying the licensing authority as to the basis for the application. I do not think that, as the Deputy said, having to present a tax clearance certificate constitutes red tape. That is an important point. If a vehicle is used for commercial purposes, the user should have a tax clearance certificate, just as you and I need tax clearance certificates to sit in this Dáil. It would not be expected that any person genuinely using a vehicle in the course of trade or business would have difficulty in providing such documentary evidence if requested to do so. The goods declaration form RF 111A, which has been in existence for a number of years and is not a new requirement, constitutes a statement by the applicant that the vehicle is being used in the course of trade or business. This declaration should not need to be sought at every renewal if the particulars of the vehicle have not changed, but it is normally sought at the time of first taxing as a goods vehicle and on change of ownership. The only minor amendment to this form is that the income tax registration number of the applicant is now requested, which is also perfectly reasonable. I reiterate that the legal provisions governing the taxation of goods vehicles have not changed. However, evidence was brought to the Department’s attention that high-powered, high-specification vehicles that would not normally fall into the goods vehicle category are increasingly being claimed as goods vehicles. In that regard, it is important that motor tax offices follow the requirements to ensure a vehicle is taxed properly. If a concessionary rate of tax is being claimed in circumstances in which it is not warranted, the concomitant loss of income would in the normal course of events have to be recouped elsewhere. All road users should pay their fair share of motor tax in line with the relevant legal provisions. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, intends to review the taxation classes currently in place for motor vehicles. As I said at the beginning, I will bring the Deputies’ views to the attention of the Department for direct response.

Asylum Applications Deputy Joe Costello: I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality and congratulate him on his appointment, as it is the first opportunity I have had of doing so in the House. I also welcome the fact that his first Bill was the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. I trust and expect that he will be a reforming Minister in the Department of Justice and Equality; God knows there is plenty of reform required in that Department. The matter to which I refer tonight is a legacy of the system under previous Ministers, which has become somewhat out of control. I deal with many cases that are a decade or 12 years old, but this is the oldest case — that of a person who has been within the asylum system for 14 718 Asylum 20 April 2011. Applications years. It highlights the inadequacy of the immigration system as it operates at present. It seems the system is something of a labyrinth; once entered, it is almost impossible to exit. One goes around in circles indefinitely, never knowing whether one will come out at the end at all. In this case, a man arrived in this country and sought refugee status in April 1997, and 14 years later, now virtually middle-aged, he is still enveloped in the system and has not been able to escape. There is a litany of applications, refusals and appeals. The man became the parent of an Irish-born child prior to 2003. There were deportation orders and appeals, a ministerial affirmation of a deportation order, and now the non-implementation of that order. For the last three years the applicant has been attending the Garda National Immigration Bureau monthly, waiting for travel arrangements to be made for his deportation, none of which has ever tran- spired. In the meantime, his Irish child has grown and is now nine years old and attending an Irish school. The man himself has been unable to obtain gainful employment for the past 14 years, even though he is desperately anxious to work and has skills. He is almost worn out by the stress and the threat of deportation every day for the past three years, along with the requirement to attend the GNIB regularly. It is in this context that I mention the document Government for National Recovery 2011- 2016, which states: “We will introduce comprehensive reforms of the immigration, residency and asylum systems, which will include a statutory appeals system and set out rights and obligations in a transparent way.” It is now time for the new Government to review all the asylum and immigration applications that are in the pipeline at various stages of processing by the Department of Justice and Equality, particularly those that have been there for a considerable period. As a new Government, we owe it to people who have spent excessive periods awaiting decisions by the immigration system to deal with their outstanding applications as quickly as possible. It is contrary to natural justice to keep any human being in limbo for 14 years. The Minister should now examine this case, along with the other cases, and demonstrate sympathy for those people whose applications for residency or refugee status in this country have not been processed in an equitable and timely manner. We should carefully consider the situation that has arisen. We need to deal with the backlog, rather than investigating the reasons for it, establish mechanisms to ensure it does not continue in this manner, and ensure that the cases that are waiting to be dealt with, in one form or another, are dealt with urgently.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks. He correctly quoted from the programme for Government. There is a substantial problem with the number of people in the system, as referred to by the Deputy, who are awaiting decisions on their future. This is an issue I hope to address in the coming months, and we hope to deal with the asylum legislation that had reached Committee Stage but had not completed its passage through the House during the last Dáil. That Bill will come before the House on Committee Stage once the Oireachtas committee on justice has been formed, and I intend to introduce amendments to the Bill as originally published by the previous Minister. I heard what the Deputy had to say about the person in question. I am advised that this person arrived in the State on 14 April 1997 and claimed asylum. On 4 March 1999, he was informed by the Refugee Applications Commissioner that he had not been declared a refugee. This decision was affirmed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on 8 October 1999. On 13 January 2000, a recommendation was made that the applicant be repatriated, and on 11 May 2000, a deportation order was made in respect of him. This deportation order required the individual to remove himself from the State; however, he failed to do so and remained in the State illegally. He has been in the State illegally since that date. Therefore, the Deputy’s suggestion that the individual should be granted residency is unfounded, as the length of time he has 719 Asylum 20 April 2011. Applications

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] remained in the State is a result of his own actions in failing to remove himself from the State pursuant to a deportation order properly made. In May 2004, the person’s solicitors submitted representations stating that he had a right to residency as he was the father of an Irish citizen child born on 24 July 2002. This submission was considered in the context of the so-called IBC/05 scheme which allowed the non-EU national parents of Irish citizen children to remain in the State, subject to certain conditions. The individual’s application was rejected for two reasons. First, it was rejected on the basis that he had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and was bound to the peace on 2 July 2003 for the production of an article in the course of a dispute or fight, contrary to Section 9 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1991 and also for a breach of Section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. In addition, the individual’s solicitors indicated in 2005 that he was separated from his wife and no longer resided with his child. I was informed he provided no evidence of child maintenance payments but I understand that if he was not employed and had no source of income clearly it was unrealistic to expect him to make such payments. However, there was no evidence of him having a relationship of any kind with the child. As he had not submitted evidence that he played any sort of a role in his child’s upbringing, this was a further ground for refusing his application for permission to remain in the State under the IBC/05 scheme Following the refusal of his application under that scheme, the applicant was required to leave the State as a result of the deportation order made in 2000. However, he was afforded a further opportunity in August 2007 to provide any court-issued documents or otherwise with regard to custody or maintenance for his Irish citizen child. I reiterate he could not be expected to pay maintenance if he was unemployed and had no income available to him but he could reasonably be expected to have a relationship with his child and be able to establish same to some extent to the satisfaction of the Department. Again, his reply did not include any indication that he had any role, financial or otherwise, in the upbringing of his child. An up to date Garda report received on 30 January 2008 indicated that on 18 October 2006 the individual concerned was fined €200 and disqualified from driving for one year in Kilmain- ham District Court for having no insurance. The further information in regard to the applicant was considered and a decision was made by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to affirm the deportation order. This decision was conveyed to him by a letter issued on 7 March 2008. The applicant was given a new date to present to the Garda National Immi- gration Bureau to facilitate his removal because it was clear at this stage he was not willing to comply with the requirement in his deportation order that he should remove himself from the State. It appears the individual concerned has no access to his child in the State and has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his parental role to his child. The individual concerned should either remove himself from the State or else continue to present to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to allow them to put the necessary arrangements in place to facilitate his deportation. He should also provide the Garda National Immigration Bureau with any documentation in his possession which would verify his identity to facilitate his removal from the State. I am advised by the bureau that the removal of the individual concerned from the State will be effected as soon as the practical arrangements can be made. If the Deputy has available to him any information that can be supplied and verified to the Department stating this gentleman has a full relationship with his child and engages in the child’s upbringing I am prepared to have the matter re-examined. However, in circumstances in which it appears he has no involve- 720 Symphysiotomy 20 April 2011. Procedures ment in his child’s upbringing, is separated from his spouse and is subject to a deportation order that has been in place for a long period at this stage I cannot deal with the matter in the manner the Deputy seeks.

Symphysiotomy Procedures Deputy Gerry Adams: There is a series of scandals involving the health service which have a particular resonance in County Louth. They include the allegations of abuse surrounding consultant surgeon Michael Shine in Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda which previous Ministers failed to deal with properly or humanely. Tá go leor Airí Sláinte a theip eolas a thabhairt do na h-íospartaigh agus tá gá acu le clabhsúr. Tá cearta na mná seo scriosta. However, I am hopeful the newly elected Minister for Health and Children will see his way to holding an inquiry into these allegations. It is a matter of extreme urgency that he restores full funding to the Dignity for Patients Group The issue I refer to tonight is symphysiotomy, also a scandal which demands redress. At least 1,500 symphysiotomies were carried out on women in this State between 1944 and 1984 at a time when the rest of the medical profession outside of Ireland were using Caesarean sections. Symphysiotomy is an 18th-century operation that unhinges the pelvis, splitting the pubic joint and its ligaments with a scalpel knife. Another version of this operation severs the bone rather than the joint which results in a compound fracture of the pelvis. Women were rarely asked for their consent and most were never told of the nature of the surgery or its risks or offered the safer alternative of a Caesarean section. The consequence for the victim of this procedure was often chronic pain, incontinence and a lifetime of medical intervention. One child in ten died. Survivors of Symphysiotomy is a group that has brought together almost 200 women, now mainly in their 60s and older, who have been the victims of this brutal and barbaric surgery. Their accounts of how they were treated in hospital and what was done to them are horrific. Ta an fhírinne de dhíth óna mna seo. These women want truth. They have asked a series of Ministers for Health to provide truth through the establishment of a full public inquiry. The former Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, promised one but it was never established. As Mini- ster, Ms Mary Harney refused to establish an inquiry. Last month in a written reply to my colleague, Deputy Caomhghín Ó Caoláin, the new Minister, Deputy Reilly, avoided answering the question about establishing a public inquiry. He stated he understood efforts are progression to put in place alternative arrangements with the assistance of a university department of public health. Can the Minister specify what is meant by “alternative arrangements”? In Opposition, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, gave his full support to the demand for a public inquiry at an Oireachtas committee hearing in 2009. Now, as Minister, he has the opportunity to accomplish what he asked the then Minister, Mary Harney, to do. I understand the Survivors of Symphysiotomy group has asked to meet with the Minister. I ask him to agree to meet with the group as quickly as possible and to tell the members he will establish a full public inquiry into the practice of symphysiotomies in Irish hospitals under the care of the State. If, for some reason, the Minister is not able to meet these women, I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, whom I am very pleased to see in the Chamber, if she will meet them. It is a horrific story and it happened in this country, in recent times. These women are growing older and cannot find any closure. I appeal to the Minister of State to use her good offices to bring about a public inquiry and meet these women.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I am very conscious of the story and know it very well. I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and 721 The 20 April 2011. Adjournment

[Deputy Kathleen Lynch.] Children, Deputy Reilly, who unfortunately could not be here because he had a prior engagement. I take on board what the Deputy said and will convey his sentiments to the Minister. The procedure of symphysiotomy was used to effect an immediate dramatic increase in the size of the pelvic outlet to allow delivery of a baby. It was gradually replaced by Caesarean section as the preferred method of delivery where required and symphysiotomy is effectively no longer used in Ireland. The Minister is very conscious of the distress this procedure has caused to a number of women in the past. We all recognise the pain that this issue has caused to those affected by it. Recent legislation requires doctors to maintain and update their competence, and we are in a very different world from when symphysiotomies were carried out in this country. These new statutory requirements for doctors to maintain their professional competence are a significant step. They offer concrete assurance that medical practitioners are appropriately qualified and competent to practise safely. The new professional competence structures will bring the medical regulatory system in Ireland in line with international developments. The Government sees symphysiotomy as one of the legacy issues from the previous Administration. We are committed to dealing with it sensitively so that if at all possible we can help bring some closure to those affected by it. The Minister will consider very carefully the question of a review. In the first instance, it is important to ensure the health needs of those who have had a symphysiotomy are met quickly and effectively. With this in mind the Minister is committed to ensuring the greatest possible supports and services are made available to women who continue to suffer the effects of having undergone this procedure. The women concerned continue to receive attention and care through several services which have been put in place, including the provision of medical cards to all who requested them, the nomination of a liaison officer for a patients group comprised of women who have undergone a symphysiotomy procedure, the availability of independent clinical advice for former patients by liaison officers who assist in co-ordinating the provision of services to those patients, the organisation of individual pathways of care and the arrangement of appropriate follow-up, including medical assessment, gynaecological assessment, orthopaedic assessment, counselling, reflexology, home help, acupuncture and fast-tracked medical appointments, the refund of medical expenses related to symphysiotomy in respect of medication and private treatments, and the establishment of a triple assessment service for patients at Cappagh Hospital, Dublin in January 2005. The HSE has assured the Department of Health and Children that it will continue to monitor and oversee the provision of necessary support services for women. In doing so the HSE is committed to being proactive in seeking out and offering help to women who have had symphysiotomies and who may wish to avail of the services offered by the HSE. The Minister is committed to concluding this matter satisfactorily as soon as possible. He believes that the women who have had this procedure deserve no less. As I stated at the outset, I will convey the Deputy’s sentiments to the Minister as soon as I see him.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 April 2011.

722 Questions— 20 April 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 7, inclusive, answered orally.

Questions Nos. 8 to 20, inclusive, resubmitted.

Questions Nos. 21 to 32, inclusive, answered orally.

Taxi Regulations 33. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for the role of the taxi regulator; his further plans to reform the taxi industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8625/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The National Transport Authority is responsible for the regulation of the taxi industry under the Taxi Regulation Act 2003. The former Commission for Taxi Regulation was absorbed into the National Transport Authority with effect from 1st January last. The recently agreed Programme for Government contained a commitment to review and update the regulation of taxis to ensure that taxi services are recognized as a key component of the public transport system. It also stated that we will provide for a forum for discussion between the regulatory authorities and taxi providers. I am currently looking to establish the best, most effective and efficient way to implement this commitment. In doing this, I am aware of the very diverse view within the taxi industry on the future of the taxi industry as well as the concerns of consumers. I expect to be in a position by the early summer to announce how I intend to implement this commitment from the Prog- ramme for Government.

Air Services 34. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will ensure that generic authorisations for landing or overflight clearances for unscheduled civilian aircraft are modified to stipulate the prior acceptance of rules regarding registration of details and other inspection measures; and if additional legislation is required to do this. [8602/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): Under domestic law, a number of types of air services stand authorised subject to my being satisfied that the operator 723 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] is competent to secure the safe operation of the aircraft to be used in the proposed service. The services that stand authorised are listed in S.I. No. 326 of 1993. To give the Deputy an example of the types of services in question, an over-flight by aircraft of a Contracting State to the Chicago Convention engaged in a charter operation would stand authorised, as would any landing for a technical-stop, or an air service operated for humanitarian or emergency purposes. My officials may request documentation from the operators of these types of flights in certain circumstances, and it may be necessary to issue an authorisation. Such documentation includes:

• Air Operators Certificate, listing the aircraft the operator can operate

• Certificate of Registration

• Air Worthiness Certificate

• Noise Certificate (to show compliance with the current standards as regards noise)

• Insurance Certificate

My officials then consult with the Irish Aviation Authority regarding the documentation submitted, to establish that the proposed operations are safe in every respect. It is not proposed to amend the legislation governing authorisations of flights for the purposes outlined.

Public Transport 35. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to increase investment in an all-Ireland public transport network. [8615/11]

53. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to expand an all-Ireland rail network on an accelerated basis, including an extended western rail corridor serving counties Donegal and Derry, the Derry-Dublin rail link and the west Cork railway network. [8622/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I propose to take Ques- tions Nos. 35 and 53 together. As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport I have responsibility for policy and overall funding in relation to public transport. The provision of transport services in this jurisdiction is a matter for individual transport operators, and where appropriate in conjunction with the National Transport Authority. The question of the development of public transport services and investment in Northern Ireland is a matter for the authorities in Northern Ireland in the first instance. However I understand that there is a level of ongoing co-operation and coordi- nation between public transport providers in both jurisdictions to provide customers with appropriate services. As the Deputy will be aware issues relating to cross-border public transport services are discussed under the auspices of the North-South Ministerial Council with a focus on the main rail link between Dublin and Belfast. In relation to future transport investment, the Govern- ment has announced the preparation of a new Capital Investment Framework from 2012 to be overseen by my colleague Mr Brendan Howlin TD, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. This will involve a comprehensive review of all capital spending by my Department. The review will focus on the overall cost and benefits of projects and programmes, including their overall economic impact and their employment creation potential. The review will of 724 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers course need to take account of new funding realities. A major priority will be to protect existing investment and maintain safety standards. This of necessity will limit the scope for new projects with only those offering the highest return having a chance of being prioritised.

Road Network 36. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding the awarding of the construction contracts set out as Goals 2011 in the annual report 2010 and programme for 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8629/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I understand that the Deputy is referring to the National Roads Authority’s Annual Report for 2010 and its Prog- ramme for 2011. 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 10 working days.

37. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to address the urgent matter of persons tailgating to avoid paying tolls; the amount of money outstanding in eFlow payments on the M50. [8624/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As Minister for Trans- port, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding in relation to the national roads programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads are matters for the National Roads Authority (NRA) under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. In addition, the statutory power to levy tolls on national roads, to make toll bye-laws and to enter into toll agreements with private investors in respect of national roads is vested in the NRA under Part V of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended by the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Roads Act 2007). 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 10 working days.

Air Services 38. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his view that Ireland has been used as a stopover on known rendition circuits; the discussions he has had with the Department of Justice and Equality and Department of Defence on this issue. [8609/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): There have been many allegations made by various organisations about alleged rendition activities through Irish airports and/or through Irish airspace. I understand that a number of such allegations have been investigated in the past and have led to no action. None of the various investigations have revealed any evidence, or even a specific allegation, that any person has on any occasion been subject to extraordinary rendition through Ireland. I am advised that the last Government received unique assurances from the highest level of a friendly State that no extraordinary rendition has taken place through Ireland. I am also advised that it received legal advice that it was entitled under international law to rely on those assurances which were unqualified and unequivocal, i.e. that no prisoners have been subject to 725 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] extraordinary rendition through Ireland. In the circumstances, I have not yet discussed this matter with my colleague, Alan Shatter, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence or with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Eamonn Gilmore.

Question No. 39 answered with Question No. 32.

Public Transport 40. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he is committed to the full roll out of integrated ticketing; and when he expects this to be completed. [8584/11]

47. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when the integrated ticketing project will be completed; the cost of the project to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8546/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I propose to take Ques- tions Nos. 40 and 47 together. As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport I have responsibility for overall policy and funding in relation to public transport. Responsibility to develop, procure, implement, operate and maintain the integrated ticketing scheme in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) became a function of the National Transport Authority (NTA) with effect from 30th September 2010 with the commencement of section 58 of the Dublin Transport Authority (DTA) Act 2008. Furthermore in accordance with section 63(1) of the DTA Act 2008, the Authority has had extended to it the functions in relation to integrated ticketing schemes for all other areas of the State. Noting this I have referred the Deputies’ questions to the NTA for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a reply within 10 working days.

41. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for the public transport system in Cork. [8620/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): A public transport feasibility study was commissioned by Cork City Council in 2008 for the Cork Metropolitan Area which was funded by my Department. The study known as CATS (Cork Area Transit System) sets out a public transport strategy to meet the public transport travel needs of the region up to 2020 and beyond. Amongst the key recommendations of the Study are:

• the development of a west to east rapid transit corridor from Ballincollig to Mahon via the city centre and Docklands, with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) rather than Light Rail Transit (LRT) being the preferred option;

• the phased implementation of an enhanced and reconfigured bus network; and

• the implementation of a city centre Traffic Management Plan to improve accessibility to the city centre and the environment for public transport vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

The National Transport Authority (NTA) is currently examining the recommendations of the Study, as requested by my Department, in consultation as necessary with other appropriate bodies with a view to assessing and prioritising future public transport options for the Cork region, having regard to the current difficult budgetary position. 726 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Some of the CATS Study’s recommendations are already being funded under the Regional Cities Bus Priority and Park & Ride Programme, administered by the NTA, for which an overall allocation of €5.5 million has been provided in 2011 to the four regional cities of Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. The Cork region has received €30.15 million under this programme since 2006. Cork City Council has been allocated €1.2 million in 2011, comprising €900,000 for the Ballincollig Green Route and €300,000 for the Carrigrohane Park & Ride facility.

Air Services 42. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to introduce a regime to ensure aviation leasing companies who do business with intelligence agencies declare to the aviation authority if a hired plane is being used by an intelligence agency and therefore is on official state business, even if a private company is hiring the plane. [8605/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I do not plan to introduce such a regime. The Irish Aviation Authority has statutory responsibility for regulating the safety standards in civil aviation in the State and for providing air navigation services to aircraft operating in Irish airspace and it performs these functions in accordance with its mandate under national and EU law and in accordance with the relevant international conventions.

Rail Network 43. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to prioritise rapid construction of a Dublin-Navan rail link. [8623/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As Minister for Trans- port, Tourism and Sport I have responsibility for policy and overall funding in relation to public transport. Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority (NTA) in December 2009, the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA), such as Phase 2 of the Navan rail line, comes under the remit of the NTA. The legislative basis for this is Section 11(1)(e) of the DTA Act 2008 “Principal Functions of Authority — The principal functions of the Authority are to secure the provision of public transport infrastructure”. However, in relation to policy on this issue the Government has announced the preparation of a new capital investment framework for the period from 2012. This will be overseen by my colleague Mr Brendan Howlin,TD Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The preparation of the new framework requires that my Department review all existing projects and programmes. This will focus on the cost and benefits, the contribution to overall economic objectives as well as the employment creation potential. The review which will involve consultation with relevant agencies will of course also need to take account of new funding realities. A major priority will be to ensure funding to protect and maintain existing investment and maintain high safety standards. This of necessity will restrict the funding for new projects with only those offering the highest return having any chance of being prioritised.

Public Transport 44. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to privatise bus services. [8582/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): In accordance with the commitment in the Programme for Government to explore the benefit to the public transport 727 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] passenger of more diverse bus service provision, I am considering the various options that are currently available as regards achieving greater diversity of bus operators. Under EU law and the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, as amended, existing public service obligation (PSO) bus services can be procured by the National Transport Authority (NTA) through direct award contracts and any other new subvented services must be procured by way of open tendering. The 2008 Act enables the granting of contracts on a direct award basis to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in respect of existing services and on a public tender basis for new services. The direct award contracts with the bus companies apply for 5 years. At the end of the 5 year period NTA have discretion to renew, modify or terminate the direct award provision of bus services following a consultation process with interested parties under which the NTA is obliged to justify its approach. Apart from the public service contract responsibilities granted to the NTA, the 2009 Act also conferred on the NTA responsibility for the licensing of commercial public bus passenger services. The NTA published, in November 2010, new Guidelines for the licensing of public bus services which set out the basis for a reformed licensing system for commercial bus passenger services in the State. The Guidelines identify commercial bus passenger services as a key part of public transport services in the State. I will be consulting with my Ministerial colleagues on the future options for procurement of PSO bus services once I have completed my examination of the options. I hope to announce the outcome of those consultations in the coming months.

45. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his priorities for the development of a comprehensive effort and integrated national transport system in respect of road, rail, air and sea; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8589/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): This Government’s transport objectives are set out in the Programme for Government and place a heavy emphasis on the delivery of effective public transport services. Within this context, I have outlined my transport priorities to 2016 on my Department’s website. In particular, I believe that initiatives like integrated ticketing, better stations and bus stops, real-time passenger information, safe cycling and attractive walking are needed to encourage people out of their cars onto public transport. The Government is committed to reviewing all proposed State investment with a view to identifying investment priorities across the State sector. Following that, the Government will draw up a new National Development Plan that reflects Ireland’s changed economic circumstances, covering the seven-year period 2012-2019. The longer-term transport priorities of the Government will be determined by this process.

Rail Network 46. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on delivering a major transport infrastructure project in Dublin and, in particular, his further views on building a much needed underground interconnector between Heuston Station and the main north/south rail corridor with a stop at the St. Stephen’s Green Luas. [8587/11]

Dublin Area (GDA), such as the DART Underground, comes under the remit of the NTA. The legislative basis for this is Section 11(1)(e) of the DTA Act 2008 “Principal Functions of Authority — The principal functions of the Authority are to secure the — provision of public transport infrastructure”. In relation to Government policy regarding DART Underground, as part of the preparation of a new Capital Investment Framework recently approved by Government which will be overseen by my colleague Mr Brendan Howlin, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, my Department will review transport capital spending. This review, which will take place against a background of new funding realities, will examine the costs and benefits of all capital projects as well as their overall economic impact and job creation potential. A major consideration will be the need to prioritise funding to protect investment made to date and to maintain high safety standards. In relation to the large public transport projects in the Dublin area, the availability of funding, both from the Exchequer and private sources, will be a key consideration as will the contribution in the short, medium and long term to transport objectives and employment creation potential. Despite funding difficulties I will be seeking to ensure that at least one of these projects will go ahead and in this regard will examine all realistic options for delivery including delivery on an incremental, phased basis.

Question No. 47 answered with Question No. 40.

Rail Services 48. Deputy Liam Twomey asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding policy on freight transportation by rail; if he is in discussion with CIE regarding the future of rail freight; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8579/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I have met the Chairman and senior executives in Iarnród Éireann since my appointment and a range of issues were discussed, including rail freight. I understand from Iarnród Éireann that it has, in recent years, substantially restructured its rail freight activity into a profitable business sector within the company. In that context, Iarnród Éireann has made progress in developing the rail freight business in areas where it holds a competitive advantage over road haulage, e.g. large volumes or trainloads over longer distances. Freight trains are operated daily for primary products such as timber from the West of Ireland to Waterford and zinc ore from Tara Mines to Dublin Port. Import/Export container trains are also operated to and from Ballina to both Waterford Port and the Port of Dublin. Iarnród Éireann will pursue further profitable rail freight business opportunities, where feasible. I understand from Iarnrod Eireann that the recent completion by the Port of Dublin of a new rail spur within the port area will enhance connectivity for further growth in the rail freight business to and from Dublin Port.

Question No. 49 answered with Question No. 29.

Rail Network 50. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for metro north. [8628/11]

52. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will reconsider proceeding with enabling works on metro north in 2011 in order to create certainty around the project. [8583/11] 729 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I propose to take Ques- tions Nos. 50 and 52 together. As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport I have responsibility for policy and overall funding in relation to public transport. Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority in December 2009, the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the Greater Dublin Area such as Metro North, comes under the remit of the National Transport Authority. The legislative basis for this is Section 11(1)(e) of the DTA Act 2008 “Principal Functions of Authority — The principal functions of the Authority are to secure the provision of public transport infrastructure”. In relation to the future policy as regards Metro North, the Government has announced the preparation of a new Capital Investment Framework to be overseen by my colleague Deputy Brendan Howlin, Minister for Public Enterprise and Reform. In this regard my Department will review all proposed capital spending. This review, which will take place against a background of new funding realities, will examine the costs and benefits of all capital projects and their contribution to overall economic objectives including employment creation. A key consideration for transport will be the need to prioritise funding to protect investment made to date and to maintain high safety standards. In relation to the large public transport projects in the Dublin area no decisions have yet been made by me as to which project will proceed. The availability of funding, both from the Exchequer and private sources will be a further major determining factor in the review of these projects, two of which — Metro North and Dart Underground — were to be developed as Public Private Partnerships. There is a lot of uncertainty around the availability of private funding for projects dependant on Exchequer funds due to the sovereign debt situation. In any event it is clear that all three cannot proceed in the immediate future. This was accepted by the previous Government following the publication of the National Recovery Plan. Despite funding difficulties I will be seeking to ensure that at least one of these projects will proceed and in this regard will examine all realistic approaches including delivery on an incremental, phased basis. I have recently received correspondence on the Metro North enabling works from the NTA and RPA and will be considering the matter shortly.

Road Network 51. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the maintenance costs of roads built since 2004; the amount of money broken down by road and local authority areas in tabular form. [8614/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As Minister for Trans- port, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding in relation to the national roads programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads is a matter for the National Roads Authority 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 in relation to national roads. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a reply within 10 working days. 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. Details of expenditure on the maintenance of individual regional and local roads would only be available from individual local authorities and the Department would have no record of such detailed project expenditure. I would also ask the Deputy to note that 730 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers all of the Regional and Local Road Grant Payments to each local authority including those for major schemes over the last 10 years are available in the Oireachtas Library.

Question No. 52 answered with Question No. 50.

Question No. 53 answered with Question No. 35.

Road Safety 54. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his position regarding the road safety strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8545/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The Road Safety Strategy 2007 — 2012 is being successfully implemented across a range of agencies. The core objective of the Road Safety Strategy is to reduce road deaths to no greater that 60 fatalities per million population by the end of 2012. This is an average of 21 road deaths per month or 252 deaths per annum. 2010 saw the lowest number of road deaths on record at 213. This is an average of 18 road deaths per month. This core objective has been met well before its target date and we must concentrate our efforts in ensuring that the figure is maintained or improved over the next few years. While there has been a slight increase in the year-on-year rate so far in 2011, we continue to be below the target monthly average. Under action 83 of the Strategy, the Road Safety Authority (RSA) is tasked with reporting annually on the 126 actions in the Strategy. The report on the implementation of the actions for 2009 was approved by my predecessor on 1st March 2011. This is the third such report. The report outlines the progress on the 56 actions (including annual actions) included in the Road Safety Strategy for implementation in 2009. Of these 56 actions, 39 were completed in full and on time, a further 8 are nearing completion or completed outside of the target date and a further 9 are incomplete for a variety of reasons. I expect to receive the fourth annual report covering the implementation of the 2010 actions later this year. At a recent meeting with the Board of the RSA, I requested that initial consideration be given, at an early stage, to the content of the next road safety strategy, which will commence in 2013.

Air Services 55. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to ensure the Irish Aviation Authority establishes and maintains an up-to-date register of aircraft known to have been involved in and aircraft operators whose planes have been implicated in rendition and other human rights violations; and his further plans to ensure air traffic control require of these operators detailed information before landing or overflight clearance is granted and his plans to target these operators for particular attention in compliance, monitoring and inspections. [8607/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The Irish Aviation Auth- ority’s remit is set down in the Irish Aviation Authority Act, 1993 and this does not entail the types of checks that the Deputy suggests. As set out in response to earlier questions on this subject, I am advised that the last Government received unique assurances from the highest level of a friendly State that no extraordinary rendition has taken place through Ireland. I am also advised that it received legal advice that it was entitled under international law to rely on those assurances which were unqualified and unequivocal, i.e. that no prisoners have been subject to extraordinary rendition through Ireland. In these circumstances, I do not propose implementing the measures outlined by the Deputy. 731 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Departmental Expenditure 56. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when he expects the review of capital spending in his Department to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8585/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The government has announced the preparation of a new Capital Investment Framework for the period from 2012. This will be overseen by my colleague Brendan Howlin T.D. Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. In this context, my Department has commenced a Capital Expenditure Review which will set out the priorities for transport infrastructure spending for the coming years. Key criteria for selecting projects will be the costs and benefits of each as well as their overall economic impact and job creation potential. Having regard to the new financial realities a major priority will be to provide funds to protect investments made to date and to maintain high safety standards. I expect the Review, which will take place in consultation with relevant agencies, to be completed in approximately three months.

Public Transport 57. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport which public transport projects he favours outside of Dublin having recently outlined his position on public transport projects for Dublin. [8581/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As Minister for Trans- port, Tourism and Sport I have responsibility for policy and overall funding in relation to public transport. As part of the preparation of a new Capital Investment Framework recently approved by Government which will be overseen by my colleague Mr. Brendan Howlin, Mini- ster for Public Expenditure and Reform, my Department will review transport capital spending. This review, which will take place against a background of new funding realities, will examine the costs and benefits of all capital projects as well as their overall economic impact and job creation potential. A major consideration will be the need to prioritise funding to protect investment made to date and to maintain high safety standards. For public transport this will mean continuing to fund a railway safety programme as well as providing a level of funding for replacement buses on PSO routes throughout the country. I will also be seeking to provide funds for accessibility projects and for smarter travel and traffic management programmes and projects in regional cities and towns across the country. This will mean that of necessity the funds available for any new public transport infrastructure projects will be very limited.

Port Development 58. Deputy Liam Twomey asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he has had any discussions with CIE regarding the future of Rosslare Europort; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8578/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I have had no discussions with Iarnrod Eireann about the future of Rosslare port which I understand continues to be a profitable operation within the company.

Question No. 59 answered with Question No. 29.

Road Network 60. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans for the Leinster orbital route; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8617/11] 732 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

International Agreements 61. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his view of his Department being the lead Department engaging with the International Civil Aviation Organisation; if he will set out the deficiencies identified within the Chicago Convention and any steps taken towards its review. [8608/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) was established by the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly referred to as the Chicago Convention) which was signed by 52 States in December 1944. ICAO was established as a means to secure international co-operation, the highest possible degree of uniformity in regulations and standards, procedures and organisation regarding civil aviation matters. To date 190 States have become a party to the Chicago Con- vention, a testament to its continued relevance and the validity of its main goal, being “..that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically.” While the Chicago Convention itself has remained unchanged since 1944, the 18 Annexes to the Convention which set out the standards and recommended practices for the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation are continually reviewed and updated to keep abre- ast of advances in technology and developments in aviation. As regards the lead Department engaging with ICAO, I consider it entirely appropriate that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is the lead Department in the State to engage with ICAO given that ICAO’s three primary objectives are to enhance global civil aviation safety, enhance global civil aviation security and foster harmonized and economically viable development of international civil aviation that does not unduly harm the environment. I do not believe there is another more appropriate Department to be tasked with engagement on these objectives.

Cycle Facilities 62. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position in relation to the national cycle policy framework. [8611/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The Programme for Government makes it clear that we will continue to invest in the National Cycle Policy and my Department will pursue this commitment on an ongoing basis.

Road Safety 63. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the number and location at which motor accidents have taken place on the M4 motorway between Lucan, County Dublin and Kilcock, County Kildare; the cause or causes of such accidents if known; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8588/11] 733 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The subject matter of this particular question, i.e. road accident statistics, is the responsibility of the Road Safety Authority, and I have referred the question to them for direct reply. I would ask the Deputy to contact my office if a reply has not been received within ten working days.

Air Services 64. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to establish an inter-agency civil aviation monitoring and inspection system. [8610/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I have no plans to establish an inter-agency civil aviation monitoring and inspection system.

Transport 21 65. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding the progression of Transport 21. [8618/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): Transport 21 was the capital investment framework launched in November 2005 under the National Development Plan (NDP) through which the transport system in Ireland was to be developed, over the period 2006 to 2015. Due to changing economic circumstances, the original allocation provided for T21 which proposed Exchequer funding of €26 billion has been subject to substantial reductions since 2005 resulting in an estimated revised Exchequer investment to end 2011 of around €12 billion. The original programme cannot therefore be completed as envisaged. The government has now decided to draw up a new NDP to reflect Ireland’s changed economic circumstances covering the period 2012-2017. In this context, a Capital Expenditure Review, which will set out the priorities for transport infrastructure for those years has commenced and will be overseen by my colleague Brendan Howlin T.D. Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform. Key criteria for selecting projects will be their economic impact and job creation potential. Having regard to the new financial realities a priority will be to provide funds to protect investment made to date and to maintain high safety standards.

Road Network 66. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to make central Government funding available to local authorities to repair ramps which have been damaged due to bad weather conditions. [8616/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (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 these roads are funded from local authorities’ own resources and are supplemented by State road grants. However, the initial selection and prioritisation of projects to be funded is also a matter for the local authority. In February this year it was announced that a total of €375.176 m would be provided to local authorities for the maintenance and improvement of regional and local roads in 2011. In addition, the Restoration Improvement Programme was reintroduced to provide local authorities with flexibility to change their programmes if necessary, given the period of severe weather in late 2010. Furthermore, a Winter Maintenance Grant category has also been introduced which local authorities may use for treating roads during periods of cold weather. To provide increased expenditure flexibility to local authorities the Discretionary Maintenance Grant and the Discretionary Improvement Grant schemes have been combined as a single Discretionary Grant and this may be used for maintenance and for strengthening 734 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers type works on the road network. Similarly, very considerable flexibility has been given to local authorities in respect of the utilisation of the Department of Transport 2011 Grant Allocations for regional and local roads. It is also particularly important that local authorities do not reduce expenditure from their own resources in respect of roads this year in view of the current difficult situation and that they carefully reassess their planned road programmes for 2011 in the light of the impact of the bad weather on their road networks. In addition I have directed that the overall transport budget is assessed to determine what scope exists for allocating additional funds for the repair and maintenance of regional and local roads. Any additional funding made available to local authorities as a result of this process will be subject to the normal assessment criteria relating to State grants.

Civil Service Staff 67. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Taoiseach the grade of person eligible to apply for the position of Captain of the Guard in Leinster House; and the criteria used to arrive at a decision on such an appointment. [8685/11]

The Taoiseach: The method of appointment of the Captain of the Guard in Leinster House, a post last filled in 2002, is laid down in Section 7 of the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Act 1959, which states that “the Captain of the Guard, Houses of the Oireachtas, shall be appointed by the Taoiseach after consultation with the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and the Chairman of Seanad Éireann”.

Human Rights Issues 68. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will raise the plight of the dancing boys of Afghanistan, who are young boys in extreme poverty that are being sexually exploited, with the European Union and United Nations. [8700/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): Conditions in Afghanistan remain difficult. Decades of conflict have taken their toll on the country and its people, leaving much of the Afghan population living in abject poverty. In desperation, some families are forced to sell their children into the illegal practice of “Bacha bazi”. The plight of these children has been highlighted by a number of United Nations officials, including the UN Special Representative for Children and Armed conflict Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, human rights activists and pieces in the media. The reports detailing the horrific sexual abuses these children suffer are deeply disturbing and give cause for great concern. I welcome the recent launch of a National Action Plan by the United Nations to fight child sex trafficking and recruitment of child soldiers in Afghanistan. The plan, which the Afghan Government is committed to implementing, includes the development of national laws and directives to protect children, civil and military accountability mechanisms for punishing those guilty of child abuse and the initiation of a comprehensive education and community awareness campaign on this issue. As part of this process, the United Nations is currently carrying out a detailed study of “Bacha bazi” in Afghanistan to determine the best means of combating it in the future. Ireland is committed to supporting the efforts of the international community to establish a democratic and stable government in Afghanistan based on respect for the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of women and children. Since 2007, Ireland has allocated €24.8 million in development assistance to Afghanistan and has committed to providing a further €20 million over the three year period 2010-2012. Ireland’s funding to Afghanistan is 735 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Eamon Gilmore.] channelled through a number of strategic partners and sectors in line with EU commitments and the EU Action Plan for Afghanistan, which includes support for human rights programs. It will take time and determined action to tackle the practice of “Bacha bazi” but both the UN and Afghan Government have now taken the first steps towards protecting the children of Afghanistan. Ireland will continue to lend them its full support in this matter.

Tax Code 69. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Finance the reason VAT is charged on the public service obligation levy. [8679/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The public service obligation levy (PSO levy) is charged to all electricity customers. It is designed to support the national policy objectives of security of energy supply, the use of indigenous fuels (i.e. peat) and of renewable energy sources in electricity generation. Specifically, the proceeds of the levy are used to recoup the additional costs incurred by ESB and other suppliers in having to source a proportion of their electricity supplies from such generators. In accordance with section 37(1) of the Value- Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010, the amount on which VAT is chargeable is the total consideration receivable by the supplier, “including all taxes, commissions, costs and charges whatsoever” but not including the VAT itself. VAT is an EU-wide tax and Irish VAT law must comply with the EU VAT Directives. Article 78 of EU Council Directive 2006/112/EC provides that the taxable amount shall include “taxes, duties, levies and charges, excluding the VAT itself”. Accordingly, it is correct to include any levy element of a utility bill in the amount on which VAT is chargeable, including in this case the PSO levy. The same situation applies in the case of the carbon tax and other excises, including for example excises on petrol, auto-diesel, tobacco and alcohol products. Guidance in relation to the VAT treatment of the total consideration receivable by a supplier is set out in the VAT Guide. This publication is available on the Revenue website at www.revenue.ie .

Departmental Functions 70. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Finance when the legislative steps will be taken to allow for the proposed changes to the structure of Government Departments. [8715/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): At this stage, I cannot give the Deputy a precise date for the completion of all of the changes to the structures of Government Depart- ments which were announced by the Taoiseach on 9 March as this depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the legislation governing the particular functions that are to be transferred. The process of transferring functions from one Department to another is generally carried out by means of Government Orders under powers contained in section 6(1) of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 1939. In, some cases, however, primary legislation is required. Each Order is carefully drafted so that the Schedule to the Order lists all the relevant legislation where responsibility for the function is being transferred to a different Minister and Department. The relevant Departments have been fully engaged in this task since the Taoiseach’s announcement. Orders to implement the majority of the changes have already been made and include the following. Orders made on 29 March:

• The Government made an Order transferring responsibility for the functions of the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in relation to Equality, Inte- 736 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

gration, Disability and Human Rights to the Minister of Justice and Law Reform with effect from 1 April 2011.

• A second Order was made to change the title of the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to the Minister for Justice and Equality and a similar name change for the Minister’s Department, with effect from 2 April 2011.

• On the same date an Order transferring responsibility for the functions of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport in relation to Tourism and Sport to the Minister for Transport with effect from 1 April 2011 was made.

• A further Order was made to change the title of the Minister for Transport to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and a similar name change for the Minister’s Department, with effect from 2 April 2011.

Orders made on 5 April :

On 5 April the Government made Orders to transfer the functions of the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in relation to

• Marine Tourism to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,

• the National Drugs Strategy to the Minister for Health and Children,

• Social Inclusion to the Minister for Social Protection,

• Gaeilge, Gaeltacht and the Islands to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Each of these transfers will come into effect on 1 May 2011. Orders made on 19 April:

• Yesterday the Government made Orders transferring the Heritage functions from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport with effect from 1 May 2011.

• A further Order was made to change the name of the Department to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government with effect from 2 May 2011.

• The Taoiseach also signed Orders yesterday to transfer further functions from the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs. These functions included the ‘Community’ functions, Waterways Ireland and the ‘Charities’ functions.

When all relevant functions have transferred from the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht, the structure of that Department will be utilised to establish the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. In due course, the Government will be asked to agree to An Alteration of Title and Change of Name Order which will change the name of the Department to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Further Orders will then be made to transfer functions into the new Department. It is envisaged that the Department of Children and Youth Affairs will comprise:

• The functions of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (including co-location of the Early Years Education Unit from the Department of Education and Skills)

• Irish Youth Justice Service, transferring from the Department of Justice and Equality. 737 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

• Functions of the Minister for Education and Skills regarding the National Educational Welfare Board.

• Family Affairs and the Family Support Agency (currently part of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs). A review of the legislation covering the functions transferring into the Department of Children and Youth Affairs is ongoing.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will be established by primary legislation. Work has commenced on the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011. This work is being given top priority in my Department and in the Office of the Attorney General. Initial legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General suggests that the transfer of the Irish Coast Guard from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (which will subsequently be renamed the Department of Agri- culture, Food and the Marine) cannot proceed in full without primary legislation. The Depart- ment of Transport, Tourism and Sport is awaiting written legal advice to this effect. There are a number of other Transfer of Functions/Alteration of Name of Department and Title of Minister Orders currently with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and these will be brought to Government in May. I can assure the Deputy that everyone involved in the process, both in my own Department and in the other Departments concerned, is making every effort to complete all of the changes at the earliest possible date.

Tax Collection 71. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Finance if stamp duty reimbursement will be made available to a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8742/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that there is insufficient information contained in the Deputy’s request to enable them to trace the record in this case. An official from the Revenue Commissioners Stamping District will contact the Deputy in order to assist him with his enquiry.

Banking Sector Restructuring 72. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Finance in view of the fact that it is likely that in the near future there will be no building societies operating here, if he will ensure that there is diversity in the newly restructured Irish retail financial service sector by using his golden share to convert one of the two new pillar banks into a building society, co-operative bank or other mutual entity. [8681/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): As the Deputy is aware, on 31 March 2011, I announced a radical restructuring of the Irish banking system. This new domestic banking system will have two universal full-service banks as its core pillars, serving the Irish economy and the Irish people. This restructuring process will, over time, return the banking system to long-term viability and profitability. Key objectives which I have set for the process are to provide a secure financial system for deposits and ensure the flow of credit to Irish consumers and businesses, to ensure the Irish banks are viable financial institutions which can fund themselves without continued support from the State or the ECB and eventually, to dispose of the State’s shareholdings in these institutions to the benefit of the Exchequer. The future strategic direction of the banking sector — including the legal form of the banks — will be guided by a 738 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers range of factors including the maximisation of the return to the taxpayer from the necessary intervention by the State in the current banking crisis.

Departmental Properties 73. Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide full and detailed particulars of rental property in Portlaoise, County Laois, currently leased to the State, with particular reference to the number of buildings, the location of buildings, the tenure under which the lands are being leased, the term of the lease and the rent; the position regarding the proposed construction of a State building in Portlaoise to accommodate officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the current programme of decentralis- ation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8745/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): The Office of Public Works currently rents ten buildings in Portlaoise for the purposes of providing Office/Warehouse accommodation for various Government Departments. The lease details are scheduled in the table.

Building Rent Per Lease Term Lease Lease Expiry Annum No of Years Commencement Date Date

€

Portlaoise Furniture Store, Timahoe Road 2,031.58 10 1 Jan 2001 25 Dec 2011

Portlaoise Agriculture Warehouse, 107,919.25 20 1 Dec 1999 30 Nov 2019 Kylekiproe Industrial Estate

Portlaoise DAF Appeals Office, Kilminchy 84,051.49 20 1 June 2003 1 June 2023 Court

Portlaoise Agriculture Office, Knockmay 191,000.00 6 25 Apr 2005 25 Dec 2011

Portlaoise Agriculture Office, Grattan 264,640.00 5 20 Jan 2006 25 Dec 2011 Business Centre, Dublin Road

Portlaoise Environment Office, Breffni, Old 9,945.00 5 12 July 2006 11 Oct 2011 Abbeyleix Road

Portlaoise Agriculture & Education Office, 46,860.00 9 1 Aug 2006 30 June 2016 Grattan House, Grattan Business Centre, 75,000.00 5 30 Nov 2007 29 Nov 2012 Dublin Road

Portlaoise Agriculture Records Warehouse, 98,133.16 20 10 Dec 2007 9 Dec 2027 Unit 11, Clonminam Industrial Estate

Portlaoise Education & Equality Office, 60,961.50 4 1 July 2008 31 May 2013 James Fintan Lawlor Avenue

Portlaoise Agriculture Office, Gandon Court, 70,500.00 20 14 Mar 2009 13 Mar 2029 Fairgreen 76,050.00 20 22 May 2009 21 May 2029 67,245.00 20 1 July 2009 1 July 2029

Permanent accommodation in Portlaoise for officials of the Department of Agriculture, Fisher- ies and Food was originally to be procured under a PPP process, which also included the provision of accommodation for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation in Carlow and the Department of Education and Skills in Mullingar. This project was terminated by the Minister for Finance in December 2009 on affordability and value for money grounds. It was decided that the Portlaoise element of the project would proceed by traditional procure- 739 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] ment. The Department is currently reviewing the staffing requirements of the project in the context of its overall numbers. Although this project is approved in principle, the demands on the Office of Public Works resources make it unlikely that the project could commence in the short to medium term.

Tax Code 74. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance the cost to the Exchequer of abolishing the €3 travel tax; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8789/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The air travel tax yielded €105m in 2010. Budget 2011 introduced a single air travel tax rate of €3 with effect from 1 March on a temporary basis, replacing the €2 and €10 distance related rates, in conjunction with a DAA incentive scheme. This reduction is estimated to cost the Exchequer €56m in tax this year. The Prog- ramme for Government includes a commitment to abolish the €3 travel tax subject to a deal being agreed with airlines to re-open closed routes and bring more tourists into Ireland. This measure, if implemented with effect from 1 July 2011, will cost €15m in 2011, €91m in 2012, €105m in 2013 and thereafter. These costs reflect the fact that the Budget 2011 reduction in the rate to €3 was on a temporary basis, i.e. the costs provided reflect the move from the full rate of €10.

Civil Service Staff 75. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance if he is committed to reforming civil servants privilege days; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8790/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): It is the position that privilege days no longer pertain in the civil service and have been incorporated into the annual leave allowance of civil servants. In the context of a more integrated public service, as set out in the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014, the issue of standardising annual leave arrangements across the public service is being considered by my Department.

76. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance the annual cost of civil servant sick leave; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8791/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): As the Deputy will be aware, primary responsibility for recording and managing sick leave rates is the responsibility of individual Departments and Offices, while the development of policy is a matter for my Department. In late 2009 the Comptroller and Auditor General published a Special Report on Sickness Absence in the Civil Service. That Special Report showed that sickness absence rates and costs vary widely across Government Departments and Offices. The day to day management of sickness absence rests with each Government Department or Office. Each Department has IT systems to record attendance and absences in the Civil Service, namely a Time and Attendance system and a Human Resource Management System (HRMS). These systems form an essential part of absence management and control and are aimed at complementing the non-IT systems, the manual business processes in place for checking, cross referencing and validating absences, thus providing an overall robust system for absence management in the Civil Service. An officer’s career in the Civil Service can be seriously affected if her/his sick absences indicate that s/he cannot be relied upon to give regular and effective service. Sick leave has a very important role in the assessment of the suitability of staff for retention and progression in

740 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers the Civil Service. Abuse of the sick leave regulations may lead to severe penalties including dismissal, withholding of salary increments and withdrawal of sick pay privileges. These arrangements have recently been reinforced and updated by my Department which has developed an up to date policy on management of sick leave taking account of the issues raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The updated policy has been agreed with Staff Unions and is now in force. The policy was set out in a comprehensive circular on the Management of Sick Leave issued in July 2010 which is available on our website at www.personnelcode.gov.ie. The policy also gives effect to many of the C&AG recommendations in his Special Report Sickness Absence in the Civil Service such as:

Defining long term sick leave;

New practice when resuming work after sick leave ;

Introduction of Sick Leave Review and Return to Work Meetings

Early intervention and referral to the Chief Medical Officer in accordance with international best practice

The Circular aims to reduce absence from work by effective management of sick leave, and to this end, sets out manager’s and officer’s responsibilities in this area. As effective reporting formats and procedures are essential elements of a successful sick leave management system, the Circular sets out minimum reporting standards. To underpin this, an effective reporting format has been devised for sick absences. The reduction of work absences and costs should result in improved service delivery and relieve pressure on staff resources.

Fiscal Policy 77. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance if he has made contact with US regulatory authorities to collate the dollar assets of Irish banks in order that they can be used as security to secure funding from the US Federal Reserve; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8792/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I have not made contact with the US regulatory authorities regarding the matter the Deputy refers to. The Deputy may however be aware that on 21 December 2010, the ECB announced a prolongation of US dollar liquidity-providing operations via its swap arrangements with the Federal Reserve until 1 August 2011. These dollar liquidity-providing operations take the form of repurchase operations against eligible criteria and are carried out as fixed rate tenders with full allotment. The operations have a maturity of seven days and are conducted every week. The Central Bank has advised me that this facility is available for all Eurosystem counterparties, if required.

Departmental Staff 78. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance the precise responsibility of a person (details supplied) at his Department; the grade they hold; the circumstances of the transfer of this person from the Central Bank and the grade they held at the Central Bank. [8793/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The person who is the subject of the Deputy’s question has been seconded from the Central Bank to the Department of Finance with effect from the end of last month. As the requirement for senior staff has increased, the

741 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] person concerned brings with him considerable relevant experience and expertise. He has been assigned to oversee the recently announced restructuring of the banking sector and associated issues. As part of these duties, the person will report directly to the Secretary-General of the Department of Finance, and will lead the relevant team within the Department of Finance. He will act, in other words, as a senior official within the Department. The assignment of staff on secondment from the Central Bank to the Department and vice-versa is a normal feature of working arrangements between the two organisations, though this may be the first recent time that a secondment has happened at the senior management level. The precise term of the person’s secondment from the Central Bank is a matter for discussion between the Department and the Central Bank.

Departmental Reports 79. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance in relation to the comprehensive spending review, the person who is conducting the review and if there is external assistance provided for the review by way of participation or consultancy services. [8794/11]

80. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance the terms of reference of the comprehensive spending review. [8795/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 79 and 80 together. Arrangements for the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure are being put in place by the relevant officials. It has been agreed by Government that each Department will undertake a root and branch evaluation of both their own expenditure and that of bodies within their remit, under the general oversight of a Steering Committee of senior officials. It is not proposed at this point to retain the services of external consultants. These Reports will be considered by the Government Economic Management Council and will form a key input to the Govern- ment’s decisions on the annual Budget and Estimates process. The objectives of the Expenditure Review process will be to provide the Government with a comprehensive set of decision options:

• to meet the overall fiscal consolidation objectives, both as regards spending and numbers reduction targets;

• to re-align spending with the Programme for Government priorities; and

• in this context, to consider new ways of achieving Government objectives in the context of public sector reform.

Tax Code 81. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that no changes to VAT are proposed in the forthcoming jobs initiative. [8796/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Government has committed in the Programme for Government to introduce a Jobs Initiative. Included in this initiative is a commitment to lower the 13.5% reduced rate of VAT to 12% up to the end of 2013. The exact terms of this Jobs Initiative will be announced in the forthcoming weeks.

742 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Proposed Legislation 82. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that no amendment to the Finance Act 2011 will be proposed in the forthcoming jobs initiative in the tax treatment of pensions. [8797/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The full extent of the potential tax changes which may be introduced as part of the forthcoming Jobs Initiative is still under consideration. In line with accepted practice, I do not intend to comment on those changes in advance of their disclosure to this House.

Property Valuations 83. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance the steps he will take to ensure that information gathered from the stamp duty regime is used to compile data on house valuation to inform a valuations database. [8798/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am assuming that the question relates to the compilation of a property valuations database that would be publicly available. The Prog- ramme for National Government contains a commitment to improve the quality of information available on the housing market by requiring that the selling price of all dwellings be recorded in a publicly available national housing price database. I am informed by the Minister for Justice and Equality that he intends to give effect to this commitment by assigning statutory responsibility for publishing details of residential property sales prices to the Property Services Regulatory Authority. The Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009, which was published by the previous Govern- ment, provides for the establishment of this authority and is currently awaiting Dáil Committee Stage. The Minister for Justice and Equality intends to table amendments to the Bill which will expand the authority’s statutory functions to include the publication of residential property sales prices. Similar amendments had been proposed during the last Dáil by the previous Mini- ster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, the Deputy will be aware that the Revenue Commissioners treat taxpayer confidentiality very seriously and s77 Finance Act 2011 contains new provisions underpinning that confidentiality. In particular, the Revenue Commis- sioners are specifically excluded from divulging taxpayer information in the absence of a statutory requirement.

Public Sector Pay 84. Deputy Brian Lenihan asked the Minister for Finance the assistance that will be rendered and the participation that will take place by him or his officials in the EU-International Monet- ary Fund reverse benchmarking exercise to reduce public sector pay. [8799/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Sup- port for Ireland does not include a reverse benchmarking exercise to reduce public sector pay. No proposal for such an exercise has been made and accordingly the participation or assistance of my officials does not arise.

Irish Government Bonds 85. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide the names and addresses of each person or association acting on their own behalf and or on the behalf of clients and the amounts involved in each case who took up or bought Irish Government Bonds during the last issue of bonds on behalf of Ireland by the National Treasury Management

743 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[ Deputy Sean Fleming.] Agency or any other agency on behalf of Ireland; the methods by which these were paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8813/11]

86. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide names and addresses of each person or association acting on their own behalf and or on the behalf of clients and the amounts involved in each from whom the Government purchased or redeemed bonds during the last issue of bonds on behalf of Ireland by the National Treasury Management Agency or any other agency on behalf of Ireland; the methods by which these were paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8814/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 85 and 86 together. I am informed by the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA), which is responsible for borrowing on behalf of the Government and the management of the National Debt, that the most recent issuance of Irish Government bonds by the Agency took place by auction in September 2010. This completed a programme of bond funding by the NTMA which raised €20bn for the calendar year to meet the Exchequer’s requirements. Bond auctions are conducted electronically on the Bloomberg Auction System and are confined to the Primary Dealers in Irish Government bonds, who are recognised by the NTMA and are members of and regulated by the Irish Stock Exchange. They are:

Barclays, London BNP Paribas, London Citigroup, London Credit Agricole CIB, Paris Danske Bank, Copenhagen Davy, Dublin Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt Goldman Sachs, London HSBC CCF, Paris ING Bank NV, Amsterdam JP Morgan, London Bank of America Merrill Lynch, London Nomura International plc, London Royal Bank of Scotland, London Société Générale, Paris.

Primary Dealers are obliged to maintain a market in Irish Government bonds and are granted exclusive access to primary bond issuance. They buy bonds when they are issued both to satisfy client demand and to maintain market positions on their own books. Bonds are bought and sold on a delivery-versus-payment basis, whereby secure electronic payments and title transfer are made contemporaneously. The vast majority of bonds are held by institutional investors in the Euroclear clearing and settlement system, generally in a nominee account structure, which does not permit the identification of the beneficial owners. This is standard market practice in the sovereign bond markets.

744 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

The composition of holders of Irish Government bonds can, as with any liquid asset market, change quite quickly as market circumstances change. In the case of bond redemptions, the payments are made via Euroclear to the holders of the bonds. The Central Bank of Ireland maintains a register of Irish Government bonds. The bonds held by Euroclear, representing 99.74% of Irish Government bonds in issue, are registered in one omnibus account in the Central Bank’s register but details of the bond transactions relating to those bonds are held by Euroclear. All transactions in relation to the remaining 0.26% of Irish Government bonds are made through the Central Bank and information regarding individual holders is treated as confidential.

EU-IMF Fund 87. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Finance in respect of the EU-IMF programme for assistance, if he will provide the actual draw downs of funds in euros on a quarterly basis for the duration of the programme in respect of each source of funding, namely, the IMF Extended Fund Facility, the European Financial Stability Mechanism, the eurozone member states European Financial Stability Fund and bi-lateral loans from the UK, Denmark and Sweden in tabular form; if he will set out in respect of each source of funding the interest rate, interest rate changes for each year and the interest to be actually paid each year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8815/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Disbursement Schedules The EU-IMF Programme of Financial support provides for €85 billion in overall support with the external element of this funding amounting to €67.5 billion up to the end of 2013. In relation to the schedule for the drawdown of the programme funding it is important to note that this will be continuously reviewed to take account of our requirements. To date, a number of indicative schedules for drawing down this funding have been published in the staff reports of the EU Commission and the IMF. The most recent of these was that published by the EU Commission in February this year. These schedules are indicative, and are in the process of being updated to take account of later information. For example — the programme envisaged a provision of €35 billion for the banking sector support. Following the recent stress tests, the total requirement is now assessed at €24 billion in gross terms, with the net figure being somewhat lower as part of this is expected to be found from private capital raising and contributions from the subordinated bond holders. In that context the exact amount required to be drawn down for bank recapitalisation cannot be determined until these exercises have been completed. The precise requirements for exchequer funding will also become clear as the year progresses. The schedules for quarterly draw downs are therefore subject to variation. The indicative data published by the European Commission in February 2011 included an illustrative drawdown schedule for the EU-IMF element of the programme (including bilateral loans). This is set out in table 1 below.

Table 1: Indicative draw down Profile — February 2011 (€ billion)

EU-IMF Loan Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q32011 Q4 2011 Year Year Year Total Disbursement 2011 2012 2013

EU 11.7 8.4 3.9 4.6 28.6 13.1 3.3 45 IMF 5.9 4.2 1.9 2.3 14.3 6.6 1.6 22.5

Total 17.6 12.6 5.8 6.9 42.9 19.7 4.9 67.5 Source: EU European Economy Paper 76 February 2011: The Economic Adjustment Programme for Ireland.

745 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

As already noted, this schedule is indicative and assumes drawdown of the full amount of the funding available. The drawdown schedule was discussed during the recent review mission, which finished last week. It is now envisaged that the aggregate drawdown for this year will amount to €38.5 billion in 2011. It is currently envisaged that an amount of up to €19 billion may be drawn down in 2012 and on that basis the remaining €10 billion of external funding would be available for drawdown in 2013. The details of this proposed drawdown schedule are still being discussed by the NTMA with the EU, the ECB and the IMF. Once final agreement has been reached on the exact timing and the allocation of the external funds the revised indicative schedule will be published by my Department. The amounts drawn down to date, and the interest rate applicable to these amounts, are set out in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Draw down of EU & IMF funds to date (April 2011)

Net Disbursement Draw down Date MaturityProfile Interest Rate amount (Effective)

€billion %

EFSM 4.973 12 Jan 2011 4 years 11 months 5.51 3.4 24 March 2011 7 years 6.206 1 = IMF 5.836 18 Jan 2011 72 years average life 1.92 SDR 5.2* EFSF 3.592** 1 Feb 2011 5 years 6 months 5.9

Total 17.801 5.62*** *The SDR rate on the IMF drawdown reflects the lower rate arising from our recent quota increase. It is lower than the overall indicative rate for this funding as it is the initial drawdown and accordingly a portion of the drawdown attracts a lower rate of interest as it is less than 3 times quota. An additional surcharge is added for any borrowing in excess of 3 times quota that is outstanding for more than three years. The 5.2% € rate shown is the estimated equivalent rate at current market rates and taking account of an expected future increase in Ireland’s IMF quota when the full amount of the SDR floating rate funds available under the Programme is swapped into euro fixed rates. **This is the net disbursement amount. The drawdown under the EFSF is €4.2 billion but some €600 million of this is applied to credit enhancement measures — leaving €3.592 billion available for the exchequer. *** The effective interest rate on the total amount is calculated using the 5.2% Euro equivalent interest rate shown above for IMF funding.

Drawdown schedules for the bilateral loans: UK The disbursement schedule for the UK bilateral loans is as follows:

Table 3: UK loan disbursement profile

Review (IMF) Amount

Q3 2011 £403,370,000 Q4 2011 £403,370,000 Q1 2012 £403,370,000 Q2 2012 £403,370,000 Q3 2012 £403,370,000 Q4 2012 £403,370,000 Q1 2013 £403,370,000 Q2 2013 £403,370,000

746 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Denmark and Sweden Discussion of the Danish and Swedish loan agreements is continuing and both the proposed drawdown schedules and the interest rate to be charged on the loans will form part of that discussion.

Interest Rates: The average (blended) interest rate on the €67.5 billion available to be drawn from these three external sources was estimated to be 5.82 per cent on the basis of market rates at the time of the agreement. The actual cost will depend on the prevailing market rates at the time of each drawdown and could be higher if market rates have deteriorated. The average life of the borrowings, which will involve a combination of longer and shorter dated maturities, under each of these sources is 7.5 years. The interest on Ireland’s borrowing from EFSM is based on the cost to EFSM of raising funds in the markets plus a margin of 2.925%. In the case of EFSF the cost of funds for Ireland is based on the cost to EFSF of raising funds in the markets plus a margin of 2.47%, plus the cost of credit enhancement features which can vary over time but amounted to 0.54% on the loan drawn down from EFSF on 1 February 2011. Discussions are under way with a view to achieving a 1 per cent reduction in the cost of Ireland’s borrowing from EU sources. With respect to borrowings from the IMF, based on current market conditions, the NTMA has estimated an effective average annual cost of around 5.20%, taking into account quota revisions and the cost of hedging and assuming drawdown of the full €22.5 billion available from the IMF. The interest rate for the UK loan will be the 7.5 year sterling swap rate plus a margin of 2.29%.

The interest rate to be paid in each year: The amount of interest to be paid on these loans each year will be determined by the actual amounts drawn down and these amounts are still under discussion.

Tax Code 88. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Finance if a person who received a delayed payment from the Health Service Executive has to pay the universal social charge on the total amount; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8835/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The position is that, on the basis of the legislation as enacted, all relevant emoluments made on or after 1 January 2011 are subject to the Universal Social Charge irrespective of the period to which they relate. The Revenue Commissioners has provided detailed information on the Universal Social Charge in the form of Frequently Asked Questions. This issue is dealt with at number 4.19 of the FAQ’s. These are available on the Revenue website — www.revenue.ie.

School Enrolment 89. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide the funding and put in the necessary measures to open a school (details supplied) by September 2011, bearing in mind the significant demand for Gaelscoil places in this area, which existing Gaelscoileanna cannot meet. [8670/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): As the Deputy may be aware, approval was recently given for a new primary school under the patronage of Educate Together

747 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] in the area concerned to open in September 2011. This is to be followed by the opening of a new gaelscoil under the patronage of An Foras Pátrúnachta in September 2012. The combination of the two new schools will cater for the increased demographics of the area referred to in the medium to long term and will greatly enhance the diversity of school provision in the area. It is also considered preferable to only open one school in an area in a given year so that enrolments in existing schools are not distorted and to allow the new school to become established and build up relationships with existing schools.

School Staffing 90. Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Education and Skills if a teacher unhappy in the school where they are teaching can leave that school and go back on the panel and be placed in another school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8684/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The purpose of the redeployment arrangements is to redeploy a teacher who is surplus in one school to a vacancy in another school. The redeployment arrangements are not designed to facilitate voluntary transfers between schools.

School Enrolment 91. Deputy Simon Harris asked the Minister for Education and Skills the criteria for primary schools accepting pupils; if he is required to provide a place for pupils once they have reached a certain age; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8691/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The compulsory school starting age in a National School is 6 years of age. The question of enrolment in individual schools is the responsibility of the managerial authority of those schools. My Department’s main responsibility is to ensure that schools in an area can, between them, cater for all pupils seeking places. This may result, however, in some pupils not obtaining a place in the school of their first choice. It is the responsibility of the managerial authorities of schools to implement an enrolment policy in accordance with the Education Act, 1998. In this regard a board of management may find it necessary to restrict enrolment to children from a particular area or a particular age group or, occasionally, on the basis of some other criterion. This selection process and the enrolment policy on which it is based must be non-discriminatory and must be applied fairly in respect of all applicants. Section 29 of the Education Act 1998, provides parents with an appeal process where a board of management of a school or a person acting on behalf of the Board refuses enrolment to a student. Where a school refuses to enrol a pupil, the school is obliged to inform parents of their right under Section 29 of the Education Act 1998 to appeal that decision to either the relevant Vocational Education Committee or to the Secretary General of my Department. The National Educational Welfare Board (NEWB) is the statutory agency which can assist parents who are experiencing difficulty in securing a school place for their child. The Board can be contacted at National Educational Welfare Board, National Headquarters, 16-22 Green Street, Dublin 7 or by telephone at 01-8738700.

Schools Refurbishment 92. Deputy Noel Coonan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding a refurbishment project in respect of a school (details supplied) in County Tipperary; when the project will move to the next stage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8693/11]

748 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The project to which the Deputy refers is currently at advanced tender stage. Subject to no issues arising, it is anticipated that the project will proceed to construction in the coming months.

FÁS Training Programmes 93. Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position in respect of the possibility of vocational education committees, in the future, providing the training carried out by FÁS; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8698/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): As far as the training activities of FÁS and the VECs are concerned, I am currently reviewing options regarding the provision of further education and training and the structures to support it.

Schools Building Projects 94. Deputy Ciara Conway asked the Minister for Education and Skills when a school (details supplied) in County Waterford will receive its site visit to commence the process of appointing a design team. [8744/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): A major project for the school referred to by the Deputy was included on the list of projects on the work programme for 2011, which was announced on 24 January 2011, where briefs will be formulated in 2011 and the process of appointing a Design Team will commence. A new school will be provided for the school in question. Officials from my Department were in contact with the school recently in relation to the steps to be taken to progress the project. A site visit is currently being arranged.

Teaching Qualifications 95. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide on a yearly basis from 1960 to 1974 the number of individuals awarded the Department’s qualification, the secondary school teacher’s drawing certificate; the status of the qualification; and its use as a teaching qualification. [8757/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I have asked the State Examin- ations Commission to forward the information requested directly to the Deputy. As the records are not in electronic form for this period, the information will take some time to assemble.

School Transport 96. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason a free travel pass has been withdrawn in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Donegal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8800/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): The changes to school transport services were announced in the 2011 Budget by the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government and derive from a recommendation in the recently published Value for Money Review of the scheme. Changes in the 2011/2012 school year will mean that 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 pupils categorised for transport under the CSR who reside less than 3.2 kilometres (2 miles) from the school of attendance and who are currently availing of free transport to that school under the CSR will lose transport eligibility.

749 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ciarán Cannon.]

The changes to school transport provision under the Closed School Rule means that the distance criteria will be applied uniformly and equitably on a national basis. Primary school pupils who are not eligible for school transport may apply for concessionary transport subject to the terms of the scheme, at an annual charge of €200 per pupil, subject to a family maximum of €650 per annum. There is no provision within the scheme to waive the charges in respect of pupils who are availing of concessionary school transport. Given the major financial constraints facing the country, I cannot reverse the changes to school transport as announced by the previous government in Budget 2011. We all have to understand the legacy of economic mis- management which the last Government gave to the country.

Training and Work Experience Programmes 97. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding graduate interns (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8803/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Programme for Government contains proposals to support a Jobs Initiative which will provide additional places in training, work experience and educational opportunities for those who are out of work. This will include an Internship Scheme. Further details regarding the Jobs Initiative and an Internship Scheme will be announced shortly by the Government. Already in existence as a means for unemployed graduates to gain valuable work experience is the Work Placement Programme. The Work Placement Programme provides unemployed graduates and non-graduates with the opportunity to avail of up to 9 months work experience in a real work environment. Individuals interested in participating on the Work Placement Programme should contact their local FÁS office.

School Accommodation 98. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding accommodation in respect of a school (details supplied) in County Wicklow; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8811/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The most recent projections produced by my Department are forecasting an increase in the projected enrolments at primary level in the coming years. It is within this context that the Forward Planning Section of my Department is in the process of analysing all areas in the country in order to determine the level of additional provision which will be required at both primary and post primary level up to 2017. Overall primary requirements in Wicklow will be considered as part of this process and an appropriate long term accommodation solution to the needs of the area will be considered in the context of my Department’s multi-annual School Building and Modernisation Programme. I can confirm for the Deputy that the first two schools to which he refers have applied to my Department for major capital funding for new schools and the third school has applied for an extension. In accordance with the published prioritisation criteria for large scale capital projects, the applications for the three schools have been assessed and all have been assigned a band 2 rating. Information in respect of the current school building programme along with all assessed applications for major capital works, including the proposed projects for the schools in question, is available on my Department’s website at www.education.ie. The progression of all large scale building projects, including projects for these schools, from initial design stage through to construction phase will be considered in the context of the Department’s multi-annual School Building and Modernisation Programme with due regard to

750 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers the recommendations from the Forward Planning Section of my Department and the available funding. At that point, a meeting between school representatives and my officials can be arranged if necessary. It is not possible to give an indicative timeframe for the progression of the projects at this time.

99. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Education and Skills the person who sanc- tioned the purchase of 40 acres of land at a location (details supplied) in County Kildare for a multi school campus in view of the fact that the location of the lands and their proposed use was in direct contravention of Department policy since 2005 which deemed that a new second level school was required on the Straffan side of Maynooth County Kildare. [8839/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Since the publication of the Com- mission on School Accommodation Area Development Plan for the N4/M4 Area report in 2005, my Department has continued to analyse demographic data to identify the areas in the country where, due to demographic changes, there may be a requirement for significant additional school provision at both primary and post-primary levels over the coming years. This study has been conducted using data from the Central Statistics Office, the General Regis- ter Office and the Department of Social Protection and with reference to recent schools’ enrolment data. School accommodation requirements in the Maynooth area have been considered as part of this detailed study and the Forward Planning post-primary reports forecast that a new post-primary entity will be required for Maynooth town and environs in the next 3 to 4 years. The existing post primary school is currently housed on a 5 acre site with no room for further expansion and a current enrolment of circa 1,100 pupils. Following consultation with the Local Authority, County Kildare Vocational Education Committee submitted a proposal for the purchase of lands to meet the need for additional educational accommodation in Maynooth. The site is considered suitable for future educational purposes. On that basis, my Department approved the proposed acquisition by the VEC of these lands in order to provide for forecasted educational accommodation requirements in the Maynooth area.

Joint Labour Committees 100. Deputy Gerald Nash asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when the review of joint labour committee agreements will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8683/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I expect that the Review will be completed and submitted to me in the coming days. The report will be published following consideration by the Government. An action plan will be developed in consultation with the European Commission Services, in line with the provision in the EU/IMF Programme, with a view to early implementation of reforms necessary to make the statutory wage setting mechanisms more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions.

Question No. 101 withdrawn.

Social Welfare Code 102. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Social Protection when she will sign into law the approval for persons with long-term disabilities to do work and retain social welfare benefits when it is medically advantageous to them. [8706/11]

751 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The legislative basis which provides for the introduction of the partial capacity benefit scheme is contained in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2010, which was enacted by the Oireachtas in December 2010. The specific provision is subject to a Commencement Order. The introduction of the partial capacity benefit scheme will mark a key development of the social welfare system. The scheme recognises that the current structure of the welfare system, which categorises people as ‘fit to work’ or ‘unfit to work’, does not reflect the reality for many existing welfare customers. It will provide an opportunity for people with disabilities, and assessed to have an employment capacity which is restricted when compared to the norm, to avail of employment opportunities while continuing to receive an income support payment. A programme of work is currently underway to cater for the new scheme. This includes the preparation of Regulations, as required by legislation, to cover, amongst other things, the medical protocols which will determine eligibility for the scheme; the rates of payment; the development of the necessary medical criteria against which partial employment capacity will be assessed; and the development of the necessary processes and information technology systems to process claims. Every effort is being made to complete these necessary steps as soon as possible in order to allow for the formal introduction of the scheme at the earliest possible date.

Social Welfare Appeals 103. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will issue on an appeal of a decision for carer’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8716/11]

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 16th December 2010. It is a statutory requirement of the appeals process that the relevant Depart- mental 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.

104. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding an application for reinstatement of a carer’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Longford; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8723/11]

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. 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.

105. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding an appeal for an invalidity pension in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Longford; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8724/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): I am advised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that an Appeals Officer, having fully considered all the evidence, disallowed the appeal of the person concerned by way of summary decision. The person concerned has

752 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers been notified of the decision. The legislation provides that an Appeals Officer may decide a case before him/her on the basis of the documentary evidence. This course of action was taken in this case as it was considered that an oral hearing was not warranted. 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 106. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding an application for carer’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Long- ford; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8725/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The person concerned is currently in receipt of carer’s allowance in respect of one care recipient (caree). On 28 October 2010, following examination of the medical evidence by a medical assessor of the Department, a deciding officer refused her carer’s allowance in respect of a second caree on the grounds that that caree is not so disabled as to require full time care and attention as prescribed in regulations. She was notified of this decision, the reason for it and of her right of review or appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. Additional medical evidence was subsequently received from the person concerned and was forwarded to the department’s medical assessor for review. However, this additional information did not alter the opinion of the medical assessor and the decision remains unchanged. On 16 March 2011 she was notified of this decision, the reasons for it and of her right of appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.

Social Welfare Appeals 107. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection when an oral hearing will be granted in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8746/11]

108. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will issue on an appeal for carer’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8749/11]

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 24th 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 14th 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 Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection

753 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Social Welfare Benefits 109. Deputy Jerry Buttimer asked the Minister for Social Protection if children with autism spectrum disorder are eligible for the domiciliary care allowance; if there were any changes to the eligibility criteria for the domiciliary care allowance when it was transferred from the Health Service Executive to the Department of Social Protection; the refusal rate for the domiciliary care allowance when it was assessed by the HSE in 2008; the refusal rate for the domiciliary care allowance assessed by her in 2010; the percentage of refusals of the domiciliary care allowance overturned on appeal; the set criteria to determine if a child is eligible for the domiciliary care allowance and the most common grounds now for refusal of the domiciliary care allowance. [8767/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): In order to qualify for Domiciliary Care Allowance (DCA) a child must be under 16 years, live at home with the person providing the care, be ordinarily resident in the state and must have a severe disability requiring continual or continuous care and attention substantially in excess of the care and attention normally required by a child of the same age. This extra care must be likely to be required for at least 12 months. Eligibility for DCA is not based on the type of impairment or disease, but on the resulting lack of function of body or mind which means that the child needs extra care and attention. No condition or disability automatically qualifies a child for DCA, nor does any disability automatically rule out a claim as each case is individually assessed on its own merit. The most common reason for refusal of DCA is that the child does not satisfy the medical requirement in relation to the level of extra care and attention required. The eligibility criteria for DCA are broadly the same as when the scheme was administered by the Health Service Executive. The main change to the scheme since it transferred to the Department is that it is now a statutory scheme while prior to the transfer the eligibility criteria was set out by way of a yearly circular from the Department of Health and Children. The refusal rate when the scheme was administered by the HSE is reported to have been approximately 20%, but as it was administered separately by each HSE area, consistency could not be guaranteed and the refusal rate varied considerably from area to area. The current refusal rate on first application is approximately 60%. However this falls to 50% following reviews of applications undertaken as a result of additional medical information being supplied by the parents that was either not available or not submitted when the initial application was made. Of the 633 DCA appeals decided by the Social Welfare Appeals Office to December 2010, 38% were allowed.

Social Welfare Appeals 110. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if a person (details supplied) in County Dublin will be granted an oral hearing against the decision to disallow their jobseeker’s allowance appeal; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8830/11]

754 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers case before him/her on the basis of the documentary evidence. This course of action was taken in this case as it was considered that an oral hearing was not warranted. 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.

111. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if and when an appeal hearing or oral hearing will take place in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare regarding their application for carer’s allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8833/11]

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 23rd 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.

Social Welfare Benefits 112. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the grounds for the refusal of jobseeker’s allowance in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8834/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The means assessed in respect of the person concerned are in excess of the scheduled rate of jobseeker’s allowance payable based on his spouse’s earnings.

Social Welfare Appeals 113. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will expedite an appeal on a disability welfare application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry. [8838/11]

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 31 January 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.

Missing Persons 114. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he plans to implement the 116000 missing children hotline in line with 13 EU member states; and if he will provide the timeframe for same. [8697/11]

115. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25

755 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Finian McGrath.] November 2009 will be transposed into Irish law before the deadline of 25 May 2011; and if so, pursuant to Article 27a of the directive, if there is a timeframe to put in place the 116000 missing children hotline; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8711/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): I propose to take Questions Nos. 114 and 115 together. I am pleased to advise the Deputy that drafting of the Regulations required to transpose Directive 2009/136/EC is at an advanced stage and it is expected that the Regulations will be signed into law by the deadline set by the European Commission of 25 May 2011. Article 27a of the Directive requires Member States to make every effort to ensure that citizens have access to a service operating a hotline to report cases of missing children under the number 116000. The allocation of specific numbers in the 116 number range of numbers, which are reserved for services of social value, is managed in Ireland by the Commission for Communi- cations Regulation (ComReg). In November 2007 ComReg alerted potential service providers, through an advertisement campaign, to the existence of the range of numbers beginning with 116, including the 116000 hotline for missing children. The November 2007 advertisement invited suitable applicants to apply for the setting up of services of social value under the specified numbers. I am advised by ComReg that no organisation has yet applied for the missing children hotline number 116000. The role of ComReg is limited to the assignment of the number to an appropriate service provider. Once the number has been assigned, it is a matter for the service provider to provide the service. Neither ComReg nor my Department has any function in providing such services or the remit to require any organisation to provide the service.

Telecommunications Services 116. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the progress being made to roll out broadband to an area (details supplied) in County Donegal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8728/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The provision of broadband services is in the first instance a matter for private sector service providers operating in Ireland’s fully liberalised telecommunications market. Broadband services are provided by private service providers over various platforms including DSL (i.e. over telephone lines), fixed wireless, mobile, cable, fibre and satellite. Details of broadband services available in each county can be found on ComReg’s website at www.callcosts.ie. In cases of market failure the Government will intervene, where it is appropriate and possible to do so. The National Broadband Scheme (NBS) represents such an intervention. EU State Aid and competition rules govern how states can intervene in areas where there are existing service providers operating. Accordingly, the NBS is prohibited from providing a service in served areas where to do so would give rise to an unacceptable level of market distortion. The mapping exercise undertaken by my Department at the time of designing the NBS found that broadband services were available in the area referred to in the Deputy’s Question and consequently the locality was excluded from the Scheme. I am pleased to say that under the NBS broadband is now available in all Electoral Divisions in the NBS Coverage Area. It continues to be a priority of the Government that there will be broadband coverage across the entire country. I am aware that there continues to be a small percentage of premises throughout the country that will not be capable of receiving broadband

756 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers services. This is primarily due to technical and other reasons (suitability of a telephone line, distance from an enabled exchange, no line of sight etc.). The European Commission has set aside a portion of the European Economic Recovery Programme (EERP) funding for rural broadband initiatives. Using this funding, which will be augmented by an Exchequer contribution, I intend to formally launch a Rural Broadband Scheme shortly. This scheme will aim to provide a basic broadband service to individual unserved rural premises outside of the NBS areas. Information in relation to acceptance of applications and the process of qualification under the scheme will be made available in due course when the scheme is launched.

117. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the progress being made in the roll out of broadband to district electoral divisions that were not covered under the national broadband scheme and that are still without broadband provision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8729/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The provision of telecommunications services, including broadband services, is a matter in the first instance for private sector service providers operating in a liberalised market regulated by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). In cases of market failure the Government will intervene, where it is appropriate and possible to do so. The National Broad- band Scheme (NBS) represents such an intervention. Broadband services are now available throughout the entire NBS area. However, despite Government and private investment in broadband, I am aware that there continues to be isolated cases of premises throughout the country that are not capable of receiving a broadband service. This is primarily due to technical and other reasons (e.g., suitability of a telephone line, distance from an enabled exchange, or no ‘line of sight’ from the premises to the wireless base station). The European Commission has set aside a portion of the European Economic Recovery Programme (EERP) funding for rural broadband initiatives. Using this funding, which will be augmented by an Exchequer contribution, I intend to formally announce the launch of a Rural Broadband Scheme in the coming weeks. This scheme will aim to provide a basic broadband service to individual un-served rural premises outside of the NBS areas. There will be a competitive process to engage a service provider who will offer a broadband service to qualified applicants under the scheme. While the exact details have yet to be finalised, I expect that the service offered under this scheme would at least match the service offered under the NBS and that the scheme will be fully rolled out by the end of 2012.

Energy Conservation 118. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the moneys that have been provided in 2011 for the warmer home scheme to assist householders on low income; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8732/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The Warmer Homes Scheme (WHS) aims to provide energy efficiency improvements to homes in, or at risk of, energy poverty and is targeted at householders who are in receipt of the Fuel Allowance, Disability Benefit or Invalidity Benefit. Measures undertaken include attic insulation, draught proofing, lagging jackets, energy efficient lighting, cavity wall insulation and energy advice at no cost to eligible households. The Warmer Homes Scheme is funded within

757 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] the overall budget envelope of the Retrofit Programme, which has a total allocation in 2011 of €69.9 million.

Oil Prices 119. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the current estimate in billions of barrels of oil equivalent of the extent of the oil and gas deposits lying off the coast in Irish waters and the current value at 2011 world prices of these oil and gas deposits lying offshore around the Irish coast. [8733/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The only commercial discoveries of natural gas made in the Irish offshore are the three producing fields in the Kinsale area, along with the Corrib Gas Field which is currently being developed. To date, there have been no commercial discoveries of oil in the Irish offshore. Recent petroleum systems assessment for the offshore frontier basins west of Ireland indicate a yet-to-find reserve potential in the order of 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent. This divides roughly into 6.5 billion barrels of oil and 20 trillion cubic feet of gas. I must however stress that these figures only represent “potential” reserves, or the reserves that might be present based on geological criteria and regional comparisons, and that they have not been discovered. Extensive exploration, including the drilling of hundreds of exploration wells, would be necessary in order to test the general accuracy of this estimate. There is little sense in speculating as to the potential value of something that has not yet been proven to exist.

Register of Electors 120. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if the Electoral Commission Bill due to be published during the summer session will provide for a computerised electoral register based on PPS numbers, as is used in Northern Ireland; and if not, if he will consider its inclusion. [8678/11]

124. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding voting registration procedure (details supplied); his plans to improve same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8802/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 120 and 124 together. In law, the preparation of the Register of Electors is a matter for each local registration authority. It is their duty to ensure, as far as possible and with the cooperation of the public, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the Register. While there have been improvements in these regards in recent years, I am satisfied that further improvements can be made. On the matter of registration procedures, it is up to each individual to avail of the opportunity to register. The Register is updated annually and those not on it can avail of the supplement to the Register up until 15 days before the next polling day. The Programme for Government contains a commitment to establish an Electoral Com- mission to subsume functions of existing bodies and my Department. An Electoral Commission will be an important element in a reformed and revitalised electoral system and I am currently giving consideration to how the necessary measures to establish an Electoral Commission can be advanced, including its structure and functions. I will, in that context, give consideration to issues raised concerning the electoral register.

758 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Planning Issues 121. Deputy Peter Mathews asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to amend legislation for planning permission that the proposer must sign an affidavit stating that the planning signs have been checked for visibility on a daily basis and that meetings will be arranged with local communities to explain the benefits and impacts of the proposed development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8688/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment; Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): Planning legislation provides for extensive public notification of proposed development. For example, article 17 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2010, requires an applicant to erect a site notice in order to lodge a valid application for planning permission. Article 19 of the Regulations requires that this notice must be placed in a conspicuous position on or near the main entrance from a public road to the land or structure concerned, so as to be easily visible and legible by persons using the public road. Alternatively, if the land or structure does not adjoin a public road, the site notice should be placed so as to be easily visible and legible by persons outside the land or structure. It is important to bear in mind, however, that although the notice must inform the public of the nature and extent of the application, it is only by examining the planning application lodged with the planning authority that a person will obtain full information on the proposed development. The site notice must contain the date on which the site notice is erected and state that the planning application may be inspected or purchased at the offices of the planning authority and that a submission or observation in relation to the application may be made to the authority in writing, on payment of the prescribed fee, within the 5 weeks beginning on the date of receipt by the planning authority of the application. The applicant must erect the site notice no sooner than 2 weeks before making the application for permission in order to facilitate third party inspection of the application. Where it appears to a planning authority that any notice does not comply with these requirements, they may require the applicant to give further notice and evidence in relation to compliance with such a requirement. Article 18 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2006 also provides that a notice be published in a newspaper approved for this purpose. Each planning authority must decide which newspapers should be included on their approved list of newspapers in order to ensure that the newspapers used for the purpose of such notices have a sufficiently large circulation in its functional area. The current notification system, which provides for both a newspaper notice and a site notice, is kept under regular review in my Department.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 122. Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding the follow-on from the EU Commission meeting on the role of agriculture and forestry in achieving the EU’s climate change commitments on 28 January 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8710/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The stakeholder meeting on 28 January 2011 was part of a wider consultation carried out by the European Commission in the context of examining the possible inclusion of emissions and removals from activities related to LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry) in the EU greenhouse gas reduction commitment post-2013. The follow on from that meeting rests with the Commission. Under Article 9 of Decision No. 406/2009/EC dated 13 April 2009 (on the effort of Member States to reduce their emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse

759 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Phil Hogan.] gas emission reduction commitment up to 2020) the Commission is required to bring forward a proposal by 30 June 2011.

Local Authority Housing 123. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when approval will be given to Dublin City Council to go to planning permission application stage for a project (details supplied) in Dublin 17. [8738/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment; Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): My Department is awaiting information from Dublin City Council on a number of design and costing issues for the project in question. It is proposed to meet with the Council in the near future to discuss their regeneration programme as a whole, including this proposed project. As with all social housing projects, it will be a matter for the housing authority, the City Council, to progress this proposal in accordance with the usual conditions, and to manage its delivery in the context of its overall social housing programme and having regard to its available funding resources.

Question No. 124 answered with Question No. 120.

Proposed Legislation 125. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to introduce a deposit protection scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8804/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment; Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): I refer to the reply to Question No. 107 of the 6th of April 2011, which sets out the position on this matter.

126. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to introduce or enact any new legislation for bankruptcy, particularly for surviving spouses of bankrup- tees. [8737/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Government commitment under the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland is to publish insolvency reform legislation by Quarter 1 of 2012. The legislative programme for my Department includes a Personal Insolvency Bill that will provide for a new framework for settlement and enforcement of debt and for personal insolvency. The Bill, proposals in respect of which are being developed in my Department, will take into account the recommendations of the Law Reform Com- mission in its Report on Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement of December 2010. The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, that is in the course of being drafted with a view to publication as soon as possible this year, will contain some interim measures in relation to reform of the law on bankruptcy.

Juvenile Offenders 127. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the fact that funding was cut to a WHAD project which made it possible for young persons who were regularly before the courts or who were deemed at risk of offending to reduce and to stop offending and to adopt a law abiding lifestyle including through meaningful

760 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers community work; the action he will take with the probation service to restore this funding or of he will make an alternative funding stream available to compensate for the loss. [8671/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): My Department provides funding via the Irish Youth Justice Service to a range of community based projects across the country which operate in partnership with An Garda Síochána and the Young Persons Probation Division of the Probation Service. Due to the current economic difficulties the total funding available for such projects has been reduced for 2011. Consequently, project allocations across the country were reduced and the projects, including WHAD (We Have A Dream), were asked to make savings while doing their utmost to maintain service and activity levels. In view of these circumstances I am not in a position to provide additional funding at this stage.

Citizenship Applications 128. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when it is expected that citizenship will be granted to enable a passport to be obtained in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12. [8687/11]

Proposed Legislation 129. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to amend the Multi-unit Development Act 2011 in view of the fact that it excludes mixed-use multi-unit developments from the one-unit-one vote measure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8694/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The position regarding voting rights in the case of a mixed-use multi-unit development is that section 2(4)(b) of the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 provides that the requirements relating to voting rights in section 14(1) and (2) shall be regarded as being complied with where such rights are apportioned in a manner which is fair and equitable. This is intended to ensure that the interests of the owners of different classes of units within such a mixed-use development are adequately safeguarded. Section 2(5) provides that except where otherwise provided, the Act applies to every multi- unit development. Section 24 of the Act establishes a mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising in relation to multi-unit developments, including mixed-use developments. Any person referred to in section 25(1) may apply to the Circuit Court under section 24 for an order to enforce any rights conferred or obligation imposed under the Act. Section 24(9) provides that where the Circuit Court is satisfied that the structure of the voting rights in an owners’ management company is not established on a fair and equitable basis, it may, where it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so, make an order altering the voting rights of members in the owners’ management company concerned.

761 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Departmental Investigations 130. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will investigate allegations (details supplied). [8695/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am currently awaiting a document, containing the allegations referred to, from the Deputy. Once I am in receipt of this and have considered its contents I will contact the Deputy.

Garda Vetting of Personnel 131. Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the steps being taken to address the delays in providing Garda clearance certificates to those participating in FÁS community employment schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8699/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I do have concerns at the length of time currently being taken to process vetting applications. I recognise that it is important to process these applications within a reasonable time frame both for the benefit of the applicants and the organisations involved. I am informed by the Garda authorities that at present there are a total of five Gardaí, 76 full-time Garda civilian personnel and ten temporary civilian personnel assigned to the Garda Central Vetting Unit (GCVU). This represents a very significant increase in the level of personnel assigned to the unit, which stood at only 13 before the current process of development in Garda vetting began in 2005. A number of immediate measures are being taken to improve the situation. The sanction of the Department of Finance has been obtained to retain the services of ten temporary employees in the GCVU. A further sanction has been obtained to engage an additional ten temporary employees for the Unit and these are now being recruited. This should have an impact on processing times. In addition, further steps are under consideration with a view to alleviating the pressure on the staff of the GCVU and to reduce the time taken for the processing of applications. The GCVU, based in Thurles, Co. Tipperary, provides a centralised employment vetting to organisations in Ireland registered with the Garda Síochána for this purpose and which employ or engage persons in a full-time, part-time, voluntary or training capacity to positions where they would have substantial, unsupervised access to children and/or vulnerable adults. This, of course, includes the healthcare sector. I am informed by the Garda Authorities that, at present, the average processing time for vetting applications received at the GCVU is approximately 10 weeks. The service has been expanded greatly in recent years as part of an ongoing, phased programme to roll-out vetting to an increasing number of organisations in the child and vulnerable adult care sectors. This target group is the clear policy priority. Within this programme the vetting service has now been extended to over 18,000 organisations. The GCVU has managed a substantial increase over recent years in the numbers of vetting applications it receives. The figures since 2006 are as follows:

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

137,600 187,864 218,404 246,194 291,938

The average processing time for vetting applications fluctuates in line with periods of increased demand. In processing an individual vetting application, additional time may be required in 762 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers cases where clarification is needed as to the details provided or where other enquiries need to be made, for example, when the person in question has lived and worked abroad. There will always be a reasonably significant time period required to process a vetting application. Regis- tered organisations have been advised to take account of this in their recruitment and selection process. However, the Gardaí make every effort to reduce the time to the minimum possible consistent with carrying out what are very necessary checks.

Departmental Functions 132. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the precise functions of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8712/11]

133. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the extent to which he and the Department of Foreign Affairs share responsibilities. [8713/11]

134. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide the division of responsibilities between his Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. [8714/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 132 to 134, inclusive, together. I can inform the Deputy that my Department has a broad range of policy and executive functions in relation to Justice and Equality. These include, at present:

• Supporting An Garda Síochána and Tackling Crime — including community security, law enhancement and crime prevention through support for An Garda Síochána.

• Developing Justice Services including the maintenance of safe and secure custody for offenders through support for the Prison Service; management of the Courts and supporting the Judiciary; the provision of Probation Services and Youth Justice Services; and the provision of Property Registration Services.

• Provision of Immigration and Related Services.

• Promotion of a Caring, Integrated and Equitable Society through developing policies and supporting programmes which address issues of equality, discrimination, diversity and integration.

• Promotion of a Secure and Peaceful Society through putting in place appropriate policies and measures to ensure that the security of the State is guaranteed; supporting the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and co-operating on matters of mutual interest in the field of criminal justice.

• Law Reform — advancing the Government’s legislative programme, keeping legislation under review and providing for improved regulatory systems where required. Further details concerning my Department’s responsibilities are set out clearly in the Depart- ment’s Statement of Strategy which is available on the Department’s website at www.justice.ie, and which indicates some of the many policy areas in which there is on-going interaction with numerous Departments, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Issues concerning immigration and Northern Ireland are but two examples of policy areas in which my Department interacts with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

763 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

Finally, the Deputy might wish to note that my Department is required, pursuant to the Public Services Management Act 1997, to prepare a new Statement of Strategy and present this to me within six months of my taking office i.e. by 8 September 2011. A new Mission Statement for the Department will be developed in this process.

Refugee Status 135. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding refugee status in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8722/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Arising from the refusal of her asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified, by letter dated 5th January, 2005, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of her. She was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why a Deportation Order should not be made against her. Representations have been received on behalf of the person concerned. The position in the State of the person concerned will now be decided by reference to the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended) and Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the prohibition of refoulement. All representations submitted will be considered before the file is passed to me for decision. Once a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Citizenship Applications 136. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of applications for citizenship currently on hand for persons from Sierra Leone; the average and the maximum time taken to deal with same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8748/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The number of applications for citizenship currently on hand for persons from Sierra Leone is 49. Statistics are not compiled in such a way as to provide the information requested by the Deputy. The average processing for the generality of applications is 25 months. However, processing requirements and time taken to complete necessary checks vary from case to case. I am unhappy with the length of time it takes to process citizenship applications. I have initiated steps within my Department to provide for a speedier processing of applications and to bring about a substantial reduction in the time scale. When the Department is in a position to implement these new arrangements an announcement will be made.

764 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Garda Promotions 137. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of promotions at the rank of inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent that have been approved; if additional posts are likely to be approved later this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8758/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I recently received sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for the filling of six posts and on 22nd March the Government appointed one Deputy Commissioner, one Assistant Commissioner, one Chief Superintendent and three Superintendents in An Garda Síochána. As the Deputy will be aware, the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the Public Service continues to apply to the Garda Síochána for both sworn members and civilian support staff. The situation is continually kept under review in consultation with the Garda Commissioner and derogations can be sought in exceptional circumstances from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Citizenship Applications 138. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding an application for naturalisation in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8762/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (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 July 2010. 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 25 months, processing requirements and time taken to carry out necessary checks vary from case to case. However, in response to Parliamen- tary Question Number 7104/11 of 7th April last, I outlined that I have initiated steps to provide for speedier processing of applications. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual Immigration cases may be made direct to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

139. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if a person (details supplied) in County Kildare is qualified to seek naturalisation under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended; and, if so, the procedure they must now follow to do so; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8765/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): An application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy’s Question was received in the Citizen- ship Division of my Department in May 2008. On examination of the application submitted it was determined that the person in question did not meet that statutory residency requirements as set out in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended. The person concerned was informed of this in a letter issued to her on 8 October, 2008. It is open to the person concerned to lodge a new application for a certificate of naturalisation with the Citizenship Division of my Department if and when they are in a position to

765 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] meet the statutory requirements. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended, provides that the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation provided certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. The conditions are that the applicant must — be of full age; be of good character; have had a period of one year’s continuous residency in the State immediately before the date of application and, during the eight years immediately preceding that period, have had a total residence in the State amounting to four years; have made, either before a Judge of the District Court in open court or in such a manner as the Minister for special reasons allows, a declaration in the prescribed manner, of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State. In the context of naturalisation, certain periods of residence in the State are excluded. These include — periods of residence in respect of which an applicant does not have permission to remain in the State; periods granted for the purposes of study; periods granted for the purposes of seeking recognition as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Act, 1996. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual Immigration cases may be made direct to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Asylum Applications 140. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the current and or expected residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8827/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Arising from the refusal of her asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified, by letter dated 23rd November, 2009, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of her. She was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why a Deportation Order should not be made against her. In addition, she was notified of her entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006). The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection. When consideration of this application has been completed, the person concerned will be notified in writing of the outcome. In the event that the application for Subsidiary Protection is refused, the position in the State of the person concerned will then be decided by reference to the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended) and Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the prohibition of refoulement. All representations submitted will be considered before the file is passed to me for decision. Once a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such

766 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

141. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will examine the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 2 with a view to determining if their application might be reviewed on humanitarian grounds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8828/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I refer the Deputy to the replies given to his Parliamentary Question No. 1108 Wednesday, 25 September 2010, Parliamentary Question No. 149 Thursday, 25 November 2010, Parliamentary Question No. 517, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 and Parliamentary Question No. 203 Tuesday the 22 March 2011. The position is unchanged since the most recent reply. The person concerned is the subject of a Deportation Order following a comprehensive and thorough examination of his asylum claim and a detailed examination of the representations he submitted for consideration under Section 3 of the Immi- gration Act 1999 (as amended). If there has been a change in the circumstances of the person concerned, or new information has come to light which has a direct bearing on his case, there remains the option of applying to me for revocation of the Deportation Order pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(11) of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended. However I wish to make clear that such an application would require substantial grounds to be successful. The effect of the Deportation Order is that the person concerned must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State. The enforcement of the Deportation Order is an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Citizenship Applications 142. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will set out the basis for qualification for naturalisation in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8829/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Officials in the Citizenship section of my Department inform me that there is no record of an application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy’s question. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended, provides that the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation provided certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. The conditions are that the applicant must — be of full age; be of good character; have had a period of one year’s continuous residency in the State immediately before the date of application and, during the eight years immediately preceding that period, have had a total residence in the State amounting to four years; have made, either before a Judge of the District Court in open court or in such a manner as the Minister for special reasons allows, a declaration in the prescribed manner, of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State. In the context of naturalisation, certain periods of residence in the State are excluded. These include — periods of residence in respect of which an applicant does not have permission to

767 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] remain in the State; periods granted for the purposes of study; periods granted for the purposes of seeking recognition as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Act, 1996. It is open to any individual to lodge an application for citizenship if and when they are in a position to meet the statutory requirements as prescribed in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 as amended. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual Immigration cases may be made direct to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Asylum Applications 143. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8831/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Arising from the refusal of his asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified, by letter dated 25th July, 2008, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why a Deportation Order should not be made against him. In addition, he was notified of his entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006). The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection. When consideration of this application has been completed, the person concerned will be notified in writing of the outcome. In the event that the application for Subsidiary Protection is refused, the position in the State of the person concerned will then be decided by reference to the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended) and Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the prohibition of refoulement. All representations submitted will be considered before the file is passed to me for decision. Once a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

144. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will review an application for residency in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15 on the grounds of established time here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8832/11]

768 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why a Deportation Order should not be made against him. In addition, he was notified of his entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006). The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection. When consideration of this application has been completed, the person concerned will be notified in writing of the outcome. He has also submitted written representations for consideration under Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended). The person concerned has also sought to have his case to remain in the State considered in line with the principles set out in the recent European Court of Justice Judgment in the Zam- brano case. My Department will be examining all such cases in the coming weeks to see where the Zambrano criteria might apply. Where the Zambrano criteria is met, all other things being equal, permission to remain in the State will be granted, for a specified period, of a nature as will enable such persons to work in the State without an Employment Permit or to set up in any legitimate business or profession without seeking the permission of the Minister. When the case of the person concerned has been examined in this context, he will be advised of the outcome. In the event that the application for Subsidiary Protection is refused, and if the person concerned is not found to meet the Zambrano criteria, his position in the State will then be decided by reference to the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended) and Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the prohibition of refoulement. All representations submitted will be considered before the file is passed to me for decision. Once such a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Grant Payments 145. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the balance of the single farm payment will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford. [8705/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named was the subject of a Nitrates inspection by my Department acting on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Health and Local Government on the 19th of April 2010. This inspection uncovered discrepancies that were deemed to be intentional and a penalty of 15% was recorded against the 2010 Direct Payments for the person named. The person named was informed of this decision on the 6th of May 2010 and of his right to seek a review. He was also informed of his right to appeal the outcome of any review to the Independent Agriculture Appeals office. To date no request for review has been received. Payments under the 2010 Single Payment

769 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] Scheme were issued to the applicant on 18 October 2010 (€1,939.56), 1 December 2010 (€1,163.74) and 15 February 2011 (€12,617.76).

Animal Welfare 146. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his attention has been drawn to reports that the Irish Greyhound Board is in talks to send Irish greyhounds to China in order to establish a greyhound industry; his views that this would be contrary to the recently drafted Welfare of Greyhounds Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8743/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Bord na gCon is a commercial State Body. The Board of Bord na gCon is responsible for leading and directing the activities of the Company. My Department is aware that Bord na gCon is exploring possible business opportunities in China and has recently made a submission to my Department in this regard. My Department will consider the Bord na gCon proposal and form a view based on the case presented to it. My Department is always mindful of the need to ensure the welfare of animals. Bord na gCon has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to the highest standards of animal welfare in the greyhound industry. 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. My Department endeavours to ensure that all exporters comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations All Member States of the EU including Ireland are working to promote better animal welfare internationally and in this regard Ireland has introduced national legislation giving effect to Regulation (EC) No. 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and Council dated 11 December 2007 banning the marketing, import to or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur and products containing such fur.

Departmental Schemes 147. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the sheep fencing and handling scheme will go ahead to be given to first time applicants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8760/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The grant applications received during the course of the first tranche provided for under the Sheep Fencing/Mobile Handling Equipment Scheme are currently being processed within my Depart- ment. This work will be completed as soon as possible.

148. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is a commitment for five years for the agri-environment options scheme recently announced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8761/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): On Wednesday 6th April, I announced the re-opening of the Agri-Environment Options Scheme (AEOS) for 2011 and confirmed that the scheme will be open for applications until 16th May. I have made

770 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers funding of €25 million per annum available for this scheme with a maximum payment to any farmer of €4,000 per annum. All contracts will run for at least five years which will extend their duration beyond the expiry of the current EU Financial perspective programming period which ends on 31st December 2013. New participants in the scheme will be offered the opportunity to adjust their commitments for the period of their contract beyond that date to the legal framework of the period commencing on 1 January 2014. If such an adjustment is not acceptable to the partici- pant, he/she may withdraw from the schemes without the normal requirement for reimbursement of aid already received.

Grant Payments 149. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Galway will receive their ewe grant and REP scheme payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8826/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 4 in April 2008 and received the year 1 payment in July 2009 and the year 2 payment in January 2010. The year 3 payment has now been processed and payment will issue within two weeks. The person named submitted an application for consideration under the Grassland Sheep Scheme; the case is now fully processed with payment due to issue to the person named in the coming week.

150. Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason for the delay in an area aid payment for 2010 in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Laois; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8836/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): While the herd- number is held jointly by the person named and his brother, the Single Payment Scheme application received on 14 May 2010 was signed by the person named only. Following a request for clarification, the person named indicated that his brother was deceased. Payment under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme cannot be released until such time as grant of Probate or Letters of Administration have been received by my Department. In March of this year, the Inheritance Enquiry Unit of my Department wrote to the person named outlining procedures for the transfer of the herd-number into his sole name. The person named was also requested to forward the necessary documentation required to release the 2010 Single Payment namely a copy of a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration as well as the details of the client account of the solicitor administering the estate of his deceased brother. When this information is received, the outstanding payment will issue without delay.

151. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Galway will receive his agri-environment options scheme payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8842/11]

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 to the person named at the earliest possible date once these checks have been completed.

771 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Commemorative Events 152. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs if she will update Dáil Éireann on the progress in 2011 in organising the Irish Famine memorial day; the date on which the national Famine commemoration committee is meeting; the names of the members of the committee; the discussions she has had with her counterpart in the Northern Assembly relevant to the event being hosted in the North of Ireland in 2011; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8736/11]

Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): The National Famine Commemoration Committee was appointed for a second term of office in February of this year. The committee has a broad role in terms of serving, on behalf of the Government, to generate ideas and to make recommendations regarding appropriate arrangements for the annual commemoration of the Great Famine and related events. The first meeting of the new committee took place on 2 February 2011 and a range of issues in relation to the 2011 commemoration were discussed. As the Deputy will be aware, building on the precedents of the commemorations of recent years, the 2011 National Famine Commem- oration is scheduled to take place in Ulster. At present, officials from relevant Government Departments are liaising in relation to these matters. In this regard, I am advised that contacts have taken place with a range of interested parties in Northern Ireland. It is hoped that another meeting of the National Famine Commemoration Committee will take place shortly to discuss options around the 2011 event. The current membership of National Famine Commemoration Committee is as follows:

• Dr Majda Bne Saad;

• Prof Thomas Cooke;

• Mr Brian Hanratty;

• Ms Terri Kearney;

• Ms Mary Kennedy;

• Mr Justin Kilcullen;

• Dr Éamon Phoenix;

• Mr Hugh Swift;

• Prof Ríonach UíÓgáin;

• Dr Patrick Wallace. The Committee is also supported by officials from relevant Government Departments/Offices, including my own Department; the Department of the Taoiseach; the Department of Foreign Affairs; the Department of Education and Skills; the Department of Defence; Irish Aid; the Defence Forces; and OPW.

Substance Abuse 153. Deputy Gerald Nash asked the Minister for Health and Children his views on the levels of alcohol abuse and misuse here; his further views that reported levels of alcohol consumption

772 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers ought to be arrested from a public health, social and economic perspective; the measures he will take to address the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8674/11]

157. Deputy Gerald Nash asked the Minister for Health and Children his views on whether widespread sponsorship of major sporting events by alcohol companies is having an impact on levels of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse here; if he will review the situation regarding the sponsorship of sporting events; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8682/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 153 and 157 together. The level of alcohol consumption in the population coupled with the predominant pattern of “binge drinking” is a matter of significant concern. The National Substance Misuse Strategy (NSMS) Steering Group has been working to develop proposals and make recommendations to address the problems caused by alcohol misuse in Irish society. The Steering Group was established in December 2009 to develop the alcohol element of the National Substance Misuse Strategy. It will base its recommendations on evidence based measures to deal with the significant public health issue of alcohol in areas such as supply (including price, availability and marketing), prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. The NSMS Steering Group will also consider the question of sport sponsorship by the alcohol industry. I expect to receive the Report of the Steering Group later this year.

Departmental Surveys 154. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Health and Children if the SLAN survey will be going ahead in 2011. [8675/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): My Department is currently considering how up-to-date National Health and Lifestyle Survey (SLAN) data on the adult population might be gathered taking account of the reduced resources available for such surveys. At this stage my Department is considering the requirements for a lifestyle survey to be carried out in 2012.

Public Sector Pay 155. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Health and Children his plans to reverse the December 2010 decision to phase out payments to student nurses doing fourth year place- ments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8676/11]

166. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will address the serious situation faced by pre-registration nurses and midwives contracted and staffed to hospitals who are seeing 80% of their pay being phased out and their pay to be abolished completely by 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8801/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 155 and 166 together. I recently approved a review of the rationale for the total abolition of payments to student nurses during their 4th year pre-registration rostered placement. As part of this review, my Department has sought the views of the relevant nursing unions. The Deputies may wish to note that the review does not encompass the arrangements for student nurses undertaking a rostered placement in 2011.

773 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

Health Service Staff 156. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Health and Children the situation regarding the number of vacancies currently available in the Health Service Executive for speech and language therapists; and the extent to which there will be employment possibilities for them in Ireland in the future. [8677/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The Employment Control Frame- work for the Health Sector 2011-2014 provides exemptions for a number of specific grades from the general moratorium on recruitment and promotion. It provides that vacant Speech and Language Therapist posts may be filled. In addition, the Framework also provides for the creation of a combined total of 380 speech & language therapist, physiotherapist and occu- pational therapist posts, in addition to the December 2009 level for these grades. The HSE has informed me that it is recruiting speech & language therapists in order to meet the requirements of integrated health care delivery and particularly to address needs in the community. In 2009, the HSE employed 776.46 WTE speech and language therapists. By the end of 2010, this figure had increased by 62.45 WTE, making a total of almost 839 WTE. In 2011, an additional 17 WTE speech and language therapists have been recruited up to March, making a 10.3% increase since December 2009.

Question No. 157 answered with Question No. 153.

Long-Term Illness Scheme 158. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will consider adding Crohn’s disease to the long-term illness scheme in view of the fact that persons living with Crohn’s disease have to attend their general practitioners on a regular basis and have to have various hospital procedures carried out regularly; if he will further consider introducing a prescription only medical card to help persons with Crohn’s disease in view of the fact that paying €120 on the drugs payment scheme is out of the question for many persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8689/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Under the 1970 Health Act, the Health Service Executive may arrange for the supply, without charge, of medicines and medical and surgical appliances to people with specified conditions, for the treatment of that condition, through the Long Term Illness Scheme (LTI). The LTI does not cover GP fees or hospital co- payments. The conditions are: mental handicap, mental illness (for people under 16 only), phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, diabetes mellitus, diabetes insipidus, haemophilia, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophies, park- insonism, conditions arising from thalidomide and acute leukaemia. There are currently no plans to extend the list of eligible conditions covered by the LTI. Under the Drugs Payment Scheme, which was introduced in 1999, no individual or family unit pays more than €120 per calendar month towards the cost of approved prescribed medicines. The scheme significantly reduces the cost burden for families and individuals incurring ongoing expenditure on medicines. In addition, people who cannot, without undue hardship, arrange for the provision of medical services for themselves and their dependants may be entitled to a medical card. In the assessment process, the Health Service Executive can take into account medical costs incurred by an individual or a family. Those who are not eligible for a medical card may still be able to avail

774 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers of a GP visit card, which covers the cost of general practice consultations. Under the Govern- ment’s proposals for Universal Health Insurance and free GP care at the point of delivery, this issue will be considered and addressed.

Voluntary Sector Funding 159. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will provide funding to an organisation (details supplied) in County Wicklow to help fund the volunteer to drive scheme which it has recently set up to bring patients from its area to St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin for treatment in view of the fact that this organisation receives no official funding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8692/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Under the National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP), cancer surgery and diagnosis are undergoing a process of consolidation into eight centres (and one satellite centre) while radiation oncology services are provided in a limited number of centres. Consequently, patients may need to travel for treatment. There are a number of systems of support in place for these patients through the Community Welfare Office services and the NCCP’s Travel2Care scheme, while the Health Service Executive (HSE) is currently reviewing its policy in relation to eligibility for non-ambulance based patient transport services in order that a consistent policy is adopted nationally for these services.

Health Services 160. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Kerry will receive treatment. [8696/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Smoking Ban 161. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will end the harassment of smokers by the Health Service Executive and not remove the perspex shelter from a public house (details supplied). [8701/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The Health Service Executive is responsible for enforcing the Smoke-free at Work legislation, including the provisions relating to outdoor areas. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on an individual case.

Child Abuse 162. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding best advice and practice regarding a matter (details supplied). [8702/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Every organisation involved with children has a duty to protect the child and to safeguard them from harm. “Children First”, the National Guidelines for the protection and welfare of children, provide that the Health Service Executive (HSE), as the agency with statutory responsibility, should always be notified where there are reasonable grounds for concern that a child may have been abused, is being abused, or is at risk of abuse. Contact details for local social work departments can be found on the ‘Find a Health Service’ section of the HSE’s website (www.hse.ie) or by calling the HSE

775 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy James Reilly.] information line on 1850 24 1850. In the event of an emergency, where it is believed that there is an immediate or serious risk to a child, a report should be made to An Garda Síochána at any Garda station. If a person or organisation has misgivings about the safety of a child and would find it helpful to discuss such concerns with a professional, they should not hesitate to contact the HSE. Members of the general public should also be aware that the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998 makes provision for the protection from civil liability of persons who have reported child abuse “reasonably and in good faith” to designated officers in the HSE or to An Garda Síochána.

National Treatment Purchase Fund 163. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kildare receiving treatment under the National Treatment Pur- chase Fund was refused ambulance transport. [8704/11]

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 164. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will consider providing funding for the establishment of a teen parents support programme to serve County Wicklow in order to encourage students who become parents to remain in the education system; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the TPSP is already established in 11 other counties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8726/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Pension Levy 165. Deputy Eamonn Maloney asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of employees paying the pension levy whose employment was terminated in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8735/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): All staff in my Department have been liable for the pension related deduction since its introduction in March 2009. In 2010, the employment of fourteen members of staff came to an end due to retirement, expiry of contract and death in service . This figure does not include staff who left the Department during 2010, following transfer to another Department, secondment to another Department, commencement of career break or who returned to their parent Department following the end of their secondment.

Question No. 166 answered with Question No. 155.

Mental Health Services 167. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will publish a detailed plan for the reform of mental health services here; if the Health Service Executive

776 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers put in place an accountable structure and implementation plan and resourcing to deliver on commitments given in the past; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8806/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): The implementation of ’A Vision for Change’ is primarily the responsibility of the Health Service Executive (HSE). In 2009, the Board of the Health Service Executive approved an Implementation Plan for ’A Vision for Change’ for the period 2009 — 2013. In November 2009, the HSE also appointed an Assistant National Director as the national lead to ensure the delivery of mental health services in line with legislation and Government policy. The Programme for Government makes a number of commitments in relation to mental health and I am currently engaged in discussions with my officials with a view to delivering progress as early as possible.

Health Service Staff 168. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will arrange for an inspector to be appointed to investigate the fact that no records exist in relation to an employee (details supplied). [8841/11]

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.

Road Network 169. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will commit to proceeding with major road projects when there has already been considerable investment and work undertaken in view of his review of road and rail projects. [8719/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As the Deputy is aware, the National Recovery Plan, which was published by the previous Government in November, envisaged significantly reduced road investment for the duration of the Plan and therefore the scope for proceeding with major road projects is very limited. The capital investment review that is now planned will form the basis for a new National Development Plan for the period 2012-2017 and will examine the costs and benefits of all capital projects against a range of economic, social and environmental criteria. Key considerations in the transport sector will be the need to protect the investment made to date in our road network and to continue with remedial safety measures. Once the funding framework for capital expenditure is determined it will be a matter for the National Roads Authority to prioritise projects within its funding envelope.

Rail Network 170. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if the proposed rail interconnector for Dublin city’s rail services is a priority project; if he anticipates any delay in the implementation of this project due to budgetary constraints; if he has conducted any analysis of the benefit that such a project will have on commerce in the city and greater Dublin area as a result of reduced traffic congestion and increased efficiency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8721/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority (NTA) in December 2009, the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA), such as the DART

777 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] Underground, comes under the remit of the NTA. As regards policy in relation to major capital projects such as DART Underground, the Government has announced a full review of capital investment which will assess the merits and affordability of projects. This review will take place against a background of the new financial reality. This reality means that the three large public transport projects in the Dublin area cannot proceed at the same time. The previous Government recognised this when it postponed the Dart Underground Tunnel to post 2014 following publication of the National Recovery Plan. Furthermore Dart Underground Tunnel like Metro North was being developed as a Public Private Partnership and there is currently much uncertainty about the availability of private funds for major projects dependent on Exchequer funding due to the sovereign debt situation. I am however hopeful that one major rail or light rail project can be delivered but it is too early to speculate on which one. I can say that all realistic options for delivery of one project will be examined including on an incremental, phased basis and if possible with private funding. A comprehensive business case for the DART Underground has been completed and is available on the website of the National Transport Authority at www.nationaltransport.ie . An Bord Pleanála is currently conducting an oral hearing in relation to the application for a Railway Order for the Dart Underground Tunnel.

Public Transport 171. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will give a commitment that Dublin Bus will be protected from privatisation. [8817/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I have no plans to privatise Dublin Bus. However, in accordance with the commitment in the Programme for Govern- ment to explore the benefit to the public transport passenger of more diverse bus service provision, I am considering the various options that are currently available as regards achieving greater diversity of bus operators. Under EU law and the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, as amended, existing public service obligation (PSO) bus and rail services can be procured by the National Transport Auth- ority (NTA) through direct award contracts and any other new subvented services must be procured by way of open tendering. The direct award contract with Dublin Bus applies for 5 years. At the end of the 5 year period NTA has discretion to renew or modify the direct award provision of bus services following a consultation process with interested parties under which the NTA is obliged to justify its approach. Apart from the public service contract responsibilities granted to the NTA, the 2009 Act also conferred on the NTA responsibility for the licensing of commercial public bus passenger services. The NTA published, in November 2010, new Guidelines for the licensing of public bus services which set out the basis for a reformed licensing system for commercial bus passenger services in the State. The Guidelines identify commercial bus passenger services as a key part of public transport services in the State. I will be consulting with my Ministerial colleagues on the future options for procurement of PSO bus services once I have completed my examination of the options. I hope to announce the outcome of those consultations in the coming months.

Airport Development Projects 172. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the commercial success or failure of Terminal Two at Dublin Airport; in view of its perform-

778 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers ance to date, his plans to reduce the remuneration of the DAA chief executive (details supplied). [8846/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The reference to the commercial success or failure of Terminal Two at Dublin airport, is a matter that lies within the responsibilities of the Dublin Airport Authority, and I have referred that part of the question to the Company for direct reply. I would ask the Deputy to contact my office if he has not received a reply within ten working days. I do not believe it would be appropriate to debate the details of remuneration of any individual in the House in the first instance. The salary scales of existing Chief Executives of commercial State bodies are determined on the basis of the Hay Report and then become part of the formal contractual arrangements between the Board of the State body and the Chief Executive. The performance of the Chief Executive of a State company is a matter for the Board of the relevant company. In light of the current economic climate and the need for social solidarity, at a recent meeting in Dublin Castle of all the state agencies and commercial semi-state companies under the aegis of my department, I reiterated the government’s opposition to the payment of bonuses to Chief Executives.

Departmental Schemes 173. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will confirm that funding arrangements are still in place for smarter travel projects and that the Drimnagh integrated area plan in Dublin is being actively considered as a pilot project. [8756/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): A decision has yet to be announced regarding the outcome of the Smarter Travel Areas Competition. The future of this Programme is being considered in the context of the available budget for 2011 and the National Recovery Plan. Dublin City Council will be notified of the outcome of the Drimnagh bid in due course.

Public Transport 174. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the number of buses in the Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus fleet for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8759/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The issue raised is an operational matter for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. I have referred the Deputy’s question to the companies for direct reply. I would ask the Deputy to advise my private office if he does not receive a reply within ten working days.

National Car Test 175. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding the national car test (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8805/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The subject matter of this particular question is the responsibility of the Road Safety Authority and I have referred

779 Questions— 20 April 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] the question to them for direct reply. I would ask the Deputy to contact my office if a reply has not been received within ten days.

Taxi Regulations 176. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding persons operating illegally as taxi drivers. [8807/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): This is an enforcement matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA) in conjunction with the Garda Síochána under the Taxi Regulation Act 2003. 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. I would ask the Deputy to advise my Office if he does not receive a response within ten days.

780