Dáil Éireann

Vol. 735 Thursday, No. 1 9 June 2011

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Déardaoin, 9 Meitheamh 2011.

Order of Business ……………………………… 1 Visit of Chinese Delegation …………………………… 8 Order of Business (Resumed) …………………………… 8 Appointment of Members to Committees: Motion …………………… 12 Ministerial Report: Referral to Select Committee …………………… 14 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: Financial Resolution Committee and Remaining Stages ……………………… 15 Fair Deal Scheme: Statements…………………………… 72 Ceisteanna — Questions Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Priorty Questions …………………………… 83 Other Questions …………………………… 92 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 105 Adjournment Debate ……………………………… State Airports ……………………………… 105 Fisheries Protection …………………………… 108 Hospital Services ……………………………… 110 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 113 DÁIL ÉIREANN

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL OFFICIAL REPORT

Imleabhar 735 Volume 735

Déardaoin, 9 Meitheamh 2011. Thursday, 9 June 2011.

————

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

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Order of Business Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): It is proposed to take No. 8b, motion re appointment of members to committees, No. 8c, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2010, No. 8d, Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011 — Financial Resolution, No. 10 — Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011 — Committee and Remaining Stages and No. 10a — statements on the fair deal scheme. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted on the conclusion of Question Time which shall be taken for 75 minutes on the conclusion of No. 10a, and in the event of a private notice question being allowed, it shall be taken after 45 minutes; and the order shall not resume thereafter; Nos. 8b,8c and 8d shall be decided without debate; the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 10 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; the proceedings in relation to No. 10a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 45 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the statements shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time and shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; and (ii) a 1 Order of 9 June 2011. Business

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] Minister or Minister or State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 8b,8c and 8d agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10 agreed?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is not agreed.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Government said there would be reform in the House and that it was opposed to the use of the guillotine. What overriding urgency attaches to the Bill that requires the guillotine? If there is some overriding urgency, why was the Bill not introduced a week earlier so the debate would not have to be guillotined, in particular on the very important Committee and Report Stages?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We also object to the imposition of the guillotine in regard to the Bill. There are 39 amendments to come before the House today. How many of them will be properly addressed? I understand that some have been disallowed because of the usual argument that they may result in a charge. However, it is not in any way defensible that a guillotine has been applied to this or any other Bill at this time. It is inexcusable that the current coalition, which has continuously and vociferously opposed the imposition of guillotines even in the final weeks before a recess when the tradition of previous Governments seemed to be to try to rush through a list of legislation without proper debate, proposes to use the guillotine. It is not acceptable that the guillotine is being applied in this case and we will oppose it. We urge the Government to lift it.

Deputy Joe Higgins: This is the second guillotine in as many days imposed by the Govern- ment. In the first week or two of this Dáil and in the programme for Government it made a virtue of the fact that guillotines would not be used in this manner and that there would be adequate time afforded for discussion on serious issues. It seems as if the reputation of the Government of being continuity Fianna Fáil is increased by the fact that it is continuing the bad tradition of using multiple guillotines from previous Dála, including one of which I was a Member. What is the explanation for this? Can we have adequate time to deal with these critical issues? If the Government proposes to continue to hammer the living standards of working people on behalf of bailing out European bankers and speculators we at least need time to tease it out and bring to its attention the dire consequences for ordinary people of what it is proposing.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I have heard what the Opposition Deputies have said. The Bill is urgently needed. Its purpose is to give effect to the jobs initiative which is a job creation programme of €500 million. We already had an extensive debate in the House on the jobs initiative. The tourism industry in particular is awaiting VAT changes in order to promote growth and job creation. The policy content of the jobs initiative has been extensively debated in this House. Jobs are a priority for this Administration and we make no apology to anybody for that. We want to introduce the legal and financial measures necessary to make this effective.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10 agreed?

Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 10 be agreed to.”

2 Order of 9 June 2011. Business

The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 37.

Tá

Bannon, James. Kelly, Alan. Barry, Tom. Kenny, Seán. Breen, Pat. Kyne, Seán. Broughan, Thomas P. Lawlor, Anthony. Burton, Joan. Lynch, Ciarán. Buttimer, Jerry. Lynch, Kathleen. Byrne, Catherine. McEntee, Shane. Byrne, Eric. McFadden, Nicky. Cannon, Ciarán. McGinley, Dinny. Carey, Joe. McHugh, Joe. Coffey, Paudie. McLoughlin, Tony. Collins, Áine. McNamara, Michael. Conaghan, Michael. Mitchell, Olivia. Conlan, Seán. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Connaughton, Paul J. Mulherin, Michelle. Coonan, Noel. Murphy, Dara. Costello, Joe. Nash, Gerald. Coveney, Simon. Naughten, Denis. Creed, Michael. Neville, Dan. Deering, Pat. Nolan, Derek. Doherty, Regina. Noonan, Michael. Donohoe, Paschal. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Dowds, Robert. O’Donnell, Kieran. Doyle, Andrew. O’Donovan, Patrick. Durkan, Bernard J. O’Mahony, John. English, Damien. O’Reilly, Joe. Farrell, Alan. O’Sullivan, Jan. Feighan, Frank. Perry, John. Ferris, Anne. Phelan, Ann. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Phelan, John Paul. Flanagan, Terence. Quinn, Ruairí. Hannigan, Dominic. Rabbitte, Pat. Harris, Simon. Reilly, James. Hayes, Brian. Ring, Michael. Hayes, Tom. Ryan, Brendan. Heydon, Martin. Spring, Arthur. Hogan, Phil. Stagg, Emmet. Howlin, Brendan. Stanton, David. Humphreys, Heather. Timmins, Billy. Humphreys, Kevin. Tuffy, Joanna. Keating, Derek. Walsh, Brian. Keaveney, Colm. White, Alex. Kehoe, Paul.

Níl

Browne, John. McGrath, Finian. Collins, Joan. McGrath, Michael. Collins, Niall. McLellan, Sandra. Colreavy, Michael. Murphy, Catherine. Cowen, Barry. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Daly, Clare. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Donnelly, Stephen. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Dooley, Timmy. O’Brien, Jonathan. Ellis, Dessie. O’Dea, Willie. Ferris, Martin. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. Pringle, Thomas. Fleming, Sean. Ross, Shane. Fleming, Tom. Smith, Brendan. Healy, Seamus. Stanley, Brian. Higgins, Joe. Tóibín, Peadar. Kelleher, Billy. Troy, Robert. Martin, Micheál. Wallace, Mick. McConalogue, Charlie. 3 Order of 9 June 2011. Business

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

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10a, Statements on the fair deal scheme, agreed to?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is not agreed.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: This is a hugely important issue, but we are no closer to the full exposure of what has really happened concerning the missing moneys allocated for the fair deal over the first five months of this year. The Minister for Health himself acknowledged this yesterday when he stated that he had not yet got to the root of the money trail. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, said he was still not happy that he had found out everything and he said he would keep at this until he did. He also referred to “pots of money” and “pilfering”, although that was not his second choice to describe it. There is no provision in what is offered here in proposal No. 4 for questioning the Minister. It only provides for statements with a five-minute statement from the Minister or Minister of State to conclude. It does not and will not accommodate what is necessary to get to the real facts at the core of this issue, which is causing distress for many older people and their families throughout the State. I have to say that unless the Government can provide for a proper question and answer opportunity for Deputies, we cannot support this proposal. It is clearly an inadequate address of one of the most serious issues presenting at this time. I am appealing to the Minister, Deputy Quinn, to indicate that a question and answer opportunity will be added to the proposed statements.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Putting vital issues such as this at the tail-end of work on a Thursday is not acceptable. I will not reiterate the arguments that have just been made but I agree with them. The Government should make sufficient time available and, if necessary, extend it into next week when perhaps there will be more information. This is all the more critical in view of the tragic situation of yet another nursing home that has had to be taken in hand by the health authorities.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We will accept the proposal on the Order of Business if we get a clear undertaking that when the review is completed there will be a thorough debate, with questions and answers on the floor of the House, so that we can go through this issue completely. I would like the Minister’s assurance that will happen.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, the review was to conclude last Friday and the report is with the Minister. The fact that it has not given all the answers does not mean that this can go on indefinitely. It cannot go on indefinitely.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: What about the fair deal?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Deputy may need the fair deal himself one day.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: The Deputy is right, I will. 4 Order of 9 June 2011. Business

An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Minister, Deputy Quinn, to reply.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Every Deputy in this House is concerned with the revelations that €100 million, which was required for the fair deal scheme, seems to have got lost within the HSE. Nobody has said that more articulately than the Minister for Health. The statements will take place this afternoon, but there are time constraints. If, after the statements, it is the view of Deputies participating in the debate that additional time is needed, as additional information is made available, I have been assured by the Minister for Health that he will be happy to do so.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: That does not address the need today.

Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 10a, statements on the fair deal scheme, be agreed to.”

The Dáil divided: Tá, 100; Níl, 21.

Tá

Bannon, James. Keating, Derek. Barry, Tom. Keaveney, Colm. Breen, Pat. Kehoe, Paul. Broughan, Thomas P. Kelleher, Billy. Browne, John. Kelly, Alan. Burton, Joan. Kenny, Seán. Buttimer, Jerry. Kirk, Seamus. Byrne, Catherine. Kyne, Seán. Byrne, Eric. Lawlor, Anthony. Cannon, Ciarán. Lynch, Ciarán. Carey, Joe. Lynch, Kathleen. Coffey, Paudie. McConalogue, Charlie. Collins, Áine. McEntee, Shane. Collins, Niall. McFadden, Nicky. Conaghan, Michael. McGinley, Dinny. Conlan, Seán. McGrath, Michael. Connaughton, Paul J. McHugh, Joe. Coonan, Noel. McLoughlin, Tony. Costello, Joe. McNamara, Michael. Coveney, Simon. Mitchell, Olivia. Cowen, Barry. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Creed, Michael. Moynihan, Michael. Deering, Pat. Mulherin, Michelle. Doherty, Regina. Murphy, Dara. Donnelly, Stephen. Nash, Gerald. Donohoe, Paschal. Naughten, Denis. Dooley, Timmy. Neville, Dan. Dowds, Robert. Nolan, Derek. Doyle, Andrew. Noonan, Michael. Durkan, Bernard J. Ó Cuív, Éamon. English, Damien. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Farrell, Alan. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Feighan, Frank. O’Dea, Willie. Ferris, Anne. O’Donnell, Kieran. Fitzpatrick, Peter. O’Donovan, Patrick. Flanagan, Terence. O’Mahony, John. Fleming, Sean. O’Reilly, Joe. Griffin, Brendan. O’Sullivan, Jan. Hannigan, Dominic. Perry, John. Harris, Simon. Phelan, Ann. Hayes, Brian. Phelan, John Paul. Hayes, Tom. Quinn, Ruairí. Heydon, Martin. Rabbitte, Pat. Howlin, Brendan. Reilly, James. Humphreys, Heather. Ryan, Brendan. Humphreys, Kevin. Smith, Brendan. 5 Order of 9 June 2011. Business

Tá—continued

Spring, Arthur. Troy, Robert. Stagg, Emmet. Tuffy, Joanna. Stanton, David. Walsh, Brian. Timmins, Billy. White, Alex.

Níl

Collins, Joan. Murphy, Catherine. Colreavy, Michael. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Daly, Clare. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Doherty, Pearse. O’Brien, Jonathan. Ellis, Dessie. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Ferris, Martin. Pringle, Thomas. Fleming, Tom. Ross, Shane. Healy, Seamus. Stanley, Brian. Higgins, Joe. Tóibín, Peadar. McGrath, Finian. Wallace, Mick. McLellan, Sandra.

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

Question declared carried.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am sure the Minister like every other Deputy in the House listened with horror to the unfolding details of what happened in Rostrevor House. When one hears about people crying out in fear and an elderly man being kicked while on the floor by somebody who is meant to look after him, we all feel very sickened and angered. I know that everybody in the House shares the concern——

An Ceann Comhairle: I appreciate this is a serious matter but we are on the Order of Busi- ness dealing with matters of promised legislation.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am coming to that.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputy come to it please?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am. I recognise the work done by HIQA in dealing with the issue and closing the house but a question arises as to how it got the all-clear in 2010. Much of the coverage was around the fear the staff had of referring this issue. The Government has promised legislation on whistleblowing and there is protection in Health Acts for 11 o’clock whistleblowers but I ask that the Government considers if there is a need for a short-term amendment of the Health Acts to make sure that health workers in all sectors feel protected if they in turn protect people by whistleblowing and, second, there is a need to inform workers that they are protected in law if they get involved in whistleblowing. It is important we would not wait for the substantive Bill, the completion of which will take some time and that we could do this by agreement before the summer recess.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: On the same issue, people are rightly appalled at the allegations of abuse at Rostrevor House. It would remiss of us not to acknowledge the courage of those who brought these abuses to the attention of the appropriate authorities. We should note from the information already provided that these were immigrant workers — all the more credit due to them therefore because their position would not have been as solid as that of somebody from the domestic workforce. In view of this it is hugely important that the whistle- 6 Order of 9 June 2011. Business blowers legislation is brought forward. It has been talked about and was promised for some considerable time by the former Government and again by the incoming coalition Government. I join the last speaker in urging the Minister and the Government to fast-track the whistleblowers’ legislation in order that people will have the courage and the certainty of their positions in coming forward with critical information as in this instance. On a second matter——

An Ceann Comhairle: We will deal with that issue first.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Okay.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Every Deputy in the House would share the concern that Deputy Ó Cuív expressed. I am conscious that this matter may become sub judice and there may be proceedings so we all should be careful as to what we might say here. On the specific question of whistleblowers’ legislation, the Labour Party when in opposition under my ministerial colleague, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, proposed specific legislation arising from similar incidents going back nearly ten years. Unfortunately, the Government of which the Deputy Ó Cuív was a member for a while chose not to implement that legislation. I understand what the Deputy said about the necessity to bring in legislation, perhaps sector by sector, because the alternative would be to have an omnibus item of legislation which has proven to be very cumbersome. It is clear that we need whistleblower legislation not only in this sector but in other sectors. We have stated in the programme for Government that, “We will introduce whistleblowers’ legislation [and that] we will put in place a Whistleblowers Act to protect public servants that expose maladministration by Ministers or others”. That legislation will be accelerated but I am not in a position to say when it will be introduced.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: A Cheann Comhairle, very briefly——

An Ceann Comhairle: We are not having a debate on this issue now.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: No, not a debate, just another point.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Deputy got an answer to his question about whistleblowers’ legislation.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: There is already a whistleblower provision in the 2007 Health Act but it might need strengthening. In advance of the introduction of the broader whistleblowing Bill, could an amendment, if necessary, be brought in to copperfasten the position of people in the health sector? I do not believe anybody wants to leave matters as they are over the summer wondering if somebody in a care home is being mistreated. It is important to examine that issue and to see if we can build on the existing whistleblowing legislation in the 2007 Health Act and move forward.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: In regard to the oversight of the conduct in nursing home and the management of same, it is important that we realise that we cannot depend on HIQA alone to establish best standards. Surely there must be some other additional mechanism of oversight and inspection of nursing home provision across the country. HIQA could not cope with the full extent of that observation of behaviour within all these various institutions. Will the Minister for Health, who is seated near the Minister, indicate a willingness to insure that there is provision or proper oversight of the governance of nursing homes and that inspections take place without prior notice on a reasonably regular basis? 7 Order of 9 June 2011. Business (Resumed)

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: We should take some small degree of comfort from what has happened, in that the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, has acted on the matter. I have noted Deputy Ó Cuív’s comments and I am informed that the proposals for the legislation are well advanced. If they are not sufficiently well advanced, the Deputy’s proposal will be taken into consideration by the Minister.

Visit of Chinese Delegation An Ceann Comhairle: Before proceeding with the Order of Business, I wish on my own behalf and on behalf of the Members of Dáil Éireann to offer a cead míle fáilte, a most sincere welcome, to a parliamentary delegation from the People’s Republic of China led by His Excellency, Wang Zhaoguo. I express the hope that the delegates will find their visit enjoyable, successful and to our mutual benefit.

Order of Business (Resumed) Deputy Joe Higgins: I wish to ask about legislation, but I will preface my remarks by saying we should pay tribute to those vulnerable workers who brought the scandal of Rostrevor and what was happening to our elderly to the public’s attention. Let us reflect on the question of why care of the elderly should be a profit-making enterprise in the first instance. Regarding promised legislation, as the Minister knows, tragically unemployment rose to its highest level in the history of the State last week. Where is the legislation for phase 1 of the promised strategic investment bank, particularly given the collapse of private investment? As we have the pleasure of being presented the Order of Business by the Minister, will he take this opportunity to apologise for his insensitive insult to a group of taxpayers, namely, parents who must send their children to dilapidated schools, when he blamed them last week for the situation?

An Ceann Comhairle: That is totally out of order. The Minister to answer on promised legislation.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Government is in the course of implementing its programme for Government and we are considering the strategic investment back in the context of the restructuring of the banking sector. Significant progress has already been made and we will introduce measures as soon as possible. I am not in a position to give a precise date at this point.

Deputy Joe Higgins: What about an apology?

Deputy Anthony Lawlor: My issue relates to enacted legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: No.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor: It is due to be reviewed in June. I am referring to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009. My issue relates to low-paid workers who work in a number of educational institutions but are not part of the public service. They are not being paid out of the public purse, yet their wages have been cut by 5%. Is it possible to lay the review before the Dáil so that we might examine the legislation?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: The Deputy is referring to enacted legislation. In that sense, I suggest the appropriate mechanism to raise the issue is a parliamentary question.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor: A review of the legislation is due in June. 8 Order of 9 June 2011. Business (Resumed)

An Ceann Comhairle: What does the Deputy mean by “review”?

Deputy Emmet Stagg: The legislation is due to be reviewed.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor: Can the review be laid before the Dáil?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister, as I am not in a position to give the Deputy a concise answer now.

Deputy Shane Ross: On the issue of whistleblowers legislation, I have good news for the Minister — a whistleblowers Bill will be on the Order Paper next week.

An Ceann Comhairle: We do not deal with promises.

Deputy Shane Ross: Will the Minister comment on the Government’s attitude to the Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Dáil has not seen it yet, so we cannot comment.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: It is invisible.

Deputy Shane Ross: Let me inform the Ceann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputy return to order, please?

Deputy Shane Ross: The Minister has seen it because——

An Ceann Comhairle: I have not seen it and neither have my colleagues.

Deputy Shane Ross: ——it is almost identical to Deputy Rabbitte’s Whistleblowers Protec- tion Bill 2010.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Sean Fleming: The Government will accept it, so.

Deputy Shane Ross: No doubt the Government will be able to accept it and allow it to go forward. There would be no reason for any further delay.

An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps the Deputy will raise the matter next week when he has the Bill.

Deputy Shane Ross: I just thought the Minister would like to know it was on the way.

An Ceann Comhairle: Thanks very much.

Deputy Shane Ross: No doubt he has read it many times before because those opposite are correct, in that the Bill is pure plagiarism. I will ask my second question. In view of the speculation about Greek default——

An Ceann Comhairle: We do not deal with speculation on the Order of Business, whether it relates to Greece or anywhere else.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Not on a Thursday.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will Deputy Ross return to order, please? 9 Order of 9 June 2011. Business (Resumed)

Deputy Shane Ross: I want to ask about legislation——

Deputy Barry Cowen: For Greece.

Deputy Shane Ross: Has the Department of Finance, in co-operation with the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, and the Central Bank, or any of those three bodies considered emergency legislation in preparation for the possibility of a default within the European——

An Ceann Comhairle: No, we do not deal with speculation. The Minister should not reply to it, as it is pure speculation.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I will not.

Deputy Shane Ross: I am asking——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ross has had his couple of minutes.

Deputy Shane Ross: What about the whistleblowers legislation?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ellis is next. I hope he will be in order.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: I will.

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: The report on unfinished estates is due today. The Government party Whips have not had a chance to put a timetable together. I have two questions on the matter. Will legislation be required to address the issue and will we be able to debate the report on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week? There has been a proliferation of parking meters and the inevitable clamping in small towns and villages——

An Ceann Comhairle: No.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: I am coming to the point.

An Ceann Comhairle: If the Deputy is raising the issue of parking meters, I suggest he contact Dublin City Council.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: It has to do with promised legislation. In small towns and villages across the country, many businesses are suffering financial and job losses. The clamping regulation Bill is due to be published. When will that be and will it address the serious economic effects of clamping? For example, people in Finglas village have recently been clamped.

An Ceann Comhairle: I thank the Deputy, but we do not need an example.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: It is causing major problems.

An Ceann Comhairle: We must move on. The Finance Bill must be debated, but we are wasting time.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I will be brief, as the Ceann Comhairle is under pressure for time. Regarding the first matter raised by Deputy Ellis, the report is to be published soon. The Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, will handle the matter. If the Deputy wishes to table ques- 10 Order of 9 June 2011. Business (Resumed) tions about it to the Minister of State, he is welcome to do so. If he wishes to have the matter raised by the Whips for discussion later next week, that is a matter for his party Whip.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: As far as I know, the Whips are tying it up.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: The clamping regulation Bill will be enacted later this year.

Deputy Robert Troy: When does the Government intend to introduce the proposed animal welfare Bill?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: We have no date as yet for that measure.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: A telephone somewhere is causing interference.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I have two questions. The Minister will be aware that the consumer and competition Bill is central to the Government’s competition policy. When is its publication expected? The programme for Government makes a number of commitments, some of which are legislative and some of which are administrative in nature, to deal with the issue of people experiencing difficulty in paying their mortgages. When will these measures be implemented?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: We have no date as yet for the first Bill. We are not yet 100 days in office, but as soon as we——

Deputy Willie O’Dea: When will it be published?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: We have no date as yet.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: It is central to the Government’s policy.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Yes, and we have five years to implement it, but we are fewer than 100 days into our term. The Deputy must be patient with us in the same way we were extremely patient with him.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: What about the second question?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I do not have the answer.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: There is no rush to help distressed mortgageholders.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I could waffle the way the Deputy did in government, but I will not do so.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: When will the Government implement the commitments?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Instead, I will find out the correct answer and communicate it to the Deputy as soon as I can.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I cannot wait.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We did not need WikiLeaks last week to tell us of the U- turn by the Minister’s party leader, the Tánaiste, on the second referendum on the Lisbon 11 Appointment of Members 9 June 2011. to Committees: Motion

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.] treaty. All WikiLeaks has done is expose his thinking and the duplicity of the positions he took, one in public and another in private.

An Ceann Comhairle: No introduction is necessary.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Those of us who were sincerely and genuinely opposed to the treaty pointed out that, with its passage, we would find that the decision making process would be ever more at a remove from ordinary people and elected representatives at this tier. That is exactly where we are at. We are now going to——

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy. We are on the Order of Business.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: My question is on promised legislation. We are now in a situation whereby, courtesy of the EU-IMF deal which the Government has now embraced, water charges are to be introduced, another major u-turn for the Labour Party. Will legislation be required to bring forward the Government’s so-called proposals to introduce water charges across the country?

An Ceann Comhairle: Is legislation promised?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: If that is the case, when will that legislation be introduced and has there been any engagement with the Attorney General in relation to this particular proposal?

An Ceann Comhairle: I remind the Deputy that he could table a parliamentary question to get an answer to this question. Is legislation in this area promised?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Legislation will be required.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: When might that legislation present?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I am not in a position yet to give the Deputy that information.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: This is the new politics.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: When will the Government bring forward promised legislation to enable publication of the 1926 census?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I am informed that current legislation will have to be changed to provide for that. I am aware of the great success the general public had in accessing the 1911 census. We are anxious to facilitate publication of the 1926 census, which will be revealing given it is the first census taken after establishment of the State.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does Deputy Nash wish to ask a question?

Deputy Gerald Nash: No.

Appointment of Members to Committees: Motion Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): I move:

That the following members be appointed to the Committee of Public Accounts: 12 Appointment of Members 9 June 2011. to Committees: Motion

Deputies Paul J. Connaughton, John Deasy, Paschal Donohoe, Anne Ferris, Simon Harris, Michael McCarthy, Mary Lou McDonald, Michael McGrath, John McGuinness, Eoghan Murphy, Derek Nolan, Kieran O’Donnell and Shane Ross;

That the following members be appointed to the Committee on Members’ Interests of Dáil Éireann:

Deputies John Browne, Olivia Mitchell, Thomas Pringle, David Stanton and Jack Wall;

That the following members be appointed to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges:

Deputies Joe Carey, Martin Heydon, Paul Kehoe, John Lyons, Nicky McFadden, Catherine Murphy, Seán Ó Fearghaíl, Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Emmet Stagg;

That the following members be appointed to the Joint Administration Committee:

Deputies John Browne, Jerry Buttimer, Eric Byrne, Áine Collins, Andrew Doyle, Dessie Ellis, Tom Fleming, Tom Hayes, Heather Humphreys, Paul Kehoe, Seamus Kirk, John Lyons, Anne Phelan, John Paul Phelan, Brian Stanley and Jack Wall;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture:

Deputies Tom Barry, Michael Colreavy, Pat Deering, Robert Dowds, Andrew Doyle, Martin Ferris, Noel Harrington, Martin Heydon, Colm Keaveney, Mattie McGrath, Michael McNamara, Michael Moynihan, Éamon Ó Cuív, John O’Mahony and Thomas Pringle;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Environment, Trans- port, Culture and the Gaeltacht:

Deputies James Bannon, Paudie Coffey, Niall Collins, Noel Coonan, Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, Clare Daly, Timmy Dooley, Dessie Ellis, Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, Terence Flanagan, Kevin Humphreys, Seán Kenny, Ciarán Lynch, Sandra McLellan, Tony McLoughlin, Catherine Murphy, Gerald Nash, Patrick O’Donovan, Brian Stanley, Robert Troy and Brian Walsh;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on European Union Affairs:

Deputies Joe Costello, Paschal Donohoe, Timmy Dooley, Bernard J. Durkan, Colm Keaveney, Seán Kyne, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Joe O’Reilly and Mick Wallace;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform:

Deputies Richard Boyd-Barret, Thomas P. Broughan, Michael Creed, Jim Daly, Pearse Doherty, Stephen Donnelly, Sean Fleming, Joe Higgins, Heather Humphreys, Kevin Humphreys, Peter Mathews, Mary Lou McDonald, Michael McGrath, Olivia Mitchell, Seán Ó Fearghaíl, Jonathan O’Brien, Kieran O’Donnell, Arthur Spring, Billy Timmins, Liam Twomey and Alex White;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade: 13 Ministerial Report: 9 June 2011. Referral to Select Committee

[Deputy Paul Kehoe.]

Deputies Pat Breen, Eric Byrne, Bernard J. Durkan, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Michael McNamara, Dara Murphy, Dan Neville, Seán Ó Fearghaíl and Maureen O’Sullivan;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Health and Children:

Deputies Jerry Buttimer, Catherine Byrne, Michael Colreavy, Ciara Conway, Regina Doherty, Robert Dowds, Peter Fitzpatrick, Seamus Healy, Derek Keating, Billy Kelleher, Eamonn Maloney, Charlie McConalogue, Mattie McGrath, Denis Naughten and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement:

Deputies Seán Conlan, Seán Crowe, Clare Daly, Regina Doherty, Alan Farrell, Frank Feighan, Martin Ferris, Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, Dominic Hannigan, Michael P. Kitt, Joe McHugh, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Joe O’Reilly, Brendan Smith and Joanna Tuffy;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Investigations, Over- sight and Petitions:

Deputies Dara Calleary, Joan Collins, Michael Conaghan, Alan Farrell, Charles Flanagan, Michael Healy-Rae, Peter Mathews, Michael McCarthy, Charlie McConalogue, Michelle Mulherin, Derek Nolan, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, John Paul Phelan, Peadar Tóibín and Mick Wallace;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Jobs, Social Protec- tion and Education:

Deputies Ray Butler, Áine Collins, Joan Collins, Michael Conaghan, Barry Cowen, Seán Crowe, Damien English, Tom Fleming, Brendan Griffin, John Halligan, Seán Kyne, Anthony Lawlor, John Lyons, Nicky McFadden, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Willie O’Dea, Brendan Ryan, Brendan Smith and Peadar Tóibín;

That the following members be appointed to the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality:

Deputies Dara Calleary, Michael Creed, Tom Hayes, Seán Kenny, Finian McGrath, Jon- athan O’Brien, David Stanton, Billy Timmins and Joanna Tuffy.

Question put and agreed to.

Ministerial Report: Referral to Select Committee Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): I move:

That the proposal that Dáil Éireann approves the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2010, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 30 March 2011, in accordance with section 13 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, in accordance with Standing Order 82A(3), which, not later than 30 June 2011, 14 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

shall send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 87, and Standing Order 86(2) shall accordingly apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: Financial Resolution Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I move

THAT Part 9, which provides for levies, of the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999 (No. 31 of 1999) and Chapters 1, 2 and 2A, which provide for occupational pension schemes, retirement annuities and personal retirement savings accounts, respectively, of Part 30 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (No. 39 of 1997), be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the Acts giving effect to this Resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: Committee and Remaining Stages

NEW SECTION Deputy Michael McGrath: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

“1.—The Minister for Finance shall within two months from the passing of this Act, and every two months thereafter, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report setting out the number of jobs created as a result of each taxation measure provided for by this Act and the number of jobs created as a result of the levy on pensions schemes provided for in section 4 of this Act.”.

One of the weaknesses of the jobs initiative announced by the Government is the lack of a specific jobs target. We are all aware of the crippling unemployment situation in the country. The latest live register figures show that at end of May 443,200 people were unemployed, an unemployment rate at a record high of 14.8%. We all hope that the jobs initiative will result in the creation of jobs. However, it is important we can identify the jobs created as a direct result of the measures introduced in the jobs initiative, in particular the taxation measures, including the reduction in VAT, and can separate them from jobs which may be created in the economy by an expected upturn and, it is hoped, some economic growth this year. I know the Government wrote in April to many employers around the country asking them how many jobs they expected would be created by the different initiatives contained in the jobs initiative. I understand the employers were to respond in this regard by 29 April. I am asking that the Government publish the feedback it has received thus far from employers in regard to what jobs are expected to be created and that the House be informed on an ongoing basis of the impact of the measures introduced. The jobs initiative is being funded by a harsh and unfair pension levy which will result in pensions being cut, higher contributions being paid by workers and may well result in the closure of some pension schemes.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I support the amendment, although I believe the two month criteria may be a little excessive. It is important we examine all of the decisions taken in relation to finance to see if they have resulted in the creation of jobs, extra revenue to the Exchequer and are supporting sections of society that are vulnerable or under immense pressure at this time. Many of the initiatives announced in the jobs initiative are subject to review, which is to be 15 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.] welcomed. I understand that a review will take place after one year. However, what criteria will be used to measure if discontinuation of the airport or travel taxes has resulted in increased passenger numbers? It would have been easy to measure this initiative had the Government kept to its initial promise in the programme for Government that continuation of this measure would be subject to the re-opening of closed routes. However, it is evident from the Minister’s speech in regard to the jobs initiative that the criteria by which these will be measured is additional passenger numbers. It is important we look at the number of jobs created as a result of each of the taxation measures. I acknowledge it will be difficult to pinpoint the particular number of jobs created this year because the Government is attempting to create the environment to foster employment. However, there needs to be some type of criteria against which these initiatives can be measured in terms of whether they are worthwhile or should be continued or discontinued. As I have stated on previous occasions, the report on the Department of Finance by external experts argued that this type of information should be available to the Opposition and open to public scrutiny. I do not believe any Minister for Finance should have anything to hide in this regard. I am sure the current Minister has nothing to hide. However, Government should make available to the Opposition and others the analysis and differing opinions within the Depart- ment in regard to whether particular initiatives are good or not and identifying the risks contained in implementing them. This would ensure as wholesome and as informed a debate as possible. I welcome the proposal contained in the amendment. I remind the Minister, if he needs reminding, that this type of amendment is similar to one proposed by parties in government when in opposition. If we are to have a new way of doing business in this House we should be able to find a mechanism which provides that we do not have to wait one year to have a review. We could have a review twice yearly and that information could be laid before the House. The Government could then set out whether the initiatives are working and the results in that regard or, to the contrary, whether they are not working to its satisfaction and need to be tweaked, discontinued or enhanced. I support the amendment.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for tabling this amendment, which makes an interesting suggestion. Unfortunately, however, it is not possible for me to implement it owing to the limitations in data available to the Department of Finance. The Central Statistics Office produces employment data four times a year in the quarterly national household survey. While this data set provides employment information on a broad sectoral basis, it is only available on a net basis. It does not provide information on job creation and losses, which make up the net figure. While the new job churn data set produced by the CSO will allow such a distinction in the future, it does so only on an annual basis and with a significant lag. It currently only has data available up until 2009. Accordingly, it will not be possible to determine how many jobs are created directly as a result of the measures announced in the jobs initiative. These measures are expected to support recovery in the labour market by improving our competitiveness position, stimulating demand and improving confidence. We cannot escape the fact we do not have the resources available at present to fund large-scale policy initiatives to help to generate economic activity. I emphasised this when I launched the jobs initiative and the point was reiterated by the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, in his contribution to the debate on Second Stage. This means the direct stimulatory effect of the current package of initiatives will be modest and I make no extravagant claims on their behalf. What these 16 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages measures principally represent are the first steps by the Government to providing the conditions which will better facilitate the return to work of those who are currently unemployed. These first steps will be followed by further movement towards the objective of rebuilding a prosperous and productive economy.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I thank the Minister for his reply. The key question is how, if additional jobs are created, as we all hope they will be, one separates whether the additional employment created is directly as a result of the initiatives in this Bill or whether it is attributed to a general economic upturn, which we hope manifests itself here and throughout Europe this year and into next year. One can point to the monthly live register figures and to the quarterly national household survey published by the CSO but that does not provide quality information as to the impact of the measures we are implementing. The Minister said on Second Stage he would reassess the impact of the VAT reduction at the end of 2012 in the context of 2013. The question is how the impact will be measured. The Minister might point to additional jobs being created but we will not know to what extent their creation is directly attributable to the measures in this Bill. What response did the Government receive from leading employers? I understand it was the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, who wrote to put the question directly to such employers as to how many jobs they expected would be created as a result of the initiatives that were announced, and that the employers were to return that information by the end of April. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, might give us an indication in that regard, if he is not in a position to accept the amendment.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: As I said earlier, the two-month criteria would be almost impossible to meet given the data that would be available, and the Minister responded to this effect in his answer. However, we should look to have some type of report or review carried out on an interim basis, and we should not have to wait for the full review. An opportune timescale would be to have a six-monthly report prior to budget 2012. We should be analysing what effect these measures are having on employment and the other categories to which I referred. I say this in support of many of the measures contained within the Bill. As I indicated, we have major issues with the pension levy but the other measures are to be welcomed. I am not arguing for this review on the basis that we should have one so we can prove this does not work. We are all hopeful that there will be increased employment and tourism and all of the other spin-offs for the economy as a result of these measures. However, the principle should be that we would review the decisions we make on a continuous basis, within reason, and this should be carried on to other measures and decisions taken by Government in regard to financial issues, and should be central to Government decision making. Although the amendment refers to a period of two months, that could be extended to six months so we would have some type of interim review based on the best information available to us as to the effect of the measures in the Bill. The Minister has stated a number of times that he makes no extravagant claims, as none of us in the House would, that this jobs budget will result in a huge upturn in employment. We all know from the CSO that since the Government took office, unemployment has risen. It would be very unfair of me to attribute that to those on the Government benches as it is a legacy the Government has inherited from previous Administrations. Nonetheless, the trend is for increased unemployment. Given the fact the Government indicated its intention is to create 100,000 jobs, and the Minister argues that this jobs initiative will see a modest number of jobs created, I am interested to know if the Minister can indicate, if not the exact figure, a range or ballpark figure in terms of what “modest” means. Out of the 100,000 jobs to which the Govern- 17 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.] ment is committed to creating, does the Minister expect it to create five, 500, 5,000 or 50,000 jobs? We need some kind of measure.

Deputy Michael Noonan: While I do not disagree with much of what has been said, the CSO does not have the data to enable me to accept the amendment and to give two-monthly progress reports on job creation. Modern, open economies such as Ireland’s are very intricate in the way they interact. It is very difficult to say what particular policy instrument either created or cost jobs because everything is so intertwined and the influences abroad are probably stronger than the influences at home. It is probably true to say that if there is a general rise in trading activity worldwide, trading activity in Ireland goes up and jobs are created; if it goes down, we will respond to that. The intention behind this initiative is to do specific things which in our political judgement and on the advice of people in business will have a job creation effect. It is not correct to suggest, as Deputy Michael McGrath did, that it is possible to separate jobs being created by the jobs initiative from jobs that might be created by a general uplift in the economy. One of the primary purposes of the jobs initiative is to lift morale and confidence, which are also intertwined issues. One of the principal ideas in the initiative is the reduction in the VAT rate from 13.5% to 9%. The approach of the Government and myself is that we look at the economy sector by sector and if we believe there is potential in a sector, we will try to do something to encourage further activity in it. We know that manufacturing industry is going very well at present, exports are increasing extremely well and jobs are being created in that sector. We know farming is going well and, although agriculture inside the farm gate is a small enough proportion of the economy, outside the farm gate the whole agri-food industry is going very well also. We want to encourage that because again, it is export-led and jobs are being created there. The tourism industry is totally underachieving and has fallen in value terms over the past three years by approximately 32% with regard to the UK alone, and in terms of overall numbers it has fallen 30%. If we were to even restore it to its previous position in the coming years, there would be a huge impact on job creation in the tourism industry and the wider hospitality industry throughout the country. That is the purpose of the reduction in VAT. Members will know from their own constituencies that this initiative has been warmly welcomed by the tourism industry. How do we measure the effect of the cut in the VAT rate, as Deputy Pearse Doherty asked? The reason we provided for it on that basis was first, that we do not know how long we will be able to afford the reduced VAT rate, so we are signalling that there are aspects to the jobs initiative that are temporary in nature and which will be subject to review in due course. That particular position is not related to whether they are creating jobs but is simply a revenue issue. The other reason it is included is that we want the reduction to be passed on. If it is not being passed on, thereby making the industry more competitive, that will be one test of whether the measure is proving effective. It will not be the only test but it will be a serious one. If it simply runs to the bottom line, if the industry does not pass on the VAT reduction to make itself more competitive and create more activity, in turn creating more jobs, we will look very clearly at this measure. If it is not effective the rate will be again increased to 13.5%. We will make a certain assessment. The macro impact of the jobs initiative will be assessed to some extent in the wider medium-term economic outlook when we publish the pre-budget outlook later this year. I do not say the Deputy’s idea is not valid but we simply do not have the data to implement it in the way he suggests. In so far as we have data, however, we will attempt to see what the overall macro effect is, particularly in the pre-budget statement. 18 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Michael McGrath: I welcome the Minister’s commitment to having some commentary on the impact of this initiative in the pre-budget outlook, particularly of the VAT reduction. This is important. I had intended to ask the Minister what internal reporting mechanisms he would have to assess this on an ongoing basis. Whatever about publishing formal reports, I am sure the Department will assess the impact of this measure on an ongoing basis and examine whether it is being passed on to the end consumer, which is the key issue. When can we hope to have the first indication of any such impact assessment? On the basis of the Minister’s commitment to having some commentary on the impact to date of the measures, particularly that of the VAT reduction, in the pre-budget outlook, I am happy to withdrew the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am informed that amendment No. 2 is out of order.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

SECTION 1

Question proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Pearse Doherty: My point concerns section 1. The Minister made an interesting comment on the application and duration of the reduction in VAT, stating the reason the review is built in is that we may not be able to afford — I paraphrase — the decrease to the new VAT rate of 9% until the end of 2013. However, that was not what he led us to believe when he announced the jobs initiative in the House. At that time he led us to believe the review was to ensure the sector was benefiting from the new rate which would run until 2013. There was no issue then about the cost to the State of this reduction. I am very interested to hear why he now states — he may correct me if I am wrong — the reason the review is built in is that we may not be able to afford the reduction in the years ahead. We are introducing a pension levy to come up with the money necessary to pay for the reduction. Therefore, I do not understand the basis of the Minister’s comment. I understand the idea of interim reviews; I welcomed it. The idea of having a review to ensure the sector is benefiting from a reduction in VAT on specific, targeted, focused areas is welcome but the Minister has now led us to believe the reason for the review is that we may not be able to afford to continue this measure. That does not make sense to me given that we are to apply a 0.6% levy on pensions to fund the measure in the first place.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I make a general point. The national finances are in a fraught situation. A fiscal correction of €6 billion is underway in 2011 and so far we are on target. We are slightly under profile on tax collection but are also under profile on expenditure. As we go through June, facing the end of the first half year ,we are on target to achieve the fiscal correction of €6 billion. Next year the commitment under the programme is a correction of €3.6 billion. Over the two years, therefore, we will approach a correction of €10 billion, a huge amount of money. In those circumstances I will not rule out any tax initiative, increase or reduction. I say this at a level of principle. I have nothing in mind. The Deputy referred to the fact that we are funding the jobs initiative through the pension levy. Yes we are, but that levy is temporary. We are writing into the Act that it is for the years 2011-14, inclusive, and therefore the funding for the jobs initiative through the pension levy will end in 2014. Obviously, if we are to continue with these initiatives there will have to be another source of funding. I signal that now. 19 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

Whether the VAT rate is passed on is the precise and focused issue but there is also the general issue every Minister for Finance faces of how to meet one’s fiscal targets and pay for the country on an ongoing basis. I do not say anything new. This is always there as an issue. It is also true to state, as Deputies will know from their own constituency experience, that passing on the VAT reduction is not the only issue. I have met people in the food business who claim they have been run off their feet for the past two years and needed two more people to run their business but could not afford them. Now they say they can afford to hire two extra people and are taking them on. That is job creation but they are not passing on the reduction. There are other situations where the very fact that 4.5% is being taken off the bottom line is keeping places open. We might not be creating jobs but we are saving many. We shall see how the summer goes in the tourism industry. It is not exact, as all Deputies know. One has to use political judgment, take the best advice one can rely on from the sector and see how things work out. That is the position.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I have one brief question. The Minister stated that given the scale of the budgetary adjustment required this year and next year, he will not rule out increases in any form of taxation. Does that include income tax?

Deputy Michael Noonan: We are moving away from the content of the Bill. If the Deputy refers to the programme for Government that will give him the principles on which we will base our tax approach. I will not recite them now in the middle of Committee Stage of a Bill which is focused on other issues.

Deputy Michael McGrath: That contradicts what has been said.

Deputy Michael Noonan: The Deputy is widening the debate beyond——

Deputy Michael McGrath: The Minister opened it up.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: At the start of Committee Stage on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, the Minister has landed an almighty bombshell in the middle of the debate. He stated that a review of the biggest ticket item of this Bill, the reduction of the VAT rate to 9% which will cost €350 million in a full year, is built in because we may not be able to afford the measure in the future. The review is to be completed before the end of 2012 in order to inform the Minister’s decision in regard to budget 2013. However, the levy being imposed on people who have saved will carry on until 2014. The Minister is trying to sell this issue, namely, the pension levy, whereby this Government will tap into the savings of hundreds of thousands of people, as a quid pro quo for creating jobs. He did not say that the initiative may be suspended before its time. Most likely it will continue until 2014. However, the idea a reduction in VAT for specifically focused tourism sectors may be abolished in 2012, or whatever date, is not what the Minister stated in his jobs initiative; I have that script here. It was very clear that the review would be carried out to ensure the sector was benefiting from that decision, not because we might not be able to afford the measure in future. Will the Minister give a guarantee that the pension levy is linked to the VAT reduction? If the Government decides following the 2012 review that it will discontinue the 9% VAT reduction in specific sectors, will the pension levy no longer exist? The Government is trying to tell the public that this is all about jobs. It is asking people why they should not relinquish 0.6% of their pensions, given that the money will be used to create jobs in towns across Ireland. When the Taoiseach has spoken about this, he has pulled on the heartstrings of the 450,000 people who are unemployed. It now seems that the pension levy could be used to fund other 20 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages mechanisms. It is possible that the initiatives announced could be reversed while the pension levy remains in existence. I am asking a genuine question. Will the Minister clarify the position? As he has emphasised on many occasions, these initiatives had to be fiscally neutral. We cannot allow the Government to overturn its decision to reduce the rate of VAT that applies to the tourism sector, while at the same time continuing to tap into the private pensions of individuals. The moneys gathered from that source cannot be used to pay some of the State’s other deficits. We all know the State will have to make an annual injection into Anglo Irish Bank, for example. That is not right. I ask the Minister to clarify his initial statement this morning.

Deputy Michael Noonan: On the day the jobs initiative was announced, I said “to ensure that the sector is delivering, the effects of the changes announced today will be assessed and the measures reviewed before the end of 2012 in the context of preparing Budget 2013”.My approach to this morning’s Committee Stage debate is that I would like to give the Opposition as much information as I can. Committee Stage is usually quite relaxed. It involves an inter- change of information. It does not need to be contentious. I want to set out the background thinking informing our approach to this difficult fiscal situation. If the provision of extra information is fuelling a series of ill-founded allegations from Deputy Pearse Doherty and others, I will go back into the burrow that was inhabited by my predecessors and stick closely to the text of the Bill without departing from it. If the Deputies opposite want a full and frank discussion, we will have it. If it sparks off many ridiculous accusations, why should I engage in such a discussion? That is my position.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I would not recognise the Minister for Finance if he engaged in anything other than “a full and frank discussion”. I would like to pick up on the question asked by Deputy Michael McGrath. The programme for Government includes a fairly specific commitment that income tax rates will not be interfered with and that income tax bands or credits will not be narrowed or reduced. The indications in the Minister’s response to Deputy McGrath seemed to depart from that, however. My reading of his reply is that it did not close off the possibility of such changes. I would like to speak about this section of the Bill in general. I am aware of the Minister’s fiscal difficulties and I understand the financial situation facing the country. The Minister will be aware that there is huge competition between different countries to attract investment in research and development. He will have received submissions from IBEC and other bodies about improvements that could be made to the research and development tax system. The use of 2003 as a base year is apparently having adverse effects on certain businesses. A strong case has been made to me and others — I am sure the Minister has heard about it — to the effect that the outsourcing limit of 5% should be expanded to bring it into line with some of the Government’s other industrial and commercial policies. If I recall correctly, the programme for Government contains a commitment to provide that the base year test will not apply to companies that spend up to €100,000 on research and development. In other words, such businesses will be given full credit for that, and amounts slightly over it, at a marginal rate. While I appreciate that the Minister is dealing with financial difficulties, I suggest these things would more than pay for themselves. The IDA Ireland figures indicate that we have had a fantastic record in attracting such investment over the past four or five years. Is the Minister giving serious consideration to including the provisions I have mentioned in the next budget and the next finance Bill?

Deputy Michael Noonan: The purpose of the research and development tax credit scheme, which is open to companies of all sizes, is to encourage research and development here and thereby improve the economy and increase employment. A credit of 25% of incremental spend 21 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] on research and development is available for this purpose. The scheme has been enhanced in most years since its introduction to improve its effectiveness. The latest amendment to the scheme, as provided for in this Bill, represents a further enhancement. It was sought by Deputy O’Dea, who suggested that it could be above or below the line.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: Yes.

Deputy Michael Noonan: As an accountant, he is familiar with the issues that have given rise to this amendment.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: Absolutely. I welcome it.

Deputy Michael Noonan: It is clear from the fact that IDA Ireland secured 79 new investments from existing clients in 2010 — some 37 of which, or almost 50%, were in the area of research and development — that the tax credit scheme for research and development has proved very effective since it was introduced in 2004. The value of the investment in Ireland arising from these new research and development projects is approximately €500 million. It also involves a considerable number of jobs. When the scheme was originally introduced, it was intended that the base year would be the year three years before the year of claim. It was planned that 2003 would be taken as the base year for the first three years of the scheme, until 2006. There have been substantial improvements in the position since then. In the Finance Act 2007, the use of 2003 as the base year was extended for a further three years of claim, up to and including 2009. In the Finance Act 2008, the use of 2003 as the base year was extended for a further four years of claim, up to and including 2013. In addition, the rolling base year rule was changed so that, in relation to a year of claim after 2013, the base year was fixed as the year corresponding to the year of claim, but ending ten years before the year of claim. It was proposed that the base year for 2014, for example, would be 2004. The Finance (No. 2) Act 2008 fixed 2003 as the base year for all future accounting periods. An incremental approach, as opposed to a volume approach, was deliberately chosen to encourage companies to increase their level of research and development. Companies are therefore incentivised to carry out additional research and development activities, over and above their level of such activity in the base year. Where research and development remains static, or is reduced when compared to the base year, no tax credit is due. In the case of companies that commenced research and development activities after the end of 2003, the threshold is zero. As the threshold amount is the actual amount of expenditure incurred in 2003 rather than an indexed amount, the effect of the retention of 2003 as a base year has moved the credit closer to a volume-based amount. The Deputy is right to acknowledge the tight fiscal position of the Government. When one does not have big sums of money to throw at problems, one has to start thinking outside the box and to try to get the maximum effect from a minimum amount of expenditure. Government and Opposition Deputies need to think smart. I will give an example of what I am talking about. I am not saying this in a contentious way. It was announced in the 2010 budget that employers’ PRSI would be charged on share option schemes. The Deputy is familiar with how they work. They are given to an employee and perhaps vested for five years later. When this measure was announced, it seemed that it would be retrospective. It was provided for in the Finance Bill in January of this year. When I came into office, I learned that the proposal had been the subject of a great deal of lobbying on the part of investors, who thought it would make life difficult. An adverse view of 22 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages it was taken, particularly in North American boardrooms. They thought it was a huge imposition. When I consulted the Revenue Commissioners, they found that as drafted it could not be made retrospective — it could only apply from 1 January 2011 — and that the yield to the Exchequer would be less than €2 million. As part of my jobs initiative announcement, I said I intended to drop it. It has already been confirmed that as a result, an investment here which had been held up is to go ahead. It involves a €50 million construction project and, when the construction has been completed, the creation of 100 research and development jobs. It will deliver more tax than the Finance Bill measure, which was included in good faith, would have done in 20 years. I am not making a political point; I am just mentioning it as an example of what can happen when one tries to tweak these things. In reply directly to Deputy O’Dea, there are other changes I want make on research and development but we had not time to consider them fully for this Bill. We will consider them in advance of the 2012 budget.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Maybe we got off to a bad start on Committee Stage. With respect, I am not making any allegations against the Minister or the Government and I ask him to clarify what he means by that statement. We are seeking information and I acknowledge he is imparting information here in a genuine and open way. However, it was he who stated that the purpose of the review was not to ascertain how many jobs were being created because that is the amendment we were discussing but that we may not be able to fund such a reduction. I am asking is that the case 12 o’clock because this is a different approach to what was announced in the jobs initiative and this legislation gives effect to the measures announced in that initiative, and the question still stands. The Minister stated the review is built in to the reduction of VAT rates to ensure the sector was delivering. In a genuine way without making any accusations, I am asking him to clarify whether the purpose of the review is to see if the sector is delivering or, as the Minister stated earlier, that it may be that we cannot afford such a reduction in the periods after the review. If the latter is the case, if there is a potential that we would suspend or reverse the decision to reduce the VAT rate, which costs €350 million per year in a full year, at the same time as continuing this levy, it is simply wrong and it is pushing through legislation under false pretences. Today the Minister gave the information that may be the case and I am giving the Minister an opportunity to clarify if, as he stated earlier, that potential exists.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: On the same issue, Deputy Michael McGrath.

Deputy Michael McGrath: Deputy Doherty is touching on an important point, the principle of a linkage between the retention of the pension levy and the retention of the initiatives announced by the Government, including the VAT reduction. Is the retention of the pension levy for the full four years linked to the retention of the VAT reduction? Is the Minister ruling out using the funds from the pension levy to fund other initiatives? If the Minister decides towards the end of next year that the VAT reduction is not working and abolishes it, will he reduce by a corresponding amount or eliminate the pension levy or is he retaining the right to use the funds that will be raised from the pension levy to fund other initiatives or to contribute towards reducing the deficit? In fairness to Deputy Doherty, there is an important principle.

Deputy Arthur Spring: If it is the case that we will link it to VAT, is it applicable that the Minister will link it at all times, for example, if he were to reduce VAT further like the Greeks have done in reducing it to 6%, so we would have to increase pension levies that we are putting in place? Would it work both ways? 23 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Michael Noonan: I am setting out a general position. The Deputies know why it is important that we review how effective the VAT reduction is and whether it is delivering on jobs. I thought, where we started a while ago with Deputy Michael McGrath’s amendment, that it was something along those lines he was looking for, that every two months we would assess whether it was effective in terms of job creation. Now the wheel seems to have spun around where a review in two years’ time is not acceptable to the Opposition but it wants reviews every two months. That is not really logical either. One could talk oneself in all directions with that. We are saying it will be reviewed to encourage the industry to use the VAT reduction effectively so jobs are created and there will be more activity in the industry. That, if one likes, is an encouragement hanging over the tourism industry. We are also saying, and it is written into the Bill, that the pension levy will continue for four years. I hope we can continue the VAT reduction for the same period but there are no circumstances, if I am Minister for Finance, in which the pension levy will continue beyond four years and if we are to continue the VAT reduction beyond the life of the pension levy, we must find another means of funding it. Everybody is familiar with the fiscal constraints and I am simply saying we will have to look at the matters in due course. Obviously, if the tourism industry takes off and the VAT reduction can be shown as one of the main levers that really drove it forward, then I would be very reluctant to bring it back up. That is the position. We are really talking forward and much of what we are saying is speculation. I am trying to give Deputies the fullest information possible. It is difficult to see forward at present. It is difficult to see from here to January next. We have a programme that we will implement. In general terms, we have an economic approach that we will pursue but there are all sorts of strange things happening in the world.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: That is not what the Minister stated earlier and I welcome the clarification. Would he consider accepting an amendment on Report Stage which would link any reversal of these initiatives, particularly in VAT because it involves €350 million and is the big ticket item? Would he consider accepting an amendment on Report State that would link the pension levy and a reversal of the reduction in VAT? The spirit of this provision is important. We all understand the constraints the Government is under. We have heard time and again that this had to be fiscally neutral but it is not right to have legislation where there is potential that it will not be fiscally neutral in two years’ time with the pension levy funding other aspects of running the State and the deficit. A way of creating support for this, if such can be created, is to ensure, as is the stated intention of the Government, that the pension levy is to fund job creation initiatives. The way to do that is to consider an amendment at Report Stage that would link any outcome of the review which would reverse the VAT rate with a reduction in the pension levy. We can do that by allowing the Minister the discretion, by order, to reduce the percentage of the pension levy and with a stated commitment from him that the outworkings of this legislation would have that effect, that he would issue such orders if such a review deemed the VAT rate were to increase to the original rate.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I would not be disposed to accepting such an amendment. I am not in favour of any sort of ear-marked taxes which, I think, are bad practice. There must be discretion for the Government to decide where it will apply the yield from the tax system. It is not good practice to tie the yield to a particular ear-marked activity. I made my position clear. I have given assurance which, I believe, would be accepted by the generality of the House. Trying to tie me or a future Minister for Finance in with an amendment along the lines Deputy Doherty suggests does not really tie anybody in because anything that 24 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages seeks to bind in law can simply be untied by an appropriate amendment in law when the time comes, and therefore is ineffective anyway.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Michael McGrath is out of order. Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 2 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Michael McGrath: On the empowerment of the Minister to revoke the travel tax, the thrust of the amendment which I put forward and which was ruled out of order was to seek a reassurance that the ministerial order revoking the travel tax is issued on the basis of a clear commitment from the airlines, first, that the abolition of the travel tax will not be offset by an increase in fares, in other words, that the reduction will be passed on to customers by way of a reduced overall fare price and, second, that the abolition would be directly linked to a commitment entered into by the airlines with the Minister that they will increase the capacity and the number of passengers they bring to Ireland, which is the purpose of the proposal to abolish the travel tax. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the tax will not be abolished without any subsequent benefit materialising.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I wish to make a general point because I would have supported the proposed amendment. We must consider the issue of the Opposition putting forward amendments to finance Bills. It is ridiculous. We sit down and draft amendments about laying reports before the House but amendments are ruled out of order. I do not question the rulings of the Chair but we must deal with the issue that we cannot propose such amendments. The Minister had this difficulty when he was in opposition, as had previous Opposition parties. The idea that the Opposition cannot propose an amendment that would save money for the State, increase taxes or reduce taxes is ludicrous if we are to have a proper exchange. We tabled an amendment that was ruled out of order relating to the restoration of the minimum wage. It is an amendment the Minister would agree with because it has exactly the same text which the Government included in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. The reason we put it in the Finance (No. 2) Bill is because there is no reason or rationale for it to be in a social welfare Bill. The only reason it is in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill is to help get some of the Labour Party backbenchers into the “Yes” lobby to support the increase in the pension age, the equivalent of a 15% reduction in pension entitlements to a person in that age bracket. It should be in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. The reduction in the minimum wage was brought in as part of the emergency finance Bill in December last year and the restoration of the minimum wage should be in this legislation. That being said, it has been ruled out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill. Perhaps we will attempt to change the scope of the Bill later on. The idea that we cannot bring forward amendments is unsatisfactory. The Government rightly challenges the Opposition to bring forward credible solutions and proposals. We get the odd opportunity to argue and articulate those proposals in the Chamber and through the media. However, it is through amendments that the Government should be able to scrutinise the Opposition view, including what is in the text and what the effect of our policies will be. Today, for the Finance (No. 2) Bill, Sinn Féin has put forward proposals to restore the minimum wage. 25 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is on section 2 and the travel tax. Will the Deputy deal with the travel tax?

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The proposal would get rid of the pension levy but bring forward another mechanism to fund the jobs initiative to the same amount. We have put forward proposals to abolish the universal social charge and other measures that would replace the money that would be lost to the Exchequer as a result. All of these measures and amendments are ruled out of order. I welcome the Government challenging the idea, principle, theory, politics or accuracy of the numbers behind any of these initiatives but we cannot discuss these today. That is a more general point. I have stated before that I welcome the Government initiative on the travel tax. The concern is that there has been a dilution of the stated objective of the Government. The programme for Government stated that it would abolish the travel tax as part of a deal with airlines to restore lost routes. That is the text of the programme for Government. When the jobs initiative was announced, it dealt with additional passenger numbers and the idea of restoring lost routes was gone. That may be a textual error. Is the Finance (No. 2) Bill subject to additional passenger numbers or is it subject to additional routes? I realise the effect of the amendment is not subject to either because the Minister can decide at any time to issue the order. Is the theory or principle behind it to do with additional numbers or restoration of lost routes, as the programme for Government states? I believe it should relate to the restoration of lost routes because it will be difficult to quantify additional passengers, the effect it will have on them and the commitments necessary from the airlines. What happens with the order? The Government has made the order conditional on responses from the airlines. What happens if Aer Lingus agrees to do X, Y and Z to increase additional passengers and target such an amount of additional passengers but Ryanair says “No, go and sod off”? What happens then? Naturally, the positions could be reversed as well. Do we hold all the tourists and airlines to ransom because a certain airline decides not to play ball with the Government? I am genuinely curious as to the rationale. It is a good negotiating tool of the Government to say the change will only be enacted when lost routes are restored. If that is the commitment the Government intends to live up to, it is a stance worth taking. However, in opposition the Minister proposed an amendment to the finance Bill in January to get rid of the travel tax. It was a worthy amendment and one Sinn Féin supported. We sought to go further and reduce it further. What happens if one airline agreed to do it but another does not? What is the commitment from the Government? Is it the programme for Government commitment which refers to the restoration of lost routes or is it the statement made at the launch of the jobs initiative which relates to additional numbers? How do we measure those?

Deputy Michael Noonan: I do not believe there is any contradiction between the two positions because the initiative is to get extra tourists into the country. If one restores routes that were cancelled, one is trying to get extra people into the country and the measure of that is how many extra people come and the way to do that is to encourage extra passengers. It is really a different way of saying the same thing. Section 2 amends section 55 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2008 and provides for the appointment by ministerial order of a day on or after which passenger departures would not be subject to the air travel tax. This measure is subject to an agreement being reached with the airlines to bring in additional passenger numbers. While the air travel tax in itself is primarily a matter for the Minister for Finance, the Government’s motivation towards making an adjustment is to ensure there are no impediments to Ireland maximising the number of visitors to these 26 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages shores. Consequently, the Minister with responsibility for tourism and transport is taking a lead role in the negotiations in this area. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and his officials have held discussions with the Dublin Airport Authority and the main Irish airline is about to propose suspension of the air travel tax. The proposal is part of a three-pronged strategy to encourage inbound tourism that the Minister announced as part of the jobs initiative. It also includes a new growth incentive scheme that has been introduced by Dublin Airport Authority which involves more targeted co-operative marketing of new routes from key source tourism markets by Tourism Ireland, Dublin Airport Authority and the airlines to encourage more tourists to fly into Ireland. I understand the Minister has also written to the other airlines operating services to and from the State airports about these initiatives. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has made it clear in all contacts with the airlines that the Government is only prepared to commence the latest provision to suspend the air travel tax if the airline proposals will deliver real benefits. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, has advised that certain proposals for additional capacity and new routes have been put forward and his Department is currently examining these with the aid of external consultants to assess their potential for increasing inbound tourism and the impact the proposals may have on the airports and their financial position. I understand the assessment is expected to be completed by the end of the month. The Government cannot create jobs but it can create the conditions and environment which allow for more jobs to be created. This is the basis for any moves the Government may make in this area. As I stated previously, a review of the measure will be conducted before the end of 2012 and if it is considered unsuccessful the air travel tax will be reapplied. That is if it is reduced by order in the first instance.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I welcome the Minister’s clarification. However, I would contend there is a substantial difference between restoration of lost routes and additional passengers. For example, we might see an airline reaching capacity on existing flights but not restoring routes. There is a difference there and when dealing with legislation one word can alter the whole spirit of particular provisions. I also contest the Minister’s assertion that the Government cannot create jobs. Governments in the past have created hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of jobs, and this Admini- stration could do the same tomorrow morning by recruiting more nurses or teachers. Neverthe- less, I welcome this proposal and hope it works well. I still have concerns in that we are asking an entire sector to agree and there is a question mark about what will happen if one operator does not agree. However, I am sure common sense will prevail and we will review the provisions in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of Deputy Michael McGrath are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 3 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Michael McGrath: In regard to the amendments ruled out of order, I hope I will learn by experience which types of proposals conform with the rules. The Government’s promise to 27 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael McGrath.] reduce the lower VAT rate from 13.5% to 12% was welcomed not least because it would be applicable to the VAT payable on electricity, gas and fuel. The Government has since changed its mind, however, and decided instead to target a particular sector of the economy by reducing the lower rate of VAT for that sector only by 4.5%. Under EU VAT rules, as I understand it, fuel, electricity and gas are categorised as “parked items” in respect of which the VAT rate can be reduced no lower than 12%. Moreover, under EU regulations, it is not permissible to have more than two lower VAT rates, so there is a difficulty in reducing VAT on fuel under the existing arrangement. This is a disappointment for many people who, on the basis of the promise to reduce the lower VAT rate to 12%, had expected a modest but welcome reduction in their household utility bills. I accept that the Minister is constrained by the EU VAT rules, but does he intend to revisit this issue in order to devise some mechanism for providing additional supports to people who are experiencing fuel poverty?

Deputy Willie O’Dea: If the Minister had decided, within the terms of the appropriate Euro- pean legislation, to reduce the VAT on fuel to 12%, how much would that have added to the cost of the VAT reduction on an annual basis? In view of the pervasive problem of fuel poverty in this country, if it is possible to reduce the 13.5% rate on fuel then serious consideration should be given to it. It is easy to hide behind European law in saying it cannot be done because 12% is the lowest level at which the rate can be set, but something should be done. A reduction in the VAT rate on fuel from 13.5% to 12% is small in the overall scheme of things, representing a reduction in the cost of a bill from €113.50 to €112, for example. Never- theless, it would provide some alleviation for hard-pressed consumers, particularly the poorest in our society who are in extreme difficulty. There are many such people in my own constituency, which I share with the Minister, and Members from all parts of the State will be familiar with the difficulties people are experiencing in this regard. There is an expectation that some action would be taken in light of certain commitments made by the Government in regard to alleviating fuel poverty. I accept this would be only a small aspect of an overall strategy, but I would appreciate if the Minister could provide the figure. Taking into account the additional cost of a reduction in the VAT rate on fuel from 13.5% to 12%, if the Minister wants to retain the revenue neutral character of the budget he might be able to adjust the 9% rate very slightly, perhaps upward to 9.25%, for instance, in order to retain the benefit for the targeted sector while also affording some degree of alleviation for people who are genuinely suffering. We all understand the constraints under European VAT law and so on, but it seems rather perverse that we are substantially reducing costs for people going out to spend €100 or €150 on a meal while nothing is done for people who cannot afford to heat their homes and who look ahead to next winter with great trepidation.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I am pleased that Fianna Fáil Deputies seem to have discovered there is an issue of fuel poverty which has existed for many years, given that their party made the problem worse in previous budgets by reducing social welfare payments and increasing fuel prices through carbon taxes. The proposal to address the issue in this legislation has merit. The amendments have been deemed out of order, but I appeal to the Minister to address the issue in the context of budget 2012. The Government is committed to increasing carbon taxes, but there should be a proper analysis of the impact of such increases on those struggling to heat their homes on a daily basis. We all heard the horror stories on radio programmes last winter. It is incredible, as we sit in this Chamber, to think there are people who have endured very cold, wintry days and nights 28 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages without any heating or with heat being rationed to a severe extent. I ask for some type of analysis to inform decision making in regard to the commitment the Government has given, as part of the EU-IMF programme entered into by the previous Government, to increase carbon taxes and the effect thereof on fuel poverty. This assessment should be published so that we can make an informed decision in the context of the finance Bill that will give effect to budget 2012.

Deputy Michael Noonan: Deputy Michael McGrath explained the constraints placed on us by the European VAT directives and the difficulty of moving below a rate of 12% on some items because to do so is specifically forbidden. He also referred to the constraints in terms of the permissible number of lower rates. I am informed by my advisers that if VAT on fuel were to be reduced to 12%, then all other VAT items at 13.5% would, under the directives, have to come down to 12% also. The cost of that would be €230 million. I remind Deputies that our focus here is on creating jobs rather than the broader agenda of alleviating the burden on poor families in terms of the cost of gas, electricity or heating oil. That is a matter for a different set of proposals either through a finance Bill at budget time or through a social welfare Bill. It is not something properly dealt with as part of a jobs initiative. However, the principal reason it is not included in this legislation is the difficultly presented by the VAT directives and the limits they place on our freedom of action in processing matters such as this. There is a type of contradiction emerging between attempts to reduce the VAT rate on fuel while at the same time, as a result of the Green Party participation in the last Government, we have a situation where carbon taxes are increasing significantly. To increase one while reducing the other certainly gives the impression one does not know what one is doing. However, I take the Deputy’s issue. The social welfare code appears to be a more appropriate way to alleviate fuel poverty than the tax system because of the constraints on the latter.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: To clarify, is the Minister stating that were the VAT rate on fuel to be reduced to 12%, it would then be necessary to reduce all other items within the 13.5% range, even though it obviously has been possible previously to reduce some items to a rate of 9%?

Deputy Michael Noonan: The briefing note I have to hand states that while these items could in theory be reduced to a 12% rate, that could only be done if all the items remaining on the 13.5% rate were reduced to the 12% rate, as under the European Union VAT directive, a member state may only have two reduced rates and Ireland’s now will be 9% and 13.5%. Furthermore, such a reduction from 13.5% to 12% of all items that will remain on the 13.5% rate would be very expensive and would cost €230 million. It is a combination of not being able to go below 12% for certain items in the directive and then only being allowed two lower VAT rates. Consequently, reducing the VAT rate for the hospitality industry to 9% creates one lower VAT rate, while the 13.5% rate, as distinct from the rate of 21%, constitutes the other lower VAT rate. The problem is that to maintain the commitment to only two lower VAT rates, one would be obliged to eliminate the 13.5% rate and put everything on a rate of 12%.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the names of Deputies Pearse Doherty and Michael McGrath, respectively, are out of order. 29 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 8 and 16 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, lines 36 and 37, to delete “section 784” and substitute “section 784 or 785”.

Section 4 deals with the pension levy and I wish to make some introductory remarks because I propose to make quite a number of amendments to it. I wish to provide Members with the overall information first, after which the amendments can be debated singularly as we go through them. Before speaking on these amendments and given the number of official amendments included on the list that will be debated in various separate groups, for the benefit of the committee it might be useful for me to provide a brief outline of what the amendments are designed to achieve in their entirety, as compared with the proposed structure of the pension levy in the Bill as published. During the course of the committee’s consideration of the amendments, it will be seen that some of my proposed changes are substantive. Some are technical in nature and are required to give greater clarity to certain provisions in the Bill as published, while others reflect minor consequential changes and drafting errors. The amendments reflect, to a large part, the useful discussion my officials, as well as officials from the Revenue Commis- sioners, have had with representatives of the pension industry since the publication of the Bill on the administrative and operational aspects of the levy. In this regard, I acknowledge the constructive engagement of the industry with the officials in seeking to make the levy work as efficiently as possible. The key changes I propose to make through the amendments to the published provision are, for the most part, considered necessary to facilitate a more efficient implementation and collection process for the levy and to minimise the administrative cost burden on the industry while collecting the levy. I propose to summarise them. First, I am providing a single valuation date in respect of most pension funds’ assets for each of the four years of the levy, as compared with the choice of valuation date provided for in the Bill as published. In addition, I propose to push back the valuation date to 30 June in each of the four years. Linked to these changes, there will be a single payment date of 25 September for all years, as opposed to the two payment dates in each year as originally envisaged. I also am providing for the delivery of both the levy statement and the levy payment by electronic means. In line with the proposed single payment date, the rate of the levy will be at 0.6% of the chargeable amount, as opposed to two payments of 0.3% each. I also am expanding the definition of contracts of assurance to make clear that it includes not only contracts of assurance linked to the pension business undertaken by pension schemes with life assurance companies but also encompasses policies or contracts of assurance linked to what is called investment-only business with such companies. This will mean that for the most part, the chargeable person in respect of contracts of assurance will be the insurer rather than the administrator of the scheme. I also propose to strengthen the published provision and make it clearer as regards the rights of administrators to dispose of or appropriate assets of the pension scheme for the purposes of paying the levy and with a view to protecting them against any possible legal challenge in that regard. This reflects a concern that administrators with responsibility for calculating and deducting the levy could be placed in an untenable position if the trustees who engage them were to instruct them not to pay the levy. The amendments also will put beyond doubt that 30 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages the chargeable persons and the trustees of the scheme are both jointly and severally liable for the payment of the levy. Finally, I am providing greater clarification as to the circumstances and manner in which benefits payable under the scheme may be adjusted by insurers and trustees on foot of payment of the levy. In that regard, I also am giving the Revenue Commissioners authority to review any case in which assets are disposed of by the administrators or trustees to pay the levy in order to ensure that any such disposals are in keeping with or needed to pay the levy. In addition, Revenue will have an oversight authority to review instances in which the benefits are adjusted as a result of the payment of the levy to ensure that any such adjustment is made in accordance with the requirements of the levy legislation. In respect of the latter, Revenue will be able to consult whatever expert it deems necessary to assist it in that task. I will now revert to amendments Nos. 8 and 16. The purpose of these amendments is simply to clarify a number of definitions in the provision as published. Amendment No. 8 makes clear in the definition of “administrator” that references in the provision to “administrator of a scheme” include, as regards retirement annuity contracts, insurers who provide annuity contracts in respect of death in service benefits under section 785 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as well as insurers who provide annuity contracts in respect of retirement benefits under section 784 of the aforementioned Act. Amendment No. 16 expands paragraph (b) of the definition of the scheme again to ensure that it includes annuity contracts or trust schemes provided by the Revenue Commissioners under section 785 of the Taxes Consolidation Act in respect of death in service benefits. There also are older deferred annuity contracts in which the annuity becomes payable automatically as part of the contract, as opposed to an open market purchase option that applies in more modern annuity contracts. The amendment clarifies that once an annuity is vested, which in most cases arises when the tax-free lump sum is taken, it no longer is subject to the levy. I commend both amendments Nos. 8 and 16 to the committee. As I stated, these amendments arise from extensive consultations with the industry in order that what was intended will be done and that no undue consequence will occur.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The Minister might advise Members as to the identities of the organisations, companies and representative associations with which officials from his Department and the Revenue Commissioners met specifically to discuss these issues between the Bill’s publication and the present, as well as whether the Minister was personally involved or has been briefed on an ongoing basis. He should provide Members with a background to the discussions to establish who had access to the Department during that time and whether many people who sought access to make representations were not facilitated with such meetings.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The Minister should inform Members as to whether any of his proposed amendments will have an effect on the net yield from the pension levy. Will the yield increase, decrease or remain the same as the amount presented in the jobs initiative?

Deputy Michael Noonan: My officials have been in contact with a wide number of interested parties in both the public and private sectors, including the Pensions Board, about the practical, logistical and other issues surrounding the introduction of the levy. I met two groups of representatives of the pensions industry; the Deputy will know it is divided into two different groups. I had long discussions with both groups but it was on the general principle of the levy. The technical work was done at official level but I was kept informed of the process and of the type of Committee Stage amendment that was coming along from the discussions.

31 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

The organisations, the IIF, the IAPF, the Pensions Board, the Department of Social Protec- tion and representatives of trustees of pension funds were the people involved on the technical side with the officials.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I was posing the question about the amendments proposed by the Minister today. Is there any change to the yield to the State from the pension levy? Do any of the amendments increase or decrease the yield or will the yield stay as the original estimate envisaged and as announced in the jobs initiative?

Deputy Michael Noonan: My understanding is that the amendments do not really extend the scope of the levy significantly. Any change in yield would be marginal and would be within the margin of error of the calculation of what it will yield.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): Amendments Nos.9, 11 to 13, inclusive, 15, 19, 20, 22 and 23 may be discussed together.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, to delete lines 3 to 32 and substitute the following:

“‘chargeable amount’, in relation to a chargeable person and any assets, means the aggregate market value of the assets (other than an asset that is land, in which case the market value of the land shall be taken as not including the amount of any outstanding borrowings used to acquire the land)—

(a) on 30 June for the year 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014, as the case may be, or

(b) where the assets are not contracts of assurance and are held for the purposes of a scheme of a kind described in paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘scheme’ that is a defined benefit scheme or a one member scheme and the chargeable person so decides, and where accounts are prepared to an appropriate accounting standard, on the last day of the accounting period of the scheme ended in the period of 12 months immediately preceding 30 June of the year 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014, as the case may be,

and in respect of which the chargeable person is the administrator or insurer on the date concerned;”.

I am providing in amendment No. 9 for a single valuation date in relation to most pension funds assets for each of the four years of the levy, as compared with a choice of valuation date provided for in the Bill as published. In addition, I propose to push back the valuation date to 30 June in each of the four years. Linked to these changes, amendment No.12 also provides for a single payment date of 25 September for all years, as opposed to the two payment dates in each year originally envisaged when amendment No. 13 simply deleted the definition of a first due date which is now superfluous. Amendment No. 20 provides for the delivery of the levy statement by electronic means. In line with the proposed single payment date, amendment No. 22 sets the rate of the levy at 0.6% of the chargeable amount, as opposed to two payments of 0.3%. In summary, therefore, assets held in the form of contracts of assurance and all defined contribution occupational pension schemes assets will be valued for levy purposes on a fixed date of 30 June in each of the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The levy will be due and payable 32 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages at the rate of 0.6% of the asset values on 25 September in each of those years. The exception to the fixed valuation date will be the retention of a choice between the valuation of scheme assets on 30 June in each year and their valuation at the most recent scheme accounting date in the preceding 12 months but only for the assets of defined benefit occupational pension schemes and small self-administered schemes where these schemes do not hold their assets in the form of contracts of assurance. This is at the request of the industry, obviously. The definition of defined benefit scheme and one-member scheme are included in amendments Nos. 11 and 15, respectively. These changes reflect the discussions with the pensions industry and are considered necessary to facilitate a more efficient implementation and collection process for the levy and to minimise the administrative cost burden on the industry from collecting the levy. Amendment No. 11 expands the definition of contracts of assurance to make it clear that it includes not only contracts of assurance linked to the pensions business undertaken by a pension scheme with life assurance companies, but also encompasses policies of contracts of assurance linked to what is called investment-only business with such companies. Many retirement benefit scheme trustees, particularly in relation to smaller pension schemes, insure the risks associated with the scheme in whole or in part with life assurance companies. Apart from this specific pension-type business, where the insurance contract corresponds with particular liabilities of the scheme, trustees of pension schemes may as part of their investment portfolios invest directly in assets such as equities and Government stocks or in unit link funds operated by investment managers, including insurance companies. With a view to ensuring that there is clarity as to who the chargeable person is in relation to contracts of assurance generally, it is considered that the responsibility for paying the levy in respect of investment-only type business with insurers should also fall within the responsibility of the life companies rather than the pension scheme trustees or administrators. Amendment No. 11 puts this beyond doubt. The only exception to this is in relation to one-member small self-administered schemes who hold trustee investment plans with life offices. The case has been made to me that in such cases the trustees of the scheme should remain responsible for the levy. Following on from the foregoing, amendment No. 15 includes a definition of one-member scheme, as already mentioned, and expands the definition of pension fund in relation to an insurer to include investment-only business. Amendment No. 19 includes a definition of valuation date which is required later in connection with amendment No. 30. I commend amendments Nos. 9, 11 to 13, inclusive, 15, 19, 20 and 22, to the Committee. Amendment No. 23 is to be moved by Deputy Sean Fleming.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments. I will discuss amendment No. 23 which is in my name. I acknowledge the rationalisation of the payment dates as proposed in the Minister’s amendments. I had tabled two amendments to do with payment dates but these were ruled out of order. I am still wondering as to the reason. The first payment date was scheduled to be 25 July this year and the second payment was to be 25 October, followed by dates of 25 March and 25 September 2012. On Second Stage I made the point that two years’ payments would be made within the next 14 months which in my view was very severe, given we are now halfway through the year. The Minister proposes to change the payment dates to September of each of the years and I agree with the proposal for a single payment date as it makes it simpler. He will still get a full year’s payment for this year even though we are well into the year but I will not oppose that proposal. In a way I consider it to be a retrospective levy in that the Minister is introducing a levy in relation to 33 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] funds. I refer to what the Minister stated in his speech introducing the jobs initiative. He stated it would be based on the value of the funds on 1 January and then when he produced the legislation he stated it would be at the end of March and now today he states it will be the end of June. I welcome the clarification and the bringing forward of the date to the end of June——

Deputy Michael Noonan: Even the industry kept changing the date.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I welcome the fact that the valuation has been moved to the end of June because I had a problem with basing a levy this summer on a date that had passed several months ago and that is the reason I regarded it as a retrospective levy based on a valuation date that had since passed. However, the Minister has made the change and it is not an issue. I am pleased there will be a single valuation date. It may not be possible to quantify but I find it difficult to accept that there is no significant difference between a pension levy based on 1 January this year and six months later on 30 June. On the basis that, hopefully, over the course of this levy, we will see some growth in the economy and growth in valuation, I would expect the pension levy to increase over and above the target figure of €470 million, which the Minister indicated would be approximately 6% per year. These were the figures on which the jobs initiative was based. Even if there is a modest growth over the period of the next few years at 1% or 2% or 3%, the contribution from the pension levy each year will exceed the €470 million per year mentioned here when the jobs initiative was announced in the House. I ask the Minister to consider a Report Stage amendment to cap the payment per annum to a maximum of €470 million because if the value of fund increases the Minister will increase it. When I spoke on Second Stage on this issue I noted it would exceed €470 million per annum. The sum of €1.8 billion projected for this month may transpire to be approximately €2 billion at the end of a four-year period due to rising values. While pension funds might begin to improve and be restored to what they were earlier, the amount of money that will be taken out of them will increase as the years go by due to increasing valuations. I welcome the rationalisation of the dates which is good for the industry. Most of the amendments are technical and administrative to clarify definitions of defined benefits and single- member funds. I want to deal with amendment No. 23. Deputy Doherty referred to how complicated this area is and it is difficult for the Opposition to draft an amendment on a levy. I had to do some reverse thinking. My amendment states:

In page 9, line 13, after “subsection (2)” to insert the following:

“or at a per cent chargeable on annuities which have been purchased with an insurance company or Approved Retirement Schemes (ARFs), whichever is the lesser”.

I cannot ask that approved retirement funds from the Opposition side be included in the levy scheme because it would mean that a Member of the Opposition would impose a charge on the people. Given that a charge is not being imposed on the people, the same pension levy should be charged to everybody else as would be charged on approved retirement funds, which is zero. If the Minister is not putting a 0.6% levy on approved retirement funds he should not put a levy on anyone. That is where I am coming from. I wish to discuss approved pension funds. Not only do 99.999% of the public not know what we are discussing, a proportion of the House is not far off that figure. When we discuss these matters we lose the general public. I want to explain my position. I welcome the 0.1 % of the 34 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages membership of the Dáil, Deputy Mathews, to the debate. He might understand what I am talking about. I want to explain to people what we are discussing. I do not want to table an amendment on approved pension funds and have people ask what it means. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the amendment. I want the Government Deputies, in particular Labour Party Deputies, to know what they are voting for if they do not support my amendment. I want people to understand what we are debating because there was a lot of debate on pension levies. This is the main issue I want to deal with today. Pension funds are taxed in Ireland. Contributions and the gains to a fund are usually exempt, but they are taxed on draw down or pension treatment. When a person retires he or she has the option of investing his or her accrued pension fund. For clarity I am only referring to people in the private sector. The investment options include an annuity, a fixed sum of money paid to someone each year, typically for the rest of his or her life. Another option for people is an approved retirement fund, to which I will refer. A third option is an approved minimum retirement fund which is very similar to an approved retirement fund. The primary difference is that no withdrawal can be taken from the initial capital investment until the retiree has reached 75 years of age. Withdrawals can be taken at any time from investment gains made within the approved minimum retirement fund and they automatically convert to an approved retirement fund when the retiree reaches 75 years of age. We will not worry too much about that. I want to discuss approved retirement funds because they are important. If the Government will not include the amendment the people should know who it is exempting from the levy. I object as a matter of principle that people who have what I consider to be a big pension pot will be exempt. That the new Government is creating a new loophole to exempt some of the pension pots of some of the wealthiest people while everybody else in the country will pay for it is fundamentally wrong. I do not think Members of the House should go along with that. An approved retirement fund is a personal retirement fund where the retiree can keep his or her money invested after retirement as a lump sum. Everything I am discussing refers to amendment No. 23, to which I am specifically speaking, and is part of the group of amendments scheduled for discussion purposes. Every single sentence I say it will be relevant to the amendment. Some people may think my contribution will be a little bit long but it will be absolutely relevant and there will be no repetition. The person can withdraw from such a fund regularly or give himself or herself an income on which he or she will pay income tax and Government and income levies when he or she withdraws from it. Any money left in the fund after the death of the person can be left to his or her next-of-kin. Investing in an approved retirement fund may be an option for four main groups — a self-employed person; a proprietary director; people who have PRSAs; and people who have defined contribution plans which were introduced in the Finance Act 2011. What are the advantages of these funds? Why would the groups to which I referred avail of them? They do so because the retiree keeps control of his or her retirement money. It is not in the hands of an agent, trustee or anyone else. It may be important if the person is in poor health and wants to leave the money to his or her dependants after her death. The retiree has flexibility in terms of when and at what rate to draw down funds from the approved retirement fund. The retiree can choose how to invest the approved retirement fund and select the type of investment that suits his or her needs and attitudes to risk. Any growth in the approved retirement fund is tax free but income from it is taxable. The retiree can always use his or her approved retirement fund to buy an annuity at a later date and if he or she did so he or she 35 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] would be captured under the pension levy. As the Bill is currently drafted, such a person is outside the pension levy. Such a person may decide to buy an annuity to secure a regular income for the future. By waiting the retiree may be able to get a higher annuity rate on his or her lump sum as he or she would be older. There are very attractive terms for passing on approved retirement funds to beneficiaries. The transfer of an approved retirement fund into the name of the deceased person’s spouse does not incur income tax or capital acquisitions tax. If the fund is passed on to a child under 21 years of age he or she is exempt from income tax. A person aged over 21 will pay income tax but only at the standard rate. It is a tremendous scheme. Who would put their money into such a fund? One would want to be wealthy, not wish to access it and want to leave a lump sum for one’s family or next-of-kin when one passed on. Such a person would obviously have other sources of income and he or she would not necess- arily need to draw on the approved retirement fund during its existence. Such a fund is specifically for a set group of people. I have a number of other points. I mentioned tax implications. The Department of Finance conducted a review of tax and pension schemes and found they were being used by some high net worth individuals as a tax avoidance scheme. That is the official view of the Department. In subsequent years amounts not drawn down from approved retirement funds were taxed at 1% which increased to 3%. I understand the rate is now 5%, even if no money is withdrawn. I referred to the 2006 report of the Department of Finance. It did not reveal the names of the individuals who had accumulated very large pension funds. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister last week on how many of these funds are in existence, their value and potential yield. An official from the Department said he would not have that information because it is private sector money. After a discussion, I received an answer from the Department from a competent official with whom I spoke and whose name I do not remember. I understand from his comments that the Minister does not know the value of the pension pots held by wealthy individuals which will not be covered by the levy on pension funds. I will refer to other aspects of this issue which are in the public arena. As I noted, the Department of Finance did not reveal the names of the holders of approved retirement funds, ARFs. However, subsequent reports in the media suggest that the individuals in question include executive directors of some of the banks and building societies. Many 1o’clock people will be familiar with the book, Banksters: How a Powerful Elite Squan- dered Ireland’s Wealth, which was written by D. Murphy and M. Devlin and published by Hatchette Books in 2009. It reports that an estimated pension of €13.5 million was transferred from Anglo Irish Bank into a separate pension scheme in 2005, which was before Seán FitzPatrick stood down as chief executive. Writing in The Irish Times on 9 October 2010, the respected journalist, Colm Keena, citing Mr. FitzPatrick’s statement of affairs and related court documents, stated that Seán FitzPatrick had an approved retirement fund amounting to €9.1 million in November 2009. The Irish Nationwide Building Society reported in its published accounts for 2008 that on 12 January 2007, pension obligations to its chief executive officer, Mr. Michael Fingleton, were settled by transferring €27.6 million outside the control of the group. It is understood these moneys are in an approved retirement fund. As part of public accounting, all public companies in the non-financial sector are legally obliged to include details of pension payments to directors and chief executive officers in their annual reports, as do Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks, Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Life and Permanent, the Edu- 36 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages cational Building Society and Irish Nationwide Building Society. These details are, therefore, on the public record. The simple question that arises in this connection is whether individuals holding pensions in approved retirement funds will pay the pension levy. Having argued on Second Stage that the levy will apply to ARFs, I hope the Minister will provide a positive response and ensure the House does a good day’s work. Given the highly technical nature of the legislation, it is possible that the Bill already provides for the proposal in amendment No. 23. The amendment we discussed earlier related to sections 784 and 785 of the Taxes Consolidation Act. My party was constrained in the amount of research it was able to do before tabling the amendment which essentially provides that all payments from approved retirement funds will be covered by the pension levy.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I propose to provide some context by responding to Deputy Fleming’s contribution before other Deputies contribute. I will first read the briefing note, which covers some of the points the Deputy raised, before addressing other issues that are not covered by the briefing note. On amendment No. 23, the intention behind Deputy Fleming’s proposed amendment appears to be to have the levy applied at an unspecified rate to annuities and approved retirement funds, ARFs. I assume the rate the Deputy had in mind was the 0.6% to be applied to other pension funds.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Yes, I had in mind the rate proposed by the Minister.

Deputy Michael Noonan: Approved retirement funds do not come within the scope of the pension levy regime. In common with annuities purchased by pension funds in the name of individuals who have retired, or by individuals from the proceeds of retirement annuity contracts or PRSAs, they are outside the scope of the regime. This is because such annuities and ARFs are not pension funds. An annuity is essentially a pension in payment, that is, a stream of income purchased by a pension fund or an individual from the proceeds of other pension products from a life assurance company for a capital sum generally at the point of a member’s or individual’s retirement. ARFs are essentially investment options into which the proceeds of certain pension arrangements can be invested, again generally on retirement. They are designed to provide a stream of income to their owners in retirement in the same way as annuities. Approved retirement funds were introduced as an alternative to annuities but with more flexibility and control for the beneficiaries over the funds involved. Unlike the assets of exempt approved pension funds, which have historically been allowed to cumulate on a tax free basis in the fund, the stream of income provided by way of annuity is already subject to a tax at the annuity holder’s marginal rate. Drawdowns from ARFs are similarly taxed at the ARF owner’s marginal tax rate. Much of the value of the pension funds is attributable to the rolled up value of the tax relief to which I referred. The temporary levy on pension funds will allow recipients of this ongoing tax relief to make a contribution from their pension funds and other pension arrangements to assist those who are seeking employment. I emphasise that if drawdowns are not made from the approved retirement fund, a notional or imputed drawdown amounting to 5% of the assets in the ARF is deemed to take place each year. The notional drawdown is liable to a tax at the ARF owner’s marginal tax rate. Unlike the pension fund levy, which is temporary, the 5% notional distribution requirement, which was increased from 3% by Deputy Fleming’s Government in the previous budget and implemented in the Finance Bill introduced in January of this year, is a permanent imposition. 37 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

To explain the position in simple terms, approved retirement funds are held by wealthy people, some of whom do not draw down from their ARF. If an individual does not draw down from his or her ARF, a drawdown of 5% of the fund is imputed each year and tax is applied. As I noted, the previous Government increased the imputed drawdown from 3% to 5% in last year’s budget. The tax applied to the imputed drawdown is the marginal rate of the individual who holds the ARF plus the universal social levy and PRSI, giving a tax rate of 52%. When one does the sums —“the math” as Americans say — this amounts to the equivalent of a levy of 2.5% as opposed to the 0.6% levy on pension funds. According to the calculations done in the Department, the taxes applied to ARFs amount to the equivalent of a 2.5% permanent levy rather than one lasting for four years. It is not true, therefore, that holders of ARFs are not subject to tax or the proposed levy. It is not the case that ARFs are not taxed. They are taxed in a different way and I do not want to mix up two tax systems by adding a levy to the notional drawdown which is taxed at the marginal rate of 52%. If the argument is made that ARFs are not sufficiently taxed, I am prepared to examine the matter in the forthcoming budget. Deputy Fleming’s Government raised the notional drawdown from 3% to 5% in the previous budget. If I decide to act in this matter, I will do so by adjusting the existing tax formula. There is a widely held perception that the option to access approved retirement funds or alternative approved minimum retirement funds on retirement is available to a wealthy chosen few. That is not the case. The previous Government extended the provisions in the Finance Act 2011 to all defined contribution pension arrangements in respect of the main benefits from such arrangements. Members of such schemes and defined benefit schemes always had the ARF option in respect of additional voluntary contributions to pension saving arrangements. Following the extension of this arrangement by the previous Government, it is no longer the exclusive option of the wealthy few. The arguments advanced by Deputy Fleming have merit. This is, however, a complex matter as evidenced by the Deputy’s contribution and my reply. I do not propose to accept the amendment as I am not prepared to apply the levy to approved retirement funds which are taxed in a different manner. I would like to do some further research on the incidence of tax and ARFs across the system before deciding to take further action in respect of taxing ARFs. I give the Deputy a commitment that in the preparation for the December budget and 2012 finance Bill, we will examine this issue to ascertain if any inequalities arise or if these types of schemes will bear more tax. The Deputy also talked about whether the yield on the levy might increase in future. Money is going in and out of funds all the time, so it is hard to measure yield on pension funds in advance. Having had talks with the pension industry, I know it has many concerns which are wider than the levy. It has other issues about what rate of tax will apply to contributions going forward. I want to have further discussions with the industry about those matters. It would obviously be easier for me to meet some of the pension industry’s concerns if the Deputy was correct in saying that there is an additional yield from the levy. I am not making a commitment to that but I am signalling that I am aware of some of the pension industry’s concerns. If there is a big additional yield there are plenty of places to put it at present, but I would talk to the pension industry to see if anything can be done to alleviate the concerns they have in areas other than the levy. The Deputy also mentioned putting a cap on the fund, but the Revenue Commissioners say that is not possible because they are not sure what the yield would be. One would therefore be trying to put a varying cap on a varying amount, but it is not technically possible to do that. 38 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

I understand what the Deputy is saying, and we do not want to take more than is intended. If we take more than is intended, however, we will carefully examine what we will do with the additional yield, and we might be able to meet some of the concerns of the pension industry in other areas of that industry. I want to make it clear that is not a commitment, but the commitment is that I will examine the possibility.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: It is a promise rather than a commitment.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I thank the Minister for his response. As regards the latter point, the maximum cap of €470 million might mean that if more was collected the Minister might have to give a refund, which would be a complicated exercise. I understand that. If I was in the Minister’s position and got a bit more than the €470 million, I would take it. I am concerned, however, because some people will say it is starting at €470 million and will ask whether it will rise.

Deputy Michael Noonan: The Deputy and I did our FÁS course together on the Committee of Public Accounts, does he remember?

Deputy Sean Fleming: Yes.

Deputy Michael Noonan: We learned a lot over there.

Deputy Sean Fleming: We did. To come back to what we were discussing earlier, there is a simple way of handling approved retirement funds or ARFs. The Minister could table an amendment to increase the 5% tax to 6%. The Minister said that the rate that went to 5% in the last budget is taxed at a person’s marginal rate and is effectively the equivalent of about 2.5% at the top rate of tax after the universal service charge. Therefore, if the Minister wants to get approximately another 0.6% in line with the income levy, he could increase the existing levy on the approved retirement funds by 1%. Does the Minister have the yield figures from the tax on these funds over the last couple of years? They came in at 1%, then went to 3% and later to 5%.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I will send them to the Deputy because I do not have them here.

Deputy Sean Fleming: In fairness, every time we ask for a breakdown of a particular tax it translates itself down the road into changing taxation form No. 11. It adds another page to what is already an ever-expanding document. Every time we seek the cost of various allowances, pages keep getting added on. It is a pity we do not have another way of getting the information, but I know that in order to obtain the data the question must be asked on the form. That makes it far more complicated and while people are facing a mountain of paperwork, there is a balance to be struck. Somebody must intuitively have some feel for it, even if they are only estimates. It went from 0% to 5%, so somebody must have felt it was worthwhile to do this. I would like to know the rationale and thinking behind it. The approved retirement funds are not taxed at the point of entry, but there are situations where the beneficiaries will not be taxed. If they draw money out of the fund, like everyone else in the country, they will pay income tax, levies and the universal service charge. I would not make a virtue of the fact that they are paying tax, but one of my main reasons for posing this question is that I do not know what the financial yield is. Even the Department of Finance is in the dark in this respect, but maybe there is something out there that is worth going after. There is something inequitable about bringing in a new pension levy, however. The Minister will remember that the outgoing Government increased it to 5% in the last budget because we 39 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] felt it was worth doing, in its own right, as regards the ARFs. It was considered necessary and appropriate to do so. We are now moving on to a new pension levy amounting to 0.6% per year for four years, which will be about 2.4% or 2.5% at the end of that period. The public will be outraged, however, when they hear that they will all have to pay the pension levy, but that Seanie FitzPatrick is getting off scot free again. It concerns the politics, equity and integrity of this House if we pass legislation to bring in a pension levy for everyone in the country, except Seanie FitzPatrick and Michael Fingleton. I am using their names because they have appeared in the public media on several occasions. I have sourced the names and, in addition, some of the figures were in the annual accounts. It will be a bad day’s work for this Dáil, however, if this happens. The Minister may rightly ask whether we have learned nothing in the past, but we have learned not to do a thing like that again. It would be a very bad day for the Govern- ment, however, to vote through this pension levy thus allowing a situation that applies to everybody except the Seanie FitzPatricks and the Michael Fingletons. I really do not believe the Minister thinks it is a good idea that they should be getting off on this specific measure that will affect everybody else in the country. It will not be long until the December budget and I am glad the Minister is open-minded in considering the levy. He does not want to mix up the 5% tax with this new levy. It is well within the ability of the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners to operate two levies on the one fund because we already have income tax, pension levies, the universal service charge and income levies. Most earners are used to four or five categories of tax, so it is unacceptable to offer a defence that an imputed tax will be complicated to calculate because adding a pension levy to that would mix up two taxes. Everybody’s payslip has a mixture of four or five taxes and their net pay is a very sad thing as a result. We cannot accept the argument therefore that it would be somewhat complicated to mix those two issues in relation to Seanie FitzPatrick and Michael Fingleton. I cannot understand why the Minister has not agreed to this on the grounds of equity. If the new Government’s first finance Bill is to create a specific exemption from the levy for Seanie FitzPatrick and Michael Fingleton, the public will not understand it. That position is supported by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, and the Labour Party generally, so it beggars belief how they will vote for this measure. The mind boggles. I would like the Minister to explain the politics, equity and fairness of this. How is it that the first finance Bill of this new Government will pass a levy for everybody in the country, yet exclude Seanie FitzPatrick and Michael Fingleton? If the Minister can explain that, he is a better man than I am. I do not think the Minister should do it. Nobody in the House thinks it is the right thing to do. The Minister has until 5.30 p.m. to propose a one-line amendment to deal with this matter. I do not think there are another four hours in this debate, so it can be adjourned to allow the Minister to come back before Report Stage. We will facilitate that if the Minister wants to adjourn the debate for an hour or two. It would be worth the Minister’s while to capture Sean FitzPatrick, Michael Fingleton and all the other people like them, in this levy.

Deputy Alex White: How many more times is the Deputy going to mention it?

Deputy Brian Hayes: Is it Michael or Sean?

Deputy Sean Fleming: I am mentioning it so loudly because the Chamber is almost empty. Many Labour Party Members who come here later today to vote on this measure will not know that they are passing legislation to give a specific exemption for Michael Fingleton, Sean 40 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

FitzPatrick and others. I hope I have made my point. The Minister should take an hour this afternoon to draft an amendment to capture those people. It will be a bad day’s work if the new Government exempts them, following the massive political changes and the Government’s overwhelming electoral victory. It will mean there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor, but that is not how the Minister should be remembered for his first finance Bill.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: There is very little to add what has been said because Deputy Seán Fleming has made the argument very well. It is worth listening to what he said. His party has experienced the wrath of the public for similar exemptions, similar mistakes in the past, as he acknowledged. This is a big mistake the Government is about to make. I agree with the Deputy that many people are unaware of why approved retirement funds, ARFs, will not be subject to the levy or a similar taxation measure that would have the same imposition as it would on other private pension holders. While listening to the Minister’s response, as he read from his briefing note, I was expecting to hear some reason as to why we could not do that. I understand the position in terms of the imputed tax. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but I understand that in the case of person who has drawn down from his or her pension funds, no different tax is imposed on him or her as against a person who has drawn down from another fund that will be subject to the levy. The Government is about to make an unequal imposition. We have heard the names who have been referenced on many occasions in the Dáil and that strikes a chord with the public. There is a great deal of anger among the public at the activities of individuals in the banks. This is not just about getting about at Seanie FitzPatrick or anybody else who was partly responsible for wrecking the economy. The Government Chief Whip used the term “the biggest gangster in Ireland” or something similar on the floor of the House. The Government is exempting from this type of fund those people, about whom the Government Chief Whip made that accusation under privilege on the floor of this Chamber. This is not about exacting vengeance or getting back at those people. The reality is that the country is “banjaxed”, to borrow a phrase. We need money. The Government has decided to tap into the savings of many low to middle income earners who have put aside money for a modest pension and it is about to exempt the high net worth individuals from this same type of initiative. This is about fairness and who can best afford to take this hit. I do not agree with the pension levy. The Minister will note we have an amendment tabled proposing the deletion of the section. If the levy is to be imposed, at a bare minimum it must be extended to include those who have ARFs. There are ways to do that. From the Minister’s comments, it seems he is at least disposed to looking at that in the context of the finance Bill that will give effect to the budget but there is no reason we cannot do it now. If it is not to be done today, this Bill will go to the Seanad and an amendment can be proposed to it at that stage.

Deputy Michael Noonan: This is a money Bill.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Yes, I was wrong about that but there are ways to do this. I understand today is the publishing date for the Finance (No. 3) Bill. We can amend the legislation again. That finance Bill will go through this House in about two weeks time. There is a need for at least a statement, if not an amendment today, to the effect that it is the Government’s intention within days to include those high net worth individuals in terms of being subject to this levy, whether by way of imposing the levy on ARFs or increasing the imputed tax rate. That must be done at a bare minimum. 41 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.]

This is not about getting at the Labour Party. I know its members do not like to be reminded of this but if we have learned anything from the past, this House cannot vote through a legislative measure that will exempt those people from this levy. It is incredible that a Government could think of doing something like this, particularly given that the Minister said that he is open to the idea of dealing with this issue. Let us deal with it now. Let us avoid all the wrath of public to the effect that the Government is no better than the last shower and all the rest of it. Let us get this right. I am sure that many, if not all, Government Deputies who will support this legislation who would like to see ARFs subject to this levy. There is scope to do this. I do not know why such provision was omitted in the first place. I thought there was some technical, legal reason that it could not be done. We are legislators, we introduce laws and the Minister has clearly said that this is something he would examine. Today is the day that we should examine it. It should not have been left this late to do so. I appeal to the Minister to listen to the pleas from this side and to include this provision in the Bill.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I have one comment on the issue of ARFs. Can the Minister get access to information on the total value of ARF funds in Ireland? A call to the Pensions Board or to the industry might elicit that information. It would be helpful for all of us to put in context the total value of ARFs in Ireland. Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 deal with the payment date and the chargeable date as such for the imposition of this levy. The Minister is factoring in that a sum of €470 million will be received each year and there is an even figure put in place for each year. Has he any information that as a consequence of the levy being enacted in this legislation it will result in a pattern of behaviour emerging which could have an impact on the amount that will be received, and by pattern of behaviour I mean the behaviour of individual scheme members and the behaviour of pension funds? For example, persons who are in a position to access their pension fund and draw it down may now do so ahead of time. People who have the option of converting their pension fund to an ARF may choose to do so now. There is also the possibility of pension funds being moved abroad. Clearly the amount to be received in September of this year is based on the valuation from June, but is there any evidence from the industry or concern on its part that the yield may be less in subsequent years as a result of certain behaviours that may emerge following the levy?

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I am totally bemused. I sat on the opposite benches for several years since the banking crisis came upon us and listened to Deputy Joan Burton on this side of the House mentioning certain names ten or 50 times a day, including Seanie FitzPatrick and everybody else and now we are being chided by the Labour Party for having the temerity to mention Seanie FitzPatrick and Michael Fingleton in the House.

Deputy Alex White: The Deputy has done so twice in ten seconds.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: It is an extraordinary volte-face, to say the least. I do not fully comprehend the Minister’s logic in his defence of exempting ARFs from the scope of the levy. This is the first time we are imposing a levy on pension funds. The imputed or actual tax on ARFs exists; it is a fact of life. That is only right because we are dealing with some of the wealthiest people in the country who, as Deputy Fleming rightly said, have extremely large pension pots. That tax has been in place for some time. Now for the first time we are imposing a tax on private pension funds but we are exempting the ARFs. 42 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Michael Noonan: The previous Government taxed them in January. Would the Deputy propose we hit them twice in the one year?

Deputy Willie O’Dea: This will be lost on the public because as the Minister will appreciate, in politics perception is about 99% of what matters and the truth is sometimes a troublesome trespasser. I am sure the public will see this in a very bad light. On a technical point, from my recollection of the section dealing with ARFs, is it the case that the imputed income only kicks in when somebody has reached the age of 60? Could a situation arise where people who can afford to retire early but who have not reached the age of 60 will manage to avoid the imputed tax? My recollection may be incorrect about that but I would like clarification on it.

Deputy Michael Noonan: The Deputy is giving me a lot of food for thought with his advocacy. Deputy Fleming spoke about the complexity of the pay slip. I know at least one Deputy in the House who as a form of protection takes his pay slip in his inside pocket when he is going for a pint. If anyone accuses him of earning too much, he produces it and shows how little money he is surviving on to the amazement of the whole pub. Deputy Seán Fleming should try it sometime. Approved retirement funds, ARFs, are taxed in a different way. No levy was applied to pension funds before this measure was introduced but there was a tax on the imputed drawdown of ARFs. In January, the imputed draw-down was raised from 3% to 5%. I would very much like to see whether there is more scope to raise the imputed draw-down percentage. I cannot vary the 52% marginal rate, which is the combination of the marginal rate of tax, the universal social charge and PRSI. It is fixed because it applies to everyone, so it is not a possible variable. I am unsure as to whether there is potential scope. The difficulty is that the outgoing Government increased the notional draw-down from 3% to 5% in the last budget. This provision was introduced in January’s Finance Bill and the instructions were transferred to Revenue to collect the amount. I do not know whether it has already been collected on some ARFs. Varying the charge mid-year would be difficult technically, since the instruction has been given to the Revenue Commissioners. However, I will consider the suggestion in the context of 2012. I do not know whether the Deputy would be interested in tabling an amendment to the Finance Bill 2011——

Deputy Willie O’Dea: 2012.

Deputy Michael Noonan: ——to increase the imputed draw down from 5% to, for example, 6%.

Deputy Arthur Spring: Hear, hear.

Deputy Michael Noonan: We could discuss that idea later this afternoon.

Deputy Alex White: Seconded.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Will the Minister repeat himself?

Deputy Michael Noonan: Since the Deputies have ownership of the issue at the moment——

Deputy Sean Fleming: I have tabled an amendment.

43 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Michael Noonan: Yes. It was the Deputy’s technical way of putting the issue on the Order Paper. Is he considering an amendment on Report Stage to raise the imputed drawdown from 5% to 6%?

Deputy Sean Fleming: No.

Deputy Michael McGrath: We would not be allowed to do that, as the Opposition cannot impose a charge.

Deputy Michael Noonan: Yes, the Deputies would be ruled out of order——

Deputy Michael McGrath: The Minister could table it.

Deputy Michael Noonan: ——but what is the nature of the amendment they are considering?

Deputy Sean Fleming: I will be helpful. The amendment I have in mind is a simple one, namely, to include ARFs in the definition of what is covered under the scheme. I could not have tabled that amendment because I would then be levying a charge on ARFs, which a member of the Opposition cannot do. I needed to take a roundabout way to raise the issue on the floor. I do not want to touch the imputed tax. The argument seems to be that an imputed tax of 5% has been levied on those funds since 1 January. That they are taxed at the marginal rate could result in an effective 2.5% tax. The Minister now seems to be saying that Michael Fingleton and Seanie FitzPatrick are paying 2.5% anyway, that it is enough and that asking them to pay a further 0.6% would be unfair. I do not accept that the 2.5%, the effective tax rate at the higher end — I do not know the domiciled statuses of some of the people in question, but that is another day’s work — that is levied on large pension pots of €10 million to €20 million would get sympathy from anyone or be viewed by anyone as being even half enough. Many people would say more tax should be paid. My amendment was to include ARFs with annuities and PRSAs in the definition of what is captured by the levy. It is a one-liner. I do not want to revisit last year’s budget. If the Minister approached the matter from the other direction, the public would still view him as giving people special treatment because they would find some loophole to get out of it. In the interests of equity, their pension pots should be levied at the same rate. It could be argued that they should be levied much more, but let us at least get them to pay the same rate as everyone else. ARFs should be included within the scope of the legislation but I could not word my amendment in that way, as doing so would have been out of order. There is time before 5.30 p.m. to do so. We would facilitate it. I would prefer the Department of Finance and the Bills Office to draft the amendment because the House would not accept an amendment from me. Since the Opposition would be out of order if it tabled such an amendment, the provision can only come from a Minister.

Deputy Michael Noonan: Deputy Michael McGrath raised additional issues. From my discussions with the industry, there are no indications of a change in behaviour on the part of people with pension funds, that is, moving their funds out of the country. There is no fear that such a thing will happen. The industry is facing other issues, many of which relate to the marginal rate of tax that would apply to contributions. There are some other less relevant issues. I cannot accept the amendment.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: Will the Minister clarify the point about the imputed draw-down not kicking in if someone is under 60 years of age? 44 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Michael Noonan: There is a view on my right-hand side that the Deputy is probably correct, but we need to check the provision.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): Is amendment No. 9 agreed?

Deputy Pearse Doherty: No. The Minister claims he cannot accept it. Without labouring the issue, it is a central question pertaining to the fairness of the legislation. I take it from the Minister’s comments that there are two reasons for his inability to accept the amendment. It is not that he cannot accept it — he will not accept it. First, the imputed tax was increased in January. Second, it would be difficult for the Revenue Commissioners to collect the money. I disagree fundamentally that these reasons are sufficient excuse for the Government to exempt high earners with massive pension pots from the levy. The arguments articulated by the Government in support of a pension levy have been twofold. First, there should be a solidarity tax to help people return to work. Who should show more solidarity than the FitzPatricks and the Fingletons, the people who have millions of euro stashed in pension pots, if we are to help people who are sitting on unemployment benches? We should ask them to show a bit of solidarity. Second, those putting money into pension pots that are subject to the levy have benefited from significant tax breaks under previous budgets and previous Governments. This is a statement of fact. Those who have invested in ARFs have also benefited from the same tax breaks. The Government’s request for solidarity with the unemployed should equally apply to the highest earners. On these grounds, there is no justification for not imposing a 0.6% levy on people with the sorts of massive pension pots about which the rest of us can only dream. It is not credible that Revenue would not be able to collect a pension levy this year. We have changed the taxation code. Under the Minister’s amendment and as opposed to having two dates, is the new date for collection in September? We change taxes every year. Two years ago, we had a budget mid-stream. Situations are constantly changing. Revenue could deal with this issue. If we tapped into the millions of euro the Government is going to exempt, it would be worth the paperwork and the extra effort. The Minister is unlikely to change his position on the matter. A major flaw of this legislation is that the Government is exempting high earners from the pension levy. It is incredible that there are no Labour Party Ministers in the House. The Government is exempting these people from the levy in respect of which there is not a word from the Labour Party in terms of how unfair or unjust this is. We heard all of the outbursts and hysterics from members of the Government when on this side of the House in relation to decisions by the previous Govern- ment which allowed high income earners get away scot free while those struggling to get by were being penalised time and again. This levy will affect those who have pensions and as such have invested in their futures. I ask that the Minister reconsider allowing these people to get off scot free. The amendment before the House deals deal with the matter. I do not believe acceptance of the amendment would require considerable redrafting of the legislation as it relates only to definitions, although I could be wrong in that regard. I am sure there exists in the Department the expertise to deal with this issue. I presume the Department officials have already considered including approved retirement funds, ARFs, in the scheme but have decided against it. I presume that those issues have been examined by the Department. I encourage the Minister to bring before the House before 5.30 p.m. today some type of wording to address this matter.

Deputy Alex White: On Deputy Doherty’s stated position on section 4, as I understand it even if the Minister were disposed to introduce an amendment along the lines proposed by 45 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Alex White.] Deputy Fleming, Deputy Doherty would in any event vote against it because he is opposed to section 4. A not unreasonable point has been raised by Deputy Fleming in relation to ARFs. There has been a useful discussion on the matter. I am prepared to take the Minister on faith in relation to there already being embedded a track of taxation in the treatment of ARFs and that he faces a different situation with mainstream pension funds that are subject to the levy. The Minister has indicated to the House that he is prepared to look at this issue in the context of the forthcoming budget and new finance Bill. As I understand it, Members have indicated they would be willing to support him were he to address it in some measure in the forthcoming finance Bill. I believe, notwithstanding that a fair point has been raised about ARFs, that the Minister’s preparedness to look at this issue in the autumn addresses the issue far more convinc- ingly than does the amendment before us. At the risk of extending the issue to people’s names being raised in the House, my reaction to the repeated references to the individuals concerned was borne out of a sense of amazement at Deputy Fleming’s conversion to the point of view that these people should be the subject of derision, which is new coming from his quarter.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): Amendments Nos. 10 and 25 to 29, inclusive, are related and will be taken together by agreement.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, lines 43 and 44, to delete “subsection (6)” and substitute “subsection (9)”.

Amendments Nos. 10 and Nos. 26 to 29, inclusive, introduce consequential changes to references in the Bill as published as a result of the introduction by amendment No. 25 of three new subsections. Amendment No. 25 introduces a number of changes to the Bill as published with a view to strengthening it and making clear the rights of administrators to dispose of or appropriate assets of the pension scheme for the purposes of paying the levy and with a view to protecting them against any possible legal challenges in that regard. This reflects concern that administrators with responsibility for calculating and deducting the levy could be placed in an untenable position if the trustees who engage them were to instruct them not to pay the levy. Amendment No. 25, therefore, introduces three new subsections to section 125B of the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999. The new subsection (5)(a) gives a chargeable person the right to dispose of or appropriate scheme assets for the purposes of meeting the amount of the levy payable. The new subsection (5)(b) provides that where a chargeable person who is not a trustee, for example, a life officer in respect of insurance contracts held as assets of a scheme, pays the levy through the disposal or appropriation of scheme assets, the trustee must also allow that course of action and the charge of a person is acquitted and discharged of as regards such disposals. The new subsection (6) protects a chargeable person from any court action by reason of having paid the levy by way of disposal or appropriation of scheme assets. The new subsection (7)(a) puts beyond doubt that the chargeable person and the trustees of a scheme are both jointly and severally liable for payment of the levy. The new subsection (7)(b) provides for the same joint liability in the particular circumstances of small, one-member, self-assessed administrative schemes. I commend the amendments to the House. 46 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, to delete lines 45 to 47 and substitute the following:

“‘contract of assurance’ means—

(a) any contract of a type described in section 706(3) of the Act of 1997, and

(b) any other policy or contract of assurance made by an insurer with a person or persons having the management of a scheme of a kind described in paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘scheme’, other than a one member scheme;

‘defined benefit scheme’ has the meaning assigned to it in section 2(1) of the Pensions Act 1990;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:

“‘due date’ means 25 September of the year 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014, as the case may be;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, to delete lines 31 to 35.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 15:

In page 7, to delete lines 46 to 48 and substitute the following:

“‘one member scheme’ means a scheme of a kind described in paragraph (a)ofthe definition of ‘scheme’ in respect of which approval of the scheme by the Commissioners requires the person or persons having the management of the scheme to deliver annual scheme accounts to the Commissioners;

‘pension fund’, in relation to an insurer, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) of section 706 of the Act of 1997 and as if the business referred to in paragraph (a)of that subsection includes policies of assurance referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of ‘contract of assurance’;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 16:

In page 8, to delete lines 25 to 29 and substitute the following: 47 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Brian Hayes.]

“(b) an annuity contract or a trust scheme or part of a trust scheme approved by the Commissioners under section 784 or 785 of the Act of 1997 or, as the case may be, under both of those sections of that Act, other than an annuity contract or trust scheme or part of a trust scheme so approved in respect of which a lump sum, to which paragraph (b) of section 784(2) of the Act of 1997 applies, has been paid to the individual entitled to an annuity under the contract, trust scheme or part of a trust scheme, as the case may be, or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, line 40, to delete “available” and substitute “available to the PRSA contributor”.

This is a technical amendment to paragraph (c) in the definition of “scheme” which relates to PRSAs. It simply clarifies that the lump sum referred to is a lump sum that has been paid or made available to the PRSA contributor.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 18 not moved.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 19:

In page 8, to delete lines 41 to 46 and substitute the following:

“‘valuation date’ means the appropriate date as determined for the purposes of paragraph (a)or(b) of the definition of ‘chargeable amount’.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, to delete lines 1 to 8 and substitute the following:

“(2) A chargeable person shall in respect of the due date in each of the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, and not later than the due date concerned, deliver to the Commissioners a statement, in such electronic format as the Commissioners may specify, showing the chargeable amount for that year in respect of the chargeable person.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, line 10, to delete “0.3 per cent” and substitute “0.6 per cent”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I move amendment No. 23:

In page 9, line 13, after “subsection (2)” to insert the following: 48 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

“or at a per cent chargeable on annuities which have been purchased with an insurance company or Approved Retirement Schemes (ARFs), whichever is the lesser”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 82.

Tá

Boyd Barrett, Richard. McGrath, Michael. Browne, John. McLellan, Sandra. Collins, Joan. Moynihan, Michael. Colreavy, Michael. Murphy, Catherine. Cowen, Barry. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Donnelly, Stephen. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Ellis, Dessie. O’Brien, Jonathan. Ferris, Martin. O’Dea, Willie. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Fleming, Sean. Pringle, Thomas. Fleming, Tom. Ross, Shane. Healy, Seamus. Smith, Brendan. Higgins, Joe. Tóibín, Peadar. Kirk, Seamus. Troy, Robert. McConalogue, Charlie.

Níl

Bannon, James. Howlin, Brendan. Barry, Tom. Humphreys, Heather. Breen, Pat. Humphreys, Kevin. Broughan, Thomas P. Keaveney, Colm. Burton, Joan. Kehoe, Paul. Butler, Ray. Kelly, Alan. Buttimer, Jerry. Kenny, Seán. Byrne, Catherine. Kyne, Seán. Byrne, Eric. Lawlor, Anthony. Carey, Joe. Maloney, Eamonn. Coffey, Paudie. Mathews, Peter. Collins, Áine. McEntee, Shane. Conaghan, Michael. McFadden, Nicky. Conlan, Seán. McHugh, Joe. Connaughton, Paul J. McNamara, Michael. Coonan, Noel. Mitchell, Olivia. Costello, Joe. Mulherin, Michelle. Coveney, Simon. Murphy, Dara. Creighton, Lucinda. Murphy, Eoghan. Deering, Pat. Nash, Gerald. Doherty, Regina. Naughten, Denis. Donohoe, Paschal. Neville, Dan. Dowds, Robert. Nolan, Derek. Doyle, Andrew. Noonan, Michael. Durkan, Bernard J. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. English, Damien. O’Donovan, Patrick. Farrell, Alan. O’Dowd, Fergus. Feighan, Frank. O’Mahony, John. Ferris, Anne. O’Reilly, Joe. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Perry, John. Flanagan, Charles. Phelan, Ann. Flanagan, Terence. Phelan, John Paul. Griffin, Brendan. Quinn, Ruairí. Hannigan, Dominic. Rabbitte, Pat. Harris, Simon. Reilly, James. Hayes, Brian. Ryan, Brendan. Hayes, Tom. Sherlock, Sean. Heydon, Martin. Spring, Arthur. 49 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Níl—continued

Stagg, Emmet. Varadkar, Leo. Stanton, David. Walsh, Brian. Tuffy, Joanna. White, Alex.

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

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 24:

In page 9, to delete lines 14 to 18 and substitute the following:

“(4) The duty charged under subsection (3) on a statement delivered by a chargeable person pursuant to subsection (2) shall be paid, by such electronic means as the Commis- sioners may specify, by the chargeable person on delivery of the statement.”.

Amendment No. 24 expands the existing subsection 4 to provide that the payment of the levy is to be made by electronic means. The Revenue Commissioners are providing for the filing of the statement and the payment of the levy through its Revenue online service, 2o’clock ROS. This will allow for the efficient and effective filing and processing of such documentation. It is the Government’s policy that, as far as is practicable, electronic means of business are used to the greatest extent possible. This requirement fits in well with this policy. I commend this amendment to the House. Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 25:

In page 9, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(5)(a) A chargeable person who, in relation to the assets of a scheme, being a scheme approved by the Commissioners, is liable to pay the duty charged under subsection (3) on a statement delivered by the chargeable person pursuant to subsection (2) shall, for the purposes of payment of the duty, be entitled to dispose of or appropriate such assets of the scheme as are required to meet the amount of the duty so payable and the scheme shall not cease to be a scheme approved by the Commissioners as a consequence of any such disposal or appropriation by the chargeable person.

(b) Where in pursuance of this section a chargeable person who, in relation to the assets of a scheme, being a scheme approved by the Commissioners, is not a trustee of the scheme, pays the duty charged under subsection (3) by the disposal or appropriation of such assets of the scheme as are required to meet the amount of duty so payable, then the trustees shall allow such disposal or appropriation and the chargeable person shall be acquitted and discharged of any such disposal or appropriation as if the amount of duty had not been so paid, and the scheme shall not cease to be a scheme approved by the Commissioners as a consequence of any such disposal or appropriation by the chargeable person.

(6) Where in pursuance of this section a chargeable person disposes of or appropriates an asset of a scheme in accordance with subsection (5)(a), then no action shall lie against the chargeable person in any court by reason of such disposal or appropriation. 50 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

(7) (a) Where, in relation to the assets of a scheme, being a scheme approved by the Commissioners, the chargeable person is not a trustee of the scheme, then the chargeable person and the trustees of the scheme shall each be liable for the payment of the duty charged under subsection (3) on a statement delivered to the Commissioners by the chargeable person pursuant to subsection (2) and their liability shall be joint and several.

(b) Where, in relation to the assets of a scheme, being a scheme approved by the Com- missioners, that is a one member scheme, the chargeable person is a trustee of that scheme but is not a member of that scheme, then the chargeable person and a trustee who is a member of that scheme shall each be liable for the payment of the duty charged under subsection (3) on a statement delivered to the Commissioners by the chargeable person pursuant to subsection (2) and their liability shall be joint and several.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 26:

In page 9, line 19, to delete “(5) In the case” and substitute “(8) In the case”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 27:

In page 9, line 39, to delete “(6) Where before a” and substitute “(9) Where before a”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 28:

In page 10, line 40, to delete “(7) The delivery of” and substitute “(10) The delivery of”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 29:

In page 10, line 48, to delete “(8) The duty charged” and substitute “(11) The duty charged”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): Amendments Nos. 30 to 37 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 30:

In page 10, to delete lines 53 and 54 and in page 11, to delete lines 1 to 21 and substitute the following:

“(12) Notwithstanding any provision of any enactment (including this Act), or any rule of law, or anything contained in the rules of a scheme, being a scheme approved by the Commis- sioners, or the terms and conditions of any contract, being a contract approved by the Com- missioners, if under this section—

(a) a chargeable person who is an insurer pays an amount to the Commissioners in respect of the duty in relation to a contract of assurance, the amount shall be deemed to be a necessary disbursement from the pension fund of the insurer and the insurer may 51 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] adjust accordingly any current or prospective benefits or guarantees under the contract, and any such adjustment of benefits or guarantees by the insurer shall not result in the contract ceasing to be a contract approved by the Commissioners, and

(b) a chargeable person who is an administrator pays an amount to the Commissioners in respect of the duty in relation to the assets of a scheme, or where an amount in respect of the duty in relation to the assets of a scheme has been paid to the Commissioners by any other chargeable person, the aggregate of the amount of duty paid by the administrator and the other chargeable person shall be deemed to be a necessary disbursement from those assets, and the benefits payable currently or prospectively to any member under the scheme may accordingly be adjusted by the trustees, but the diminution in value of those benefits shall not exceed the amount disbursed from the assets attributable at the valuation date to the scheme’s liabilities in respect of that member, and any such adjustment of benefits by the trustees shall not result in the scheme ceasing to be a scheme approved by the Commissioners.

(13) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (12), the Commissioners may, where they consider it appropriate, review any such disposal or appropriation of an asset as is referred to in subsection (5), or any such adjustment of benefits as is referred to in subsection (12), to ensure that any such disposal, appropriation or adjustment, as the case may be, is in keeping with the requirements of this section, and for the purposes of subsection (12) the Commissioners may consult with such other persons as, in their opinion, may be of assistance to them.”,”.

Amendments Nos. 30 to 37, inclusive, are all concerned, in one form or another, with adjustments by insurers and administrators to benefits payable as a result of the payment of the levy. Amendment No. 30 is designed to provide greater clarification regarding the circumstances and manner in which benefits payable under a scheme may be adjusted, where considered necessary by insurers and trustees, on foot of the payment of the levy. The amendment, which involves the insertion of a new subsection (12) and a new subsection (13) initially provides for the overriding of any provisions of legislation or rule of law or anything contained in the rules of a scheme or the terms of a contract which might otherwise prevent or restrict the adjustment of benefits payable under a scheme. The new subsection (12)(a) permits a chargeable person who is an insurer the option of adjusting any current or prospective benefit or guarantees under contract of assurance on foot a payment of a levy. The new subsection (12)(b) provides a similar option to scheme trustees to adjust benefit payable currently or prospectively to any member under the scheme on foot of the amount of the levy paid in respect of assets of the scheme, both by the scheme administrator and other chargeable persons, such as, for example, an insurer with regard to scheme assets that are contracts of assurance. This provision also ensures that should the option of reduced scheme benefits be taken, it must essentially be applied in an equitable fashion across the different classes of scheme members, which could include active, deferred or retired members. In no circumstances may the reduction of an individual member’s or class of members’ benefits exceed the member’s or class of members’ share of the levy. The new subsection (13) gives the Revenue Commissioners authority to review any case where assets are disposed of by administrators or trustees in order to pay the levy. This is to ensure that any such disposals will be in keeping with or will be needed in order to pay the levy. This new subsection also gives the Revenue Commissioners oversight authority to review instances where benefits are adjusted as a result of the payment of the levy in order to ensure that such adjustments will be made in accordance with the requirements of the levy legislation. 52 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Furthermore, it assures compliance with the provisions of the new subsection (12)(b), which stipulates that in respect of any member of a scheme the adjustment must ensure that any diminution in the value of the benefit shall not exceed the amount of the levy on the assets attributable to the scheme’s liabilities in respect of that member. The latter function will also allow the Revenue Commissioners to consult with appropriate experts where necessary. I commend amendment No. 30 to the House.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 31 and 34, which are tabled in my name. The levy on pension funds is deeply unfair and represents a direct attack on people’s savings. This is not a tax on interest and neither is it a tax on income. It is, rather, a tax on people’s savings and their capital. This may appear to be a clever political ploy because the money involved is beyond people’s reach — they can neither see it nor touch it. What is proposed is similar to accessing people’s savings and deposits. That is the principle the Govern- ment is introducing. As the Minister of State is aware, IBEC recently carried out a survey of employers. The clear conclusions reached on foot of that survey are that as a result of the imposition of the levy pensions payable to members will be cut, that higher contributions will be required from workers and that some defined benefit schemes will close down. In addition, 46% of respon- dents anticipated that the levy will trigger a cut in benefits for current employees, some 29% forecast reductions in payments to existing pensioners and almost 25% anticipated that they will be obliged to wind up their defined benefit pension schemes completely. These are the views of employers who know something about the pension schemes involved. It is quite incredible that the Government did not consult the Pensions Board prior to making the decision to introduce the levy. In a reply to a parliamentary question I tabled, the Minister for Finance indicated that the Pensions Board was consulted on the logistics of implementing the levy but not on the decision to impose the levy in the first instance. The Minister of State will be well aware of the regulatory role of the board. Among its functions is a requirement to protect the interests of pension scheme members. The board was established to ensure that defined benefit schemes are adequately funded. As the Minister of State knows, the vast majority of defined benefit pension schemes are already in the red and are not in a position to meet their obligations. Employers and employees throughout the country have been negotiating in order to restruc- ture or change defined benefit pension schemes. I would like the Minister of State to indicate why the Pensions Board was not even consulted with regard to the imposition of the levy. Why have a statutory pensions body in place if the Government can make a unilateral decision to introduce a levy of this nature without seeking the views of that body? Will the Minister of State clarify the position regarding auto-enrolment into pension schemes? As he will be aware, this was included in the national pensions framework. The introduction of auto-enrolment could be viewed as a means of herding even more people into private sector pension schemes. The latter would, of course, be of benefit to the Government because it would increase its take from the pension levy. A later amendment in the name of Deputy Doherty deals with tax relief and we can speak to that matter when the amendment is moved. It was disingenuous of the Government, when asked how the levy will impact on pensioners and members of pension schemes, to issue a statement to the effect that:

How the pension fund levy will be paid will be a matter for individual pension scheme trustees and administrators... It is open to the pensions industry to decide how and whether to pass on the levy. 53 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael McGrath.]

Of course the pensions industry will pass on the levy. The Minister of State and everyone else present is aware of that fact. The Minister for Finance and others have referred on many occasions to the exorbitant fees imposed by the pensions industry. If that is the case and if that is what the Minister genuinely believes, then why is he not insisting that the industry should absorb the cost of the levy? Why is the industry not being prevented by law from passing on that cost to its members by way of reduced benefits? Amendments Nos. 31 and 34 in my name suggest that a provision to prohibit scheme administrators and trustees from passing on the cost of the levy to the members of pension schemes by way of reduced benefits be included in the Bill.

Deputy Brian Hayes: Perhaps I will frame my remarks in the context of amendments Nos. 31 to 35, inclusive, with were tabled by Deputies Healy and Michael McGrath. Amendments Nos. 32 and 35 in the name of Deputy Healy seek to deny the treatment of the pension levy paid in respect of a pension scheme as a necessary disbursement from that scheme. A provision of this nature is important if the levy is to be effective. Without it, there is no clear statement with regard to where the legal instances of the tax fall. The omission of this part of the provision would seriously undermine the levy and render it inoperable. As a result, I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 32 and 35. Amendments Nos. 31, 33, 34, 36 and 37 seek to deny an insurance company or pension scheme trustees the option to adjust current or future benefits of the pension scheme, or contract of insurance, to take account of the levy paid to this option. It is up to the trustees and administrators to decide whether, and how, the levy should be passed on, upon whom it should impact and to what extent, given the particular circumstances of the pension funds or pension plan for which they are responsible. In the amendments I propose concerning this particular provision I seek to provide, in so far as I can, that where the option to reduce benefits is taken by the trustees of a pension scheme the imposition of the levy is not carried out in a disproportionate way. I referred to that in my discussion of amendment No. 30 and it is in so far as we can, given the practical difficulties concerned. I indicated to the House and to the pension industry representatives that I take the view there is scope for the industry to absorb the impact of this temporary levy by way of a reduction in fees and charges made on these schemes. On Second Stage this matter was raised in a comprehensive way by my colleague from Dublin South, Deputy Peter Mathews, who referred to the fact that much of the imposition of the 0.6% levy could be absorbed by existing management fees which are often a multiple of that figure. It is a valid point. I wrote to the industry representatives in this regard and await their response. However, each pension scheme is different and it is a matter for the trustees of each scheme to determine the appropriate manner in which the levy will be paid. In the circumstances I cannot accept amendments Nos. 31 to 37. I refer also to the Deputy’s question about why the Pensions Board was not consulted about the introduction of the levy. I am informed that officials from the Department of Finance have been in contact with a wide number of interested parties in both the public and the private sector, including the Pensions Board, about practical, logistical and other issues surrounding the introduction of the levy. Those consultations and discussions have occurred and, along with discussions with the pensions industry, have helped form some of the amendments the Minister and I introduced today.

Deputy Shane Ross: Deputy Healy has authorised me formally to move his amendments, as required, if that is in order. 54 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

I welcome that the Minister has acknowledged the extent of the management fees. When I raised this issue on Leaders’ Questions some weeks ago, the Taoiseach responded very positively and stated the matter would be looked at. It is very welcome that many Members have taken up this issue. However, I am disappointed it has not been taken up in a formal way in the Bill. In other words, no initiative has been taken by the Minister or the Government to force the funds to take this out of the hands of the trustees and instead to take the levy from the administrators and fund managers. If it is left to the administrators and fund managers I do not believe they will take this action, for reasons that are obvious and partly to do with the incestuous nature of the financial world in which we live. Unfortunately, we will find that out when these fees are taken from the pockets of pensioners and the pot — net of fees rather than before fees are charged. The Minister speaks about the pensions industry and of talking to that industry but I am very suspicious of the people who represent that industry. I doubt they represent the actual contributors to the pension scheme though whether they know that themselves is a different issue. Had the pensions industry been representing the contributors and subscribers to the pension funds its representatives should have come to the Minister and said, “The source of your funds should not be the pot. The source of your funds should be the managers”.Itisnot only the managers — there are very many vested interests with their hand in this particular pot, and not only investment managers, who charge God knows what. I shall return to that presently. Administrators and custodians charge fees and there are legal and all sorts of hidden charges. If the pensions industry was efficient, transparent and honest it would have agreed that area should be the source of the funds and that we should forget about the people who put in their money every week and every month. That latter area is where the levy will come from and we have seen masses of surveys that show benefits will be down as a result. Deputy McGrath read a statement from IBEC indicating benefits will be down. I am not sure about this because I have not read the statement but it indicates that some pension schemes will even go into deficit as a result of this levy. That would not happen if the Minister went to the managers and the people with their hand in the pot and took the money from them. The pensions industry is an untapped and untouched gravy train; a sacred cow. There are still areas in the financial services industry which are untouched and lucrative, a mystery to the rest of the world, and the pensions industry is one of those. However, we can be sure of one or two elements. Those who live in the industry live very well out of it. Pension fund managers are a kind of mysterious elite in the financial world. Most of them are answerable to banks; most of the principal managers are owned by banks. Most of them become extraordinarily rich and hand out large fees to the Bank of Ireland, AIB, Irish Life and all the usual suspects. That is where the money should come from but the easy option has been taken and will have a tangible and immediate effect on hundreds of thousands of individual people. That is why I support Deputy Healy’s amendments. He wants to ensure the administrators and trustees are not allowed to pass this levy on to those people who have already been crucified. I do not believe it was mentioned in the part of the debate I listened to that many of the people who contribute to the pension funds have already lost huge amounts of their pensions. Whether in defined benefit or defined contribution, they have already been cut back and will be cut back further by this cheap raid. I understand better than anybody the Govern- ment’s need to bridge this massive deficit and the desperation with which it faces it. I sympath- ise with the Government. However, this option is short-sighted and immoral. It is also lazy. It is very easy to look at all these pension pots and say, there is that amount of money, we will get €480 million if we do it that way. No doubt it will. 55 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Shane Ross.]

The figure of 0.6% seems to come up in several contexts at present. Perhaps the Government has an obsession with it. However, there is one problem about going in and taking out 0.6% which is that this figure is close to what appears to be the average management fee. It is very difficult to find out what that fee is; one will not find it out because people charge different amounts to different institutions and pension funds. I did some work on this in recent days, however, and it seems that among the big pension fund managers the average management fee is approximately 0.6%. It is not a precise figure — some charge more, some less, but it is approximate. It is an awfully large average management fee. We are talking about billions of euro being managed. I shall give one example which the Minister might be interested in because the Government virtually owns the bank in question, the Bank of Ireland. It does not own it yet quite, but might own it next week. Bank of Ireland Asset Management, which has been taken over by State Street, got €5.8 million in management fees from a particular pension fund in a single year. The fund in question happens to be the Bank of Ireland’s own pension fund. What does the fact that its own pension fund handed €5.8 million to the bank tell one about the incest between the Bank of Ireland and those it is charged with looking after? It is an awful lot of money to be taking from one’s own pensioners, subscribers and contributors. What does it do to get such money? When I had a look at the performance of Bank of Ireland Asset Management in recent years, I found it has been pretty dreadful. Over five years, it lost 2% per annum. Over three years, it lost 4% per annum. It ranked itself 11th, 8th, and 12th in the asset management league in those years. Its consensus fund, which uses a computer that takes an average of other funds rather than the super brains of the fund managers, beat the managed fund every single year. It does not matter if the figures are examined over a ten- year, five-year, three-year or one-year period. I have seen the figures up to the end of last year. The consensus fund, which is a fund without a brain, beat the managed fund, which charges more, every single year. It does not use any expertise, but instead makes its decisions by means of a computer. The bank has charged over €5 million for managing a fund even though it would have been better to have left it to a monkey. That is the reality of these pension fund managers. These are the guys we are not touching in this Bill. That pattern does not just apply to Bank of Ireland Asset Management — it also applies to AIB and Irish Life. I tend to over-generalise, but I can say it applies to nearly all of the fund managers. The pattern tells us that these guys are raping the pensioners of money. The pensioners are getting absolutely nothing back. In fact, they are getting a negative back. They would do better if they made their own investments by sticking a pin or getting a monkey to throw darts at a target. Why does the Minister not do something about the people who are protected by this Bill? The Taoiseach responded positively on this matter and perhaps the Minister will respond even more positively this afternoon. The Government should make it clear that it intends to forensically demand that the pension levy be paid by the fund managers, the custodians and everyone else who is milking this industry. They are useless. They are parasites. The industry would be better without them. The Minister spoke eloquently about his intention to talk to representatives of the industry, but I am not quite sure who they represent. My guess is that many of the people in this industry are far too close to the managers and not nearly close enough to those who make monthly or weekly contributions to pension funds. That is where the money is. There is no transparency in this industry. It is almost impossible to find out what these guys’ real charges are. They have all sorts of hidden charges, including bid office spreads, which they do not reveal. Such charges cannot be seen in the prospectuses they issue. It is almost impossible to get a total expense ratio, which sets out how much it costs to run these funds. One can be charged management fees, but there will be absolutely nothing about such fees in the tables that are issued. These 56 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages people are right to disguise the fees so extraordinarily well because they make so much money from them. Stockbrokers’ fees are buried in this as well. Stockbrokers have wonderful cosy arrangements with these guys. Some of the stockbrokers who have been involved in recent years — not so much now — have been owned by the banks that own the same fund managers. Inevitably, all the pension fund dealings go through the stockbrokers who are owned by the parent bank, which also owns the fund managers. Stockbrokers’ fees are absolutely exorbitant. I suggest those two pillars of this industry could probably contribute the full amount just as easily, because they are making hay with the pensions of the people of Ireland. They are making fortunes out of them and doing virtually nothing for it. That is why I find it so offensive that this pension levy is being imposed. It is an easy option. There is another option. I was a stockbroker, so I know how this works. I have seen that it works in a most iniquitous fashion in the case of people who do not perform properly and do not deliver the goods. The evidence of the performance of pension funds is clear in every table one examines. I would like to make a final point. I do not think it is scaremongering to suggest that the psychological effect of this legislation will be that savings are seen as fair game. I know the Minister will assure us that this measure will last for four years and no longer. I accept that is his intention. I was alarmed by his responses to Deputies Pearse Doherty, Michael McGrath and O’Dea. He failed to assure them that this money will be ring-fenced. The distinction between what people put into pension funds and what we traditionally call deposit savings or other savings is a pretty thin one. It comes out of their wages or monthly pay packets and it goes into future savings. I do not really see the difference between future and present savings, except that future savings are not accessible. We have now found that the future savings ordinary people are making are not accessible to them but are accessible to the Government, which is worse. I do not think that principle should be breached. I oppose this section for that reason.

Deputy Thomas Pringle: I want to comment on amendments Nos. 32, 33, 35 and 36, in the name of Deputy Healy. The aim of the amendments is to limit or restrict the extent to which the pension funds can pass on the levy in a way that would decrease the benefits pensioners receive. I suggest they should not be allowed to pass the levy on at all. The Minister said earlier that his intention in tabling amendment No. 30 was to ensure pension funds do not pass on these costs in a disproportionate way. I do not think that goes far enough. As I understand it, if a pensioner is part of a group scheme and is receiving a pension of €20,000 per annum, his or her scheme will need to have a value of over €600,000. If the 0.6% levy, which in this case would amount to €3,600, were passed on to the pensioner in full, his or her annual pension would drop to €15,400. That would be an 18% reduction in his or her annual pension. Some of the pension firms will probably absorb some of the costs but it is expected that pensioners will see an 8% to 9% reduction in their benefits on an annual basis because of this levy which is something that has not been highlighted or heard in any of statements by the Government. The Taoiseach stated that the levy is merely 60 cent in every €100. That might be the case but the outworking and impact of it for individual pensioners will mean they will see an 8% to 9% reduction in their pensions on an annual basis. These proposed amendments are an attempt to ensure that pensioners are protected from this levy and that they do not see such large reductions in annual income through their pensions. I would urge the Government to be stronger in terms of its amendment to ensure that the pension companies cannot pass on this levy in full to their pensioners and those who benefit from the schemes. It is not enough to state that the attempt is to ensure that it is not passed on disproportionately. Some companies will be ruthless and will try to pass on as much as possible with the result that pensioners will see significant reductions in their income. 57 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I want to make three points to the Minister on the amendment. The first one relates to the general environment within which pension funds will operate across the period in which this temporary levy will be in force. They have been operating in an environment where equity markets are rebounding where there is a significant amount of value to be gained and good value to be sought in Government bonds and debt for reasons of which we will be aware. The wealth figures produced by the Central Bank last week showed an increase in household wealth over the past number of years and one of the factors to which it attributed that increase was that pension funds were beginning to grow again in value. Surely, in the cycle into which we are moving there is an opportunity for pension funds to do more to absorb a levy like this. My second point is a suggestion to the Minister. Has either his Department or any of the bodies involved in the pension industry any way of naming and demonstrating the performance, or lack thereof, of the different organisations in passing on different percentages of the levy to their clients? This would enable a league table of some form to be produced to allow people to understand how different organisations are handling the levy. The third point is the consequence of the application of the levy. The venture fund industry in Ireland, which is healthy and large by European and international standards, depends on private pension funds to contribute to its funds which are then passed on to organisations that invest in seed capital. Of the venture fund industry in Ireland which is worth €770 million, approximately €110 million comes from private pension funds. A potential consequence of the application of the levy is that the stream of funding from pension funds that is then invested in start-up companies here in Ireland could be reduced or choked off. I would ask the Minister whether this is a matter to which he has given consideration, has any representation been made on it and whether it would be possible in the latter stages of the application of the levy that if pension funds are contributing to seed capital funds and business angel funds, some of that contribution could be offset against the application of the levy.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I thank the Deputies for their contributions some of which were listened to by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, who left me notes. If I could revert to the topic of the ARFs we were discussing when I left for half an hour, I wish to inform the House of my position. I intend to examine as part of my preparations for budget 2012 in December next how best to increase the percentage national distribution for higher value ARFs while ensuring that more modest ARFs are protected. It is not true to state that ARFs are only availed of by wealthy people. Many people have ARFs with modest amounts in them and they are modest savers. An ARF is not a pension, it is an investment. If we make changes, as well as trying to take an additional tax take we will consider applying a cap below which the additional imposition would not apply. Any increase would apply to 2011 asset values because the measure applies to the previous year, which is one of the reasons we could not do it this year, and the tax due will generally be paid by the end of February 2011. If we made changes in next year’s finance Bill, the tax would be due in February, immediately after the finance Bill, and it would be based on the asset value of the ARFs in 2011. Consequently, we cannot make it retrospective by introducing it now in a hurry. That is my thinking on it. I will be disposed to take this course of action. Of course, I must discuss it and obtain the agreement of my Cabinet colleagues for any such change but we will be working on it. Deputy Hayes was asked whether the Pension Board was consulted about the introduction of the levy. My officials have been in contact with a wide number of interested parties in both the public and private sectors, including the Pensions Board, about the practical logistical and other issues surrounding its introduction. I listened with interest to Deputy Ross, who raised 58 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages this on Leaders’ Questions with the Taoiseach one morning. Deputy Ross’s views on fees across the financial services industry, particularly in the pensions industry, are well known. It is difficult to find out what the management fee is and what additional charges are made on top of the management fee, for example, whether there is a distinction between commission and management fee. There seems to be such a distinction in some of the funds. My information, the accuracy of which I cannot vouch for, is that management charges were caught at a rate of approximately 1.5% rather than at 0.6% as Deputy Ross states. I mentioned previously that the reaction of the pensions industry was quite hypocritical because its members were predicting ruin and devastation and the sky would fall down if a levy of 0.6% was imposed. This, when some of them were taking charges of one sort or another which amounted to three times that sum and had no impact on the fund, apparently such charges were not a problem. If, however, the State imposes a stamp duty of 0.6%, the sky falls down. They are not living in the real world. Those of them who participated in debate were not frank because they did not tell their own stories, yet they have laid charges of an exagger- ated kind. Arising from the Deputy’s conversation with the Taoiseach here one morning, I wrote to the representatives of the pension industry who I had met advising that in the first instance they should endeavour to absorb the levy within their own cost base, and I intend pursuing that. They might not absorb it all. Even if we got them to absorb some, if we got them to tighten up a little, everybody in the country is tightening up and managing with less. I do not see why pension fund managers should be exempt. I do not know how much progress I will make. We have a little time on this and if we do not get it in the first round of the levy, we might get it in the second round of it. I intend pursuing it. Of course, it is important to have information in the first instance. I take Deputy Pringle’s point and his concerns. We have introduced the Revenue Commis- sioners as a kind of monitor in case there are raids on pension funds, in effect, by their own management. We want to ensure there is a mechanism in place to prevent anything like that happening and also to ensure there is a link into the payment of the levy. We have that protection in place also. The concept of the levy arose from a consideration of how to pay for a jobs initiative which would cost a certain amount of money and where the money was used principally to get the tourism industry back on track. Over the past three years the tourism industry has fallen by 30% in volume terms, that is, in terms of the number of people coming into the country. From the UK alone it has declined by 32% in value terms. We knew the President of the USA and the Queen were coming so we took the view that if we timed an initiative on VAT three or four weeks in advance then we could get quite a good effect. It seems to be coming through but it is difficult to quantify these things. One gets a fine weekend and there are tourists all over the place but if it rains one sees no one. However, the people representing the business seem to take the view that there is an increase in tourists this year and that there has been a significant increase in inquiries. Then, we went to try to fund it. It is a simple principle of economics that if one spends money but takes the equivalent amount out of the economy, the effect is pretty neutral. Cer- tainly, there is no demand stimulus effect. We identified the pension industry of which, according to my information, 94% is invested abroad. Through the levy we are bringing the money back into the domestic economy and it is paying for the jobs initiative. We also justify it on the basis that the pension pots, especially the larger ones, were built up with very generous tax relief at a marginal rate of 41%. This is a bit of a clawback of generous tax relief that was given in the good years of the economy, or, at least, when we thought things were good. These 59 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] generous reliefs were in place at the time. We are taking a bit back from it but it is modest enough. I do not believe the alarmist talk from those in the pensions industry. The House will note how quiet they have become since I started calling for them to offset it against their charges. The debate ended just like that. There has not been a whisper since. Deputy Ross stood up here one morning and one could nearly benchmark the debate from the morning he spoke about charges and the Taoiseach replied to him and the steam went out of it. It would damage the industry if it went on for the next 30 years, of that there is no doubt. All Deputies are aware of the way pensions are constructed. Most people paying into pension funds have no expectation of drawing from them for a long time. If we kept it going on an actuarial basis there would be a difficulty as we go along. However for four years, the industry can take it, especially if some of it is absorbed in the charges. I have stated in the House that I am committed to talking to the pensions industry. The Government has not yet decided how we will handle the tax relief on contributions to pensions in future. The IMF-EU troika maintain the relief is far too generous, totally out of line with what is happening elsewhere in Europe and one of the great generosities of the Irish pension system which is no longer affordable. They want it pulled back to the standard rate. We will consider other options but I am unsure whether we can afford them. Certainly, there is a strong argument in principle to continue to encourage people to make provision for their retirement through contributions to pensions schemes. Traditionally in Ireland the principal encouragement was to give tax relief. I am unsure of the way to engineer it in future but it is something we will consider carefully as we go through the autumn. I was missing for some of the early part of the debate but I hope I have replied to everyone who raised a specific point. I will come back again if I have to.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I wish to comment on something the Minister said. He explained that the jobs initiative had to be revenue neutral and that to get the money to fund the jobs initiative he has targeted the pensions industry. The reality is that he did not target the pensions industry, he targeted pensioners and those who have saved. The point Deputies Ross and Michael McGrath have made is precisely that the pensions industry should be targeted. We can have all the good intentions we like but there is nothing in the Bill to make the people the Minister correctly refers to as the administrators contribute in any way shape or form. If what the Minister stated is correct, that is to say, some of these people are charging three or four times the levy, that is the most convincing argument I have heard to compel them to play their part and take their share of the burden. The Minister repeated an argument made earlier to the effect that people built up their pensions with the aid of generous tax relief at a high marginal rate, which is true. Unfortunately, the position is that the people who devised these tax relief schemes, those in successive Govern- ments, recognised the fact that with an ageing population there will be a great level of dependency here in the not too distant future and the purpose was to encourage people to save because there is no way the State will be able to carry the burden and the Government was obliged to encourage people to provide for themselves. If a Government puts it to people that provided they put so much into contributing and providing for themselves they will be afforded tax relief and then people come forward in good faith and make the decision to save in return for the tax relief, the Government cannot turn around 20 years later and say they are sorry about it but they gave too much tax relief in the beginning and now they wish to claw back some of it.

Deputy Michael Noonan: That happens all the time with the income tax code. The Deputy should look at what his party did in the last budget. 60 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Willie O’Dea: The Minister also made the point that much of this money is invested abroad. All I can say is that with approximately 80% of defined benefit schemes under water at present it is just as well it is invested abroad. Anyway, the Government can change the rules. The trustees are bound by a specific set of rules relating to where they can invest. It is not a question of people being unpatriotic or taking money out of the country and that bringing in this levy will somehow make them more patriotic by bringing some of it back forcibly. The other interesting point raised by the Minister related to the future of tax relief. I have heard the Taoiseach on at least two, if not three, occasions answering questions on the Order of Business. I noted carefully what he has said on this topic. He stated that the pensions industry approached the Government — as I understand it, they approached the last Government — and stated this was a preferable way to get revenue from that source rather than changing the tax relief.

Deputy Michael Noonan: They approached the main Opposition, not the Government.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: Whoever they approached, this was what the quid pro quo was supposed to be. Is the Taoiseach now taking the position that as a result of the fact that we have taken the offer to bring in the levy, no changes to tax relief will be made and the present tax relief regime will stay in place? It was presented by the Taoiseach as a choice and he made the choice. Does this mean the tax relief regime will remain untouched? As I stated, some 80% of defined pension schemes are under water at present. Those of us in the Houses of the Oireachtas are the beneficiaries of a defined pension scheme but we are in the public sector. This thing is specifically aimed at defined pension schemes in the private sector. The Minister and others may hold that this will not have much of an impact in practice etc. However, let us consider the wording of the amendment No. 30 12(b), which states “the diminution in value of those benefits shall not exceed the amount disbursed from the assets attributable at the valuation date to the scheme’s liabilities in respect of that member”.Toa certain extent that gives the game away when one considers how much of the funds’ assets are attributable to what is payable to a member under a defined benefit scheme. The experts tell us that for someone to get a pension of €10,000 per year, which is no fortune, the fund necessary to produce that is approximately €150,000. Some people maintain it is more but let us assume the figure is €150,000. Deputy Michael McGrath reckons that in 50% of cases — I believe it will be more — everything will be passed on directly and there will 3o’clock be no money to meet the levy from the members’ funds unless the employer wishes to contribute voluntarily and thereby endanger more jobs or increase the cost of employing the people in place. If the entire levy is passed on, let us consider how this will operate in practice. Some 0.6% of €150,000 is €900. Let us consider a person on €10,000, which is the pension attributable to that amount. The pension of that person goes down from €10,000 to €9,100 in the first year and decreases a further €900 in the second year to €7,200 and so on. That person will finish up with a pension of approximately €6,400, which means one third of the pension is lost as a result of the four-year levy. The loss would be 50% if the higher figure of €200,000 is taken into account. Unfortunately, in most cases, the levy will be passed on practically in its entirety to the beneficiaries and will have a devastating effect on pensions. The fund managers of many defined benefit pension schemes have unilaterally changed the terms of the schemes, with the principal change in most cases being the loss of indexation for inflation because it is simply not affordable. A person on a fixed pension of €10,000 a year to whom the levy is applied on the basis that the defined benefit scheme must pay out in full and must ask its members to make 61 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Willie O’Dea.] the full contribution is facing a very serious imposition. We are not talking about extremely wealthy people like the owners of some the pension pots under approved retirement funds, ARFs; we are talking about people on fixed pensions of €10,000 a year. They have received tax relief on their contributions but would still have had to save long and hard to secure that pension entitlement only to be subjected to this type of treatment. This will bear hard on people. On Second Stage I remarked that the 1998 budget was the nearest any Government came to attempting something similar when the then Minister for Finance, Ray MacSharry, sought to impose a tax on the capital gains from pension funds. The scheme was designed to yield €15 million, which it did, and was applied for only one year. At that time the Minister, Deputy Noonan, was Opposition spokesman on finance and seemed to believe the sky would fall in because of €15 million. Now he proposes taking €1.8 billion out of pension funds which are already struggling. We are told it is acceptable because some pension administrators are earning three or four times that amount. If that is true we should go after them and find some way of obliging them to play their part in this. The levy proposal may be politically clever but its effect will be to take money out of the economy by reducing demand. Reduced incomes will leave many people living from week to week. It may be politically clever but it is economically and socially unsound.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The Minister did not refer in his response to two of the issues I raised. First, will it be possible to produce some type of evidence regarding the portion of the levy that is passed on by the different pension funds in order to track how different people are doing? Second, will the Minister indicate whether he has considered the impact of the levy on the flow of money from pension funds to local businesses via investment and whether any measures are under consideration in that regard?

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister and his departmental officials for their work on this Bill and on the jobs initiative. In response to the points raised by Deputy Ross, the Minister remarked that opposition within the pensions industry has evaporated with a click of his fingers. However, many ordinary citizens on modest defined benefit pensions are still incredibly apprehensive about this proposal. There is a profound interest in the revival of the economy and in efforts to stimulate job creation, but there is grave concern among people who have worked for 30 or 40 years and who will find in the next two or three years that their resources will be further reduced as they face into a winter where energy prices will almost certainly rise in conjunction with the general and ongoing upward escalation of the cost of living which is evident despite the flatlining of the economy. Amendment No. 37 in the name of Deputy Seamus Healy corresponds closely with my own views on this aspect of the Bill in its proposal that the levy should be directed primarily or even entirely at the industry itself rather than the beneficiaries. The Bill incorporates a sunset clause of sorts in that this provision is designed to operate only until 2014. Is there merit in looking at the jobs initiative in terms of very precise cost benefit targets year on year? In that context, is it possible to look at the annual returns from the levy on a year by year basis in order to see what is being achieved? For example, I am still not clear as to how we will measure how well airlines, restaurants and hostelries have delivered in response to the reduction in VAT rates and the travel tax. The Minister may recall that I was the first Deputy in the House to oppose that tax. How will we measure that precisely on a quarterly or annual basis? Would there be merit in including a type of sunset clause whereby information would be presented to the Dáil this time next year showing how the levy has panned out in terms of the creation of jobs and the amount of additional taxation it has brought to the economy? It would also be an opportunity to review the pain the levy will undoubtedly inflict on workers, retired workers 62 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages and workers about to retire who have given great service to this economy in very demanding jobs, in many cases for 30 or 40 years.

Deputy Seamus Healy: I thank Deputy Ross for moving the amendments in my name. I am not convinced that we should be going down the road of imposing a levy on pensions. However, if it is to be done, the objective of these amendments is to ensure the charge is borne by the managers of pension funds rather than the beneficiaries. There is adequate information available to suggest that significant profits are being made at that level and that there are, for example, large differences in the percentage charged in Britain, where it can be as low as 0.5% , when compared with Ireland, where it can range as high as 1.5%. If the levy must be introduced it should be raised from the source which enjoys adequate income. We must protect people on modest pensions from further reductions in income. They are already subject to the universal social charge and many other taxes. The Minister observed that people with ARFs are subject to other taxes, but that is also the case for people on modest pensions. Beneficiaries of pensions are already seriously taxed and the universal social charge is a significant burden on them. If the levy is passed on to beneficiaries it will represent a significant imposition on their already reduced incomes. Similarly, I believe this levy should not apply to contributors. My point is it should apply to the fund and not to the beneficiaries or the contributors.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Like Deputy Healy, I have stated previously that I am opposed to funding the jobs initiative through the pension levy and I share some of the concerns expressed by Deputy Broughan. Previously, Members have argued about linking the pension levy to the jobs initiatives that have been announced and the measures giving effect to them that are being enacted in this Bill. Putting this to one side, a valid issue requires clarification, namely, the Taoiseach’s continual insistence that this was an either-or option. I watched him state, in a live studio appearance on the six o’clock news, that faced with the option of imposing a levy or reducing tax reliefs, the Government opted for the former. As the Minister has made a statement on these matters, I seek clarification. Is it still the Government’s intention, as it was of its predecessor, to reduce tax reliefs on private pensions? The original proposal was for a 7% reduction each year over the next three years until the rate of 20% has been reached. I am aware of other proposals to not reduce the tax relief rate to 20% but of having a rate of perhaps 30% instead. Is the reduction of tax reliefs on the Government’s agenda and will this happen? Is it the case, as the Taoiseach suggested, that this is an either-or option? Alternatively, was he simply referring to this point in time and that the tax relief issue will be tackled in December? I seek clarification on this issue. I believe the reduction of tax reliefs is the best way to proceed in this regard. While all Members are aware of the issue of incentivising people to invest in pensions for the future, the reliefs were overly generous and came at great cost to the State. Based on figures presented by the Department of Finance, the standardisation of private pension tax relief would yield the State approximately €1.1 billion. Moreover, the ESRI report produced in 2009 on the private pension industry and the breakdown of tax relief found that €616 million of tax reliefs went to the top 10% of earners. If I recall correctly, 82% of all tax reliefs went to the top 20% of earners. Consequently, one can clearly discern who benefits from these tax reliefs. Deputy Healy’s amendment has merit. If I may be so presumptuous as to second-guess the Government’s desired outcome, I believe that in common with all Members, it would like this levy to be absorbed by the industry itself and that nothing would be passed on. However, this Bill offers the scope to realise that intention. The Minister might argue and might have figures to hand following his consultation with the industry that there is not enough fat to absorb the 63 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.] levy, despite all the observations from this side of the House. I believe the Bill should contain such a provision, which could be reviewed subsequently if a need to so do arose. After a short absence, the Minister has returned to the Chamber and has made a statement with regard to approved retirement funds, ARFs. While it is welcome that he has gone further than he did this morning, I still believe such a provision should be included in this legislation. As I stated, Members probably will be debating another finance Bill within two weeks and at the least, such a provision should be included in that legislation. I acknowledge that not all approved retirement funds are for the super-wealthy. I note a number of them have appeared in the past on the Members’ register of interests in these Houses and I am sure that people who are prudent have also invested in them. However, the Minister has argued in respect of a limit whereby the new measures would not apply to those in a lower income bracket and who have such approved retirement funds. Why is a similar model not being considered for the levy the Minister is imposing on private pensions? One problem associated with the proposed levy on the pensions is that a low, modest or middle-income earner who has invested in his or her future is being hit by the same rate as is a high earner who has invested in a similar type of pension. In other words, the 0.6% rate is indiscriminate in respect of a person’s income. If I understood the Minister correctly regarding the proposal on approved retirement funds he intends to bring forward, he will make sure it will not discriminate against people at different levels. Consequently, why is this not being done for this levy? Few if any people with approved retirement funds are of low or middle income as they generally have higher incomes. The explanation for this, which pertains to being unable to tap into the funds at a certain given time, has already been recited in the Chamber. Consequently, why is it not possible to ensure that at the least, the levy would not be passed on to some of those whose pension funds are below a certain value and that the industry would at least be obliged to absorb that part of it? However, I wholeheartedly support the amendments tabled by Deputy Healy, the acceptance of which would go a long way towards dealing with the real concerns expressed by those who have invested in pensions. I am sure that each Member of the House has been lobbied by people who genuinely are worried about their future. Enough stuff is coming down the track and enough stuff already has been imposed. Deputy Ross noted that the value of such pensions has collapsed dramatically in recent years and people are genuinely worried. They had been looking forward to their pensions in the knowledge that the pension pot was in place and this Government raid on that pot is not right. If there is fat, as I believe the Minister has acknowledged, measures should be included in this Finance (No. 2) Bill to ensure the impact of these measures is absorbed by the industry and not by the individuals themselves.

Deputy Brian Walsh: Deputy Pearse Doherty appears to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In one of his earlier contributions, he suggested that a 0.6% levy on the pension fund would discourage people from saving and consequently would place a greater burden on the State in the future because people would not save for their own pensions. However, in his latest contribution, he has suggested the tax relief available on pensions should be amended, as if to suggest that such a measure would not discourage people from investing in their pensions. This is a small measure that is being introduced on a temporary four-year basis and I note these are people who have benefited from highly lucrative tax relief in the past. For example, last year the marginal tax rate was at 41% and consequently, for every €1,000 that an individual invested in a pension fund, he or she received tax relief of €410. The Government now proposes that for the next four years, it will recoup an element of that, namely, €6 per annum from each €1,000, which is a total of €24 over the four-year period, whereas for one year’s contribution of €1,000, people will have received €410 in relief. Consequently, it is fair 64 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages that those who benefited from generous tax reliefs in the past are now asked to contribute a minor sum to support those who are unemployed and to assist in the jobs initiative. I agree with Deputy Healy’s suggestion that pension fund managers be asked to assist in contributing to this levy and I ask the Minister to consider holding discussions with the pension managers to achieve progress in that regard.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: For the benefit of the debate, I have not argued that the 0.6% levy would constitute a disincentive to investment in pensions.

The argument is that if tax reliefs are reduced on pensions it would allow people to decide. I have argued that the problem with imposing the levy is that these are people who put money aside and now they are being targeted. I never said the levy would be a disincentive for people in the future to invest in pensions.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: We all know about the existence of a pensions time bomb. It is crucial we do not discourage people from investing in pensions, even though there is a need for a radical overhaul of the pensions system. I remember temporary measures such as the AIB and the insurance levy introduced in the 1970s or early 1980s and if I am not mistaken it might be still there. I acknowledge the levy will be in place for a set number of years but these kinds of charges have a habit of being extended once there is some level of acceptance. I support Deputy Healy’s amendment No. 37. I had hoped that any legislation from this new Government would signal a change in the way things were done and a change in culture. We saw too much of the outsourcing of decision-making in the past, with an element of self- regulation in everything from alcohol advertising to financial services and this levy falls into the same category. We need to do things differently if that culture is to be changed and legislation should be used to set parameters. We should be prescriptive about where the fund will come from and that should certainly not be from the savings of those who have invested in pensions but rather from the exorbitant fees charged on those pensions. Amendment No. 37 is good and I support it.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I thank all Deputies for their contributions. We are covering some of the ground already covered this morning but that is the reason we are here so everyone can have a say. A Deputy on this side of the House gave a very good example when he suggested that a person with €1,000 in a pension fund was given tax relief of €410 and is now being asked now to pay €6 back by way of the levy to help the unemployed. That is a modest enough figure and when it is confined to four years it amounts to €24 out of a tax relief of €410. I think some people — not here in this House but outside — with vested interests, have completely exagger- ated the impact of the levy. Other people genuinely misunderstand what the impact will be, even people with the training in accountancy and law of Deputy O’Dea. I refer to the example he gave in which he talked about a very modest pension fund of €150,000 and he said a levy of 0.6% on that would be €900. He said it would be reasonable to expect that a small fund of €150,000 would throw up a pension of €10,000. He then went on to say that one would lose €900 off the €10,000, which is €9,100 and after four years it would have nearly disappeared, like the cat that kept going around in circles. What one is losing is the potential earnings on the amount that is taken by the levy. If one does the sum again, €10,000 out of €150,000 is slightly over 7% and if €900 is the levy, 7% of that sum is €63. One is therefore not losing €900 but rather €63 and that is the worst case scenario where a completely impaired pension fund was forced to reduce the payment to people on pensions, which is a totally extreme case because in the generality of pension funds, those at work continue to pay and they sustain the payments into the future of those who have retired. There is a lot of misunderstanding about 65 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] this. I know Deputy O’Dea was genuine but he slipped into that little arithmetical error and I saw Deputy Fleming smiling at him when he was reciting it so I knew there was something wrong and I decided to check the figures. I note Deputy O’Dea has returned and he will note that his €900 has been reduced to €63 in his absence from the Chamber.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It is another levy.

Deputy Michael Noonan: We have representations from the venture capital industry and they are talking about more potential to invest in the country because their current level of investment is very small. Between 6% and 7% of Irish pension funds are invested in Ireland for good and sufficient reasons. They operate under rule and they are obliged to spread their risk so I am not for a moment saying they are doing anything improper or unpatriotic but there is scope for further investment in Ireland from Irish pension funds and it would be good if they expanded in the venture capital area. As I understand, the submission to my Department is that rather than saying that the amount they put in would be diminished by the levy, they argue that they should be given more scope by the Government to invest in venture capital. We are putting together a micro-investment fund for investment in small industries, small IT, for the most part. Deputy O’Dea also suggested a league table of how the levy would affect different pension funds. I do not think it would be possible to do this by means of legislation but perhaps one of the consumer organisations might take that up as it would be appropriate for a consumer organisation. There has been much argument that the fund managers and the industry itself should bear the burden of the levy rather than the funds themselves and in my view there is scope for this. It is a question whether they will be able to bear the full burden of the levy or part of it but there is certainly scope for the industry to absorb some of the levy. The very fact we are talking about these things and that people such as Deputy Ross is writing in such a wide-circulation newspaper about these matters, makes the investors very aware. For the first time investors are looking at their charges and they will be putting pressure on their managers to reduce their charges so this is one resultant benefit. I have written to the representatives of the two groups whom I met and who lobbied strenu- ously. I have written to express my view that they should absorb some or all of the levy and I hope they will reply with a positive response.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister could make them absorb it.

Deputy Michael Noonan: This levy is running for four years. If we had full information we might be able to make them absorb it but there is an absence of information. However, this is the opening position for legislation because it will run for four years. Deputy Doherty asked if the ARFs were being capped why would we not also cap the levy. The ARFs, as they apply to small investors, are operating in a curious way and they are under pressure. I am informed that when it comes to the notional 5% assessment of drawdown, the insurance industry which provides these ARFs to small investors is making it an actual drawdown and the pension funds are pushing for the 5% to be withdrawn. The small investor is faced with a situation of an actual 5% drawdown every year on which marginal tax is paid at 52%. Over a number of years there is a fear that people who are pinning their income for their retirement on smaller ARFs will find their capital has disappeared over a short period of years. There is a distinction between the individual ARF for the small investor and the general pension fund that usually covers a group of people. 66 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Catherine Murphy talked about a pensions time bomb and a necessary overhaul. I agree work has to be done in the pensions industry and some work is being undertaken by the Pensions Board. Deputy O’Dea and Deputy McGrath mentioned it as well. With the changing demographics there is an increasing number of elderly people in our communities. It is not as imbalanced as it is across continental Europe. We seem to be about 20 years behind its age profile. We still have a fairly balanced age profile across the age groups but there is a pensions issue which we must examine very carefully. The time limit on the levy is absolute and has been written into the Bill. When it is enacted, it will effectively be a sunset clause and will end at the end of 2014. It is not intended that we would resile from that. Deputy Broughan referred to the levy being absorbed by the industry and I have given my views on that. He spoke about cost-benefit targets on a year-by-year basis. The household surveys produced by the CSO provide an annual estimation in a detailed way of employment trends and we have it to match it to. A year is too short a period to see the effect 4o’clock of any jobs initiative, especially an initiative such as this. Its primary intention, as I said on a number of occasions, was to build up confidence in one particular sector and reduce its cost base by bringing the VAT rate down from 13.5% to 9% in order that businesses would be encouraged to bring more people in, do more business and employ more people. It obviously has to be measured. The Deputy also raised the issue of the travel tax. He was one of the first people in the House to oppose its introduction a number of years ago. If we enact the Bill today and it goes before the Seanad, it will be set at zero, subject to the order of the Minister. I want to give the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, a negotiating position when talking to the airlines. If we do not make progress with the airlines in terms of the commitments we want them to make, I will not sign the order to reduce the tax to zero and it will stay as it is. As we are reducing it to zero rather than striking it out as a tax, it remains in the tax code and, as a result, it can be reinstated very easily in a future finance Bill if the carriers do not play ball. I know they are currently in discussion with the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and he has made some progress. He has some other initiatives as well and we will wait and see how it works out. Deputy Healy’s amendments seek to enshrine in law what many people would like to see happening, namely, that the industry rather than the funds would absorb the levy. I have given him my position on that. I do not want such a provision written into the Bill but I hope that funds would make a contribution. In its advertising and promotional literature from last year and this year the industry referred to figures of 6% capital gains, which is an average rule of thumb in the industry. The 6% capital gains goes into the fund base. A levy of 0.6% if one is building in a figure of 6% capital gains over four years, leaving out all sorts of clawbacks in terms of income tax relief, seems to be totally within the competence of the industry to absorb without any particular effect on people in pension schemes.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 31 to 36, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Seamus Healy: I move amendment No. 37:

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

“(c) charges or impositions on any scheme or financial instrument or private pension plan proposed in this Bill may not be passed down to contributors to such schemes, private pension plan or instruments.”,”. 67 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the amendment being pressed?

Deputy Seamus Healy: Yes.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 81.

Tá

Collins, Joan. McGrath, Michael. Colreavy, Michael. McLellan, Sandra. Cowen, Barry. Moynihan, Michael. Crowe, Seán. Murphy, Catherine. Daly, Clare. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Dooley, Timmy. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Ferris, Martin. O’Brien, Jonathan. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. O’Dea, Willie. Fleming, Sean. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Fleming, Tom. Pringle, Thomas. Healy, Seamus. Ross, Shane. Higgins, Joe. Smith, Brendan. Kelleher, Billy. Stanley, Brian. Kirk, Seamus. Tóibín, Peadar. Kitt, Michael P. Troy, Robert. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. Wallace, Mick. McConalogue, Charlie.

Níl

Bannon, James. Humphreys, Kevin. Barry, Tom. Keaveney, Colm. Breen, Pat. Kehoe, Paul. Broughan, Thomas P. Kenny, Enda. Bruton, Richard. Kenny, Seán. Butler, Ray. Kyne, Seán. Buttimer, Jerry. Lawlor, Anthony. Byrne, Catherine. Lyons, John. Byrne, Eric. Maloney, Eamonn. Cannon, Ciarán. Mathews, Peter. Carey, Joe. McEntee, Shane. Coffey, Paudie. McFadden, Nicky. Collins, Áine. McHugh, Joe. Conaghan, Michael. McNamara, Michael. Conlan, Seán. Mitchell, Olivia. Connaughton, Paul J. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Coonan, Noel. Mulherin, Michelle. Costello, Joe. Murphy, Dara. Creighton, Lucinda. Murphy, Eoghan. Deering, Pat. Nash, Gerald. Donohoe, Paschal. Naughten, Denis. Dowds, Robert. Neville, Dan. Doyle, Andrew. Nolan, Derek. Durkan, Bernard J. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Farrell, Alan. O’Donovan, Patrick. Feighan, Frank. O’Dowd, Fergus. Ferris, Anne. O’Mahony, John. Fitzpatrick, Peter. O’Reilly, Joe. Flanagan, Charles. O’Sullivan, Jan. Flanagan, Terence. Penrose, Willie. Griffin, Brendan. Perry, John. Hannigan, Dominic. Phelan, Ann. Harris, Simon. Phelan, John Paul. Heydon, Martin. Quinn, Ruairí. Howlin, Brendan. Reilly, James. Humphreys, Heather. Ring, Michael. 68 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Níl—continued

Ryan, Brendan. Tuffy, Joanna. Sherlock, Sean. Varadkar, Leo. Spring, Arthur. Walsh, Brian. Stagg, Emmet. White, Alex. Stanton, David.

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

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I move amendment No. 38:

In page 11, subsection (1)(b)(ii), line 34, to delete “person” and substitute “section”.

This amendment is to correct a drafting error in the Bill as initiated. Section 126B of the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999 provides for the making of an assessment by the Revenue Commissioners in circumstances where either a statement has not been delivered to them or they are of the opinion that the statement that has been delivered is incorrect. This amendment corrects the reference to “specified person” in the Bill as published to “specified section”. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is section 4 agreed to?

Deputy Pearse Doherty: No.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Pearse Doherty.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: We have thrashed out this Bill over the past couple of hours. Section 4 imposes the pension levy which will have an effect on those holding pensions. We have discussed the issue whereby the likes of Seán FitzPatrick are being exempted from this legislation. There is a cost-neutral alternative, however, in the form of discretionary tax reliefs at the lower rate of tax. These would actually bring in more than the proposed levy. On that basis, I am opposing section 4 and will be pushing it to a vote.

Question put: “That section 4 stand part of the Bill.”

The Committee divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 37.

Tá

Bannon, James. Conlan, Seán. Barry, Tom. Connaughton, Paul J. Breen, Pat. Coonan, Noel. Broughan, Thomas P. Costello, Joe. Bruton, Richard. Creighton, Lucinda. Butler, Ray. Deering, Pat. Buttimer, Jerry. Doherty, Regina. Byrne, Catherine. Donohoe, Paschal. Byrne, Eric. Dowds, Robert. Cannon, Ciarán. Doyle, Andrew. Carey, Joe. Durkan, Bernard J. Coffey, Paudie. Farrell, Alan. Collins, Áine. Feighan, Frank. Conaghan, Michael. Ferris, Anne. 69 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

Tá—continued

Fitzpatrick, Peter. Nash, Gerald. Flanagan, Charles. Naughten, Denis. Flanagan, Terence. Neville, Dan. Griffin, Brendan. Nolan, Derek. Hannigan, Dominic. Noonan, Michael. Harris, Simon. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Heydon, Martin. O’Donovan, Patrick. Howlin, Brendan. O’Dowd, Fergus. Humphreys, Heather. O’Mahony, John. O’Reilly, Joe. Humphreys, Kevin. O’Sullivan, Jan. Keaveney, Colm. Penrose, Willie. Kehoe, Paul. Perry, John. Kenny, Seán. Phelan, Ann. Kyne, Seán. Phelan, John Paul. Lawlor, Anthony. Quinn, Ruairí. Lyons, John. Reilly, James. Maloney, Eamonn. Ring, Michael. Mathews, Peter. Ryan, Brendan. McEntee, Shane. Sherlock, Sean. McFadden, Nicky. Spring, Arthur. McHugh, Joe. Stagg, Emmet. McNamara, Michael. Stanton, David. Mitchell, Olivia. Tuffy, Joanna. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Varadkar, Leo. Mulherin, Michelle. Walsh, Brian. Murphy, Dara. White, Alex. Murphy, Eoghan.

Níl

Collins, Joan. McGrath, Michael. Colreavy, Michael. McLellan, Sandra. Cowen, Barry. Moynihan, Michael. Crowe, Seán. Murphy, Catherine. Daly, Clare. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Dooley, Timmy. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Ferris, Martin. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. O’Brien, Jonathan. Fleming, Sean. O’Dea, Willie. Fleming, Tom. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Healy, Seamus. Pringle, Thomas. Higgins, Joe. Ross, Shane. Kelleher, Billy. Smith, Brendan. Kirk, Seamus. Stanley, Brian. Kitt, Michael P. Tóibín, Peadar. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. Troy, Robert. Martin, Micheál. Wallace, Mick. McConalogue, Charlie.

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

Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 39 not moved.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration 70 Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011: 9 June 2011. Committee and Remaining Stages

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

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. We had a very constructive Committee Stage debate and I would like to put that on the record.

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 37.

Tá

Bannon, James. Kenny, Enda. Barry, Tom. Kenny, Seán. Breen, Pat. Kyne, Seán. Broughan, Thomas P. Lawlor, Anthony. Bruton, Richard. Lyons, John. Butler, Ray. Maloney, Eamonn. Buttimer, Jerry. Mathews, Peter. Byrne, Catherine. McEntee, Shane. Byrne, Eric. McFadden, Nicky. Cannon, Ciarán. McHugh, Joe. Carey, Joe. McNamara, Michael. Coffey, Paudie. Mitchell, Olivia. Collins, Áine. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Conaghan, Michael. Mulherin, Michelle. Conlan, Seán. Murphy, Dara. Connaughton, Paul J. Murphy, Eoghan. Nash, Gerald. Coonan, Noel. Naughten, Denis. Costello, Joe. Neville, Dan. Creighton, Lucinda. Nolan, Derek. Deering, Pat. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Doherty, Regina. O’Donovan, Patrick. Donohoe, Paschal. O’Dowd, Fergus. Dowds, Robert. O’Mahony, John. Doyle, Andrew. O’Reilly, Joe. Durkan, Bernard J. O’Sullivan, Jan. Farrell, Alan. Penrose, Willie. Feighan, Frank. Perry, John. Ferris, Anne. Phelan, Ann. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Phelan, John Paul. Flanagan, Charles. Reilly, James. Flanagan, Terence. Ring, Michael. Griffin, Brendan. Ryan, Brendan. Hannigan, Dominic. Sherlock, Sean. Harris, Simon. Spring, Arthur. Heydon, Martin. Stagg, Emmet. Howlin, Brendan. Stanton, David. Humphreys, Heather. Tuffy, Joanna. Humphreys, Kevin. Varadkar, Leo. Keating, Derek. Walsh, Brian. Keaveney, Colm. White, Alex. Kehoe, Paul.

Níl

Collins, Joan. Fleming, Tom. Colreavy, Michael. Healy, Seamus. Cowen, Barry. Higgins, Joe. Crowe, Seán. Kelleher, Billy. Daly, Clare. Kirk, Seamus. Doherty, Pearse. Kitt, Michael P. Dooley, Timmy. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. Ferris, Martin. Martin, Micheál. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. McConalogue, Charlie. Fleming, Sean. McGrath, Michael. 71 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

Níl—continued

McLellan, Sandra. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Moynihan, Michael. Pringle, Thomas. Murphy, Catherine. Ross, Shane. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Smith, Brendan. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Stanley, Brian. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Tóibín, Peadar. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Troy, Robert. O’Brien, Jonathan. Wallace, Mick. O’Dea, Willie.

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

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: This Bill, which is certified to be a money Bill in accordance with Article 22.2.1° of the Constitution, will be sent to the Seanad.

Fair Deal Scheme: Statements Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me the opportunity to address the House on the nursing homes support scheme. I am aware of the anxiety caused to older people and their families by the uncertainty over the scheme. As the House is aware, while the fair deal scheme has been accepting applications in recent weeks, the approval system has been awaiting clarity on the financial situation. I am pleased to announce that the fair deal scheme will begin to process approvals next Monday.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: The HSE will start by giving approval to those applications processed to final stage in recent weeks in the order in which they were received. As of mid-May, 22,277 people were in receipt of State support through the nursing homes support scheme versus 21,421 at the end of 2010. My Department has estimated that the total number of people covered by the scheme by year end should be almost 24,000, a net increase of 1,700 compared with mid-May. This increase will be financed out of a range of identified savings. Before going into further detail, I will give a little background on the scheme. The nursing homes support scheme is a system of financial support for individuals in public, voluntary and approved private nursing homes. The scheme is available to anyone assessed as needing long- term nursing home care, including dementia-specific nursing home care. The legislation under- pinning the scheme enshrines the principles of a resource cap, patient choice and funding that follows the patient. In 2010, the total long-term residential care budget was €979 million. The 2011 budget is €1.011 billion. This budget covers residents who are availing of the fair deal scheme as well as residents covered by various transitional arrangements. The House will know that, in May, I became aware of a potentially serious shortfall in the 2011 budget for the nursing homes support scheme. There appeared to be a number of issues. First, it is clear that the previous Government grossly under-provided for the scheme from a budgetary perspective. Second, it seems that a series of factors, including greater than expected demand, were creating significant financial difficulties for the scheme. Third, preliminary indications suggested that ancillary services, such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and drugs services, which were not intended to be included under the umbrella of the fair deal scheme, were in fact being funded by its subhead or pot of money. 72 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

While it is clear that these services were being provided to residents in nursing homes, this practice had nonetheless contributed to the emerging deficit in the fair deal scheme. In response to this new information, I asked for a full examination of the funding situation by my officials and the HSE. I received the report on this examination last Friday. Before I go into some of the details of the report, I would like to make it clear that the report’s conclusions and forecast are not as definitive as I would have wished. A lack of reliable historical data, combined with a multiplicity of different accounting systems, has made it difficult to drill down into the scheme in the way I would want. Nevertheless, the examination provided enough data for the report to reach a number of conclusions. The report makes it clear that a number of factors are putting pressure on the fair deal budget for 2011. These include an increase in nursing home costs and an unexpected and so far unexplained increase in the average length of stay for nursing home patients, which was two and a half years in 2009 and has now risen to more than four years, resulting in a higher net demand for nursing home places. As a result of these and other factors, the report indicated that the nursing home support scheme, even if there were no net additions to the scheme for the remainder of the year, was likely to face a deficit of €36 million this year. It is also clear that payments from the fair deal subhead have been used to cover ancillary services such as therapies, drugs and medical services. It was initially estimated that the total cost of these ancillary services was approximately €100 million. However, further examination by the HSE has indicated that only €48 million of ancillary costs were billed to the fair deal subhead. To seek to deliver the 1,700 net increase in residents under the scheme for the remainder of this year, other savings and income will be used to support the scheme. Expected savings of up to €30 million will be made in non-service related spending. Long stay in-patient charges, which have not changed since 2008 and should be increased annually, will also be increased so as to realise additional income of some €12 million in a full year. Despite the current economic climate private nursing homes received price increases over the past nine months. The annual cost of these increases is approximately €20 million. In my view, these increases are not sustainable in the current financial situation. I have instructed the National Treatment Purchase Fund to renegotiate the price increases for private nursing home beds, which were negotiated by the private nursing homes last year. This will be done with a view to producing further savings. I must emphasise that these savings have been identified as part of a wider review of the financial position of the health system. As Deputies will be aware, there have been significant overruns in the overall health budget so far this year. I hope to shortly announce details of the actions that will be taken to address this wider financial deficit and to support the HSE in its responsibility to operate within this year’s financial provision. I have already indicated that the examination to date has not been asdefinitive or comprehensive as I, and I am sure Members of this House, would wish. In the short term, I have asked the HSE to put in place additional and more rigorous governance and reporting measures. My officials will closely monitor developments over the remainder of the year. I will also consider whether external auditors should be used to help bring greater clarity to the situation in the future. I am anxious to identify the reason for the unforeseen increase in applications, the increase in the average length of stay in nursing homes and some of the unexpected monthly variations in approvals under the scheme. I am requesting the HSE to undertake a clinical audit on the appropriateness of care and admission. Over the longer term, I am determined that there should be a full review of the fair deal scheme, as outlined in the programme for Government. This review will look at the ongoing sustainability of the scheme, the relative costs of public versus private provision and the balance 73 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

[Deputy James Reilly.] of funding between residential and community care. We must assist as many older people as possible to remain in their homes and communities for as long as possible. More than 95% of older people do stay at home and remain there, which is only right and proper. Regardless of how kind and effective an institution is, people almost always prefer the familiarity and independence of their home. However, it is also vital that the small minority who do end up in long term residential care are able to live in a surrounding that is as comfortable and free from worry as possible. I am acutely aware of the need to plan for an aging population. This is more than a financial challenge. It is a challenge to us as a society to treat our older people with the care and dignity that they so richly deserve. Our goal must be nothing less than to deliver a comprehensive, person-centred service that promotes health, well-being and quality of life.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I welcome the Minister’s statement which sets out the actions he has taken to date with regard to the shortfall of funding in the nursing home support scheme. During Question Time last week I used the word “misappropriation” of funds and was berated by the Minister for so doing. The Minister said it was an extreme word, one that should not be used outside the House. However, the Minister stated in an article in The Irish Times that it was quite possible that other pots of money might have been “pilfered”, which is an equally strong word. Are there concerns in regard to the allocation of money in the context of corporate governance and who made the decisions to transfer money from one subhead to another? That is a serious issue. This matter has caused much anxiety for people who made applications under the fair deal scheme and people who were considering whether they needed long term care. I assume, from the Minister’s statement today, that everyone who makes an application and qualifies under the fair deal scheme will be approved in the months ahead regardless of the number of people who apply. Perhaps the Minister will clarify if that is the case. This is the most important issue for people who are planning for their long term needs in terms of nursing home care. The Minister set out the statistics in relation to the scheme, which highlight the longer duration of stay in nursing homes. This either means people are making a conscious decision to apply for the fair deal scheme because it makes long term care financially viable or that we do not have in place enough supports in the community or by way of home care packages to allow people remain in their homes. As the Minister said, as a Parliament and society we must debate how we are going to address the challenges facing this country in the context of an aging population. This issue also feeds into the debate on pensions. The review due to be published last Friday has not been published. The Minister said the reason for this is that the review was not a full review and as such did not show up the necessary detail in regard to where the money went, on what it was spent and, more important, how he will get this money back in order to fund the fair deal nursing home scheme. When can we expect the final review to be published? Another issue of concern, which I have previously highlighted in the House, is the overlap- ping of corporate governance in the HSE. Currently the HSE board consists of HSE employees who are basically reporting to themselves. Is there a breakdown of communications or even trust between the Minister, Department of Health and Health Service Executive in the context of trying to ascertain the facts of what happened to the funding for the fair deal scheme? Fianna Fáil was supportive of the putting in place of a long term scheme that would remove the pressures being put on families for many years in relation to subventions, applications and whether they would be able to afford long term nursing home care. The fair deal scheme has been a good scheme in that it has removed the uncertainty and has guaranteed people who 74 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements qualify access to nursing home care, be it public, private or voluntary. As borne out by the statistics, the scheme has benefited many thousands of people. As regards Rostrevor nursing home and the issues raised in that regard, the Health Infor- mation and Quality Authority was set up to inspect health and social care facilities. It is important as many inspections as possible are carried out and that the resources in that regard are made available. This includes public, private and voluntary facilities. HIQA should not distinguish between nursing homes be they public, private or voluntary. We must ensure enforcement of the inspection service and that HIQA goes about its business in a thorough manner, as it did in the context of Rostrevor nursing home. Overall, when one considers how this was handled, including the uncertainty created in recent weeks and which still remains, the Minister must give us a cast-iron guarantee today that everybody who applies and qualifies will get approval. When the scheme was suspended, there was no statement from the Minister, the Department or the HSE and the information was extracted by stealth over that weekend and the following week until it was raised in the House and we eventually got a statement from the Minister in that context.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: The Deputy’s party has all the answers. Who under-funded the scheme?

Deputy Paudie Coffey: They should have sorted it out.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: It is very worrying that there was not a clear and concise statement. It shows there was no need to suspend the scheme. If the Minister is now stating in the House that those who had applied and for whom approval was not granted because of the shortfall——

Deputy Paudie Coffey: Give the Minister some credit for sorting out the mess Fianna Fáil created.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: This is important. The Minister is now stating that those who applied for the fair deal nursing home scheme and did not get approval because of the suspension will now seek approval. Therefore, by extension, there was no need to suspend the scheme in the first place.

Deputy James Reilly: That is Fianna Fáil logic all right.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: It is clear the Minister will now provide the funding for——

Deputy Ray Butler: The problem is the amount of money Fianna Fáil left us.

An Ceann Comhairle: Order, please. Allow the Deputy to continue.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: The Minister stated in the House that the trauma and uncertainty all of those people were put through in recent weeks was unnecessary because they will now seek and get approval.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Who created the uncertainty?

Deputy Ray Butler: Who created the trauma?

Deputy Billy Kelleher: It was handled in a ham-fisted way and did not take into account the concerns and anxiety it created for many thousands of people throughout the country. Every Deputy in the House has at this stage received numerous representations——

Deputy Dan Neville: Has the Deputy heard of Mary Harney? 75 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

An Ceann Comhairle: Order, please.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: ——from people who were very concerned because an application was made but approval was not granted. That was clearly unnecessary in the context of what the Minister said in the House today, namely, that they will now be approved in chronological order of application. In my view and that of many others, the way it was handled and the stealthy way it was cancelled for a period prior to any statement coming through was wrong. On the broader issue of the fair deal scheme, it is obvious that if the numbers are as projected, there will be an increase of approximately 1,700 from last year and funding will have to be provided for this, which everybody acknowledges. At the same time, the programme for Government, to which both parties opposite have signed up, states there will be an increase in funding year on year for care for the elderly. This is one of those years but we are seeing no major increase——

Deputy Dan Neville: There has not been a budget.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: There were to be year on year increases. The Government was able to introduce an initiative some weeks ago that was originally a jobs budget but which has now fallen to being a simple jobs initiative.

Deputy Paudie Coffey: The Deputy has a short memory.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I put down a Dáil question to the Minister for Finance, who stated clearly that the incoming Government was aware of all the challenges facing every Department in the context of putting together the programme for Government, and that it was given full and open disclosure of the books and of the difficulties and challenges facing it. To come to the House and suggest the parties opposite may not have known, did not know or were unsure there were challenges in the various Departments is simply unacceptable. The Minister for Finance told me quite clearly in this Chamber in the context of a Dáil question——

Deputy Paudie Coffey: There were certainly challenges after Fianna Fáil left.

A Deputy: It was because of their dishonesty.

Deputy James Reilly: We are talking about savings Fianna Fáil did not make, savings they subscribed to but——

An Ceann Comhairle: Excuse me. The Minister has five minutes to reply. Members should allow Deputy Kelleher to make his statement and the Minister can reply to any inaccuracies made by any Deputy.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: He is spinning.

Deputy James Reilly: There is accuracy and there is fantasy.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Obviously, he will not be referring to any of the inaccuracies I make because I am not making any; I am just making statements of fact.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: He never once mentioned the under-funding.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Buttimer to refrain from interrupting.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: It was clearly stated in a Dáil reply by the Minister for Finance that they were given full and open disclosure of the books in the context of forming the Govern- 76 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements ment. Everybody was aware there were challenges in every Department in the context of funding in the year ahead. Yet, the programme for Government states clearly that, year on year, there will be an increase in provision for care for the elderly. That is simply not truthful because no extra funding is being made available for 2011 — none whatsoever. When will the Minister’s review of the overall fair deal scheme take place? Who will carry out this review given there does not seem to be much trust from the Minister in the HSE given what he stated regarding the review of funding of the nursing home support scheme itself?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I begin by deploring the fact the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, has yet to present himself to answer questions from Deputies in this Chamber on what has been a real crisis in nursing home care.

Deputy James Reilly: I answered oral questions last week.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: He has not at any time presented to answer questions on this matter specifically in the House. These are statements which are taking place today and, despite our appeal on the Order of Business this morning, the Minister is not making himself available for questions, of which there are many. Last week and the week before, he did the same, putting the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, in the front position for the Adjournment debate and for oral questions on this matter. The Minister did not take the questions on the fair deal. With all due respect to the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, the buck does not stop at her desk; it stops at the Minister’s. The Minister has not been shy about speaking to the media in a selective manner about the fair deal crisis but he refuses to make himself fully accountable to the Dáil on the matter. That, I regret to say, is a bad start for a new Minister and a far cry from the openness and accountability he vehemently demanded when he was a particularly effective Opposition voice marking the previous Minister for Health and Children. We had hoped that last week’s ministerial questions would clarify matters but they did not do so. We then had the statement from Mini- ster yesterday that his inquiries into HSE spending on the fair deal scheme are not yet completed. His review that was reported last Friday has not provided the full clarity needed, as he repeated in his contribution today. There should be an elaboration on this aspect in the closing remarks. Meanwhile, hundreds of older people whoshould be in nursing homes are languishing in acute hospital beds. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, could not give us an accur- ate figure last week but it is estimated that approximately 500 older people are inappropriately holding acute beds in a public hospital system that is already stretched to the absolute limit. As of January this year, over 1,600 acute and continuing care public hospital beds are closed, mainly due to cutbacks and staff shortages. Therefore, the knock-on effect of this crisis in the care of older people is very far-reaching, and not just for those people and their families. The longer this situation drags on, the worse the bed shortage in our already over-stretched hospitals will become. Let us hope we are now looking at the prospect of an end to the current crisis. On top of all this, we have the deplorable revelations about the ill-treatment of people in the Rostrevor nursing home in Rathgar. The approval of applications under the fair deal scheme should have resumed by now. It is not justifiable that they were suspended. Instead, we have older people and their families in great distress and gravely concerned about the future. It is the Minister’s job to clear up the confusion and tell us and, more importantly, to tell older people and their families, the full facts and that this is being resolved and will not represent over the remainder of this year. Can he give us those guarantees? 77 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.]

On Wednesday, 18 May, it emerged in the media that the HSE had informed hospitals that funding allocated for the fair deal scheme in 2011 was running out, even though we were only in the fifth month of the year. These reports naturally spread huge concern among older people and their families, including people already availing of the fair deal scheme and those who had applied or would be applying for it. We acknowledge that the positions of those already catered for under the fair deal were not at risk, as the assurances stated. Age Action reported it was inundated with telephone calls from concerned older people as, I am sure, were Deputies across the Chamber. I experienced some such calls, from callers in tears. It was a very difficult time and has not ceased. On 20 May the Minister for Health issued a statement in which he claimed that €100 million in funding for the fair deal scheme had been used for other purposes, specifically ancillary services, including therapies and drugs. The Minister stated there was “tremendous confusion”between the HSE and his Department. Has that confusion been addressed and sorted to his satisfaction? He spoke of “some very strange figures coming through from various parts of the HSE”. Amazingly, he spoke of “confused messaging” and stated that money which belonged to one sub-head had been spent on others. We are speaking here about tens of millions of euro of public money. There was a sigh of relief when the Minister stated the fair deal scheme would recommence approving applications but that relief was short-lived. I, too, contacted the HSE, specifically those involved in the processing of the applications, only to be told that they were not being processed or progressed. I welcome the Minister’s announcement today although some examination of it is required. I hope the announcement will hold up and that from Monday next all new approvals will secure access to nursing home places. I refer to the sequence of events. The HSE was reported as stating it had not yet recommenced approving applications for the fair deal scheme as it was still seeking clarity on the funding issue from the Department of Health. The HSE also stated it was not the case that money was diverted from where it should have been spent, as had been claimed by the Minister. The Minister and the HSE were contradicting one another, feeding into the confusion across the wider public. This is about the vital matter of the care of older people and such confusion is simply not acceptable. There is no question that everything was heading towards a crisis and that is what we have experienced. The pressure on the fair deal scheme in the past year has already led to the situation I described, with increasing numbers of delayed discharges of older people from hospitals. These are older people kept in hospital beds longer than is medically necessary because there are no nursing home places for them to go. Will the Minister take and respond to questions in his summary contribution today? Will applications from some 500 people in acute hospital beds be fast-tracked under a resumed fair deal scheme as of Monday? Will they quickly secure nursing home placements? On 31 May there was the revelation that more than 4,600 people have had their applications for the fair deal scheme processed and are awaiting final approval. Is the Minister in a position to deal with that number of cases? That was the figure only to 31 March. What is the actual number of people waiting for approval of their applications? The Minister also confirmed that when the scheme recommences approving applicants it will be at a slower pace than up to now. Will he consider this statement and clarify it? I pay tribute to Age Action and the organisation Older and Bolder which have constantly raised these issues. I welcome what the Minister announced in the Chamber today and the fact that he has chosen to use the Chamber—— 78 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——to make this announcement because it is an appropriate place for him to do so. I hope this will prove to be the pattern in the future. However, it must be asked why it was necessary to suspend approvals. What was achieved by this other than the creation of real distress among many older people and their supporting families? I note that charges for acute beds in public hospitals are to be increased. That is bad news for patients. However, I welcome the announcement that recently increased fees paid to private nursing homes by the HSE are to be renegotiated. I commend that action. When the legislation providing for the fair deal scheme was on Second Stage I contributed to the debate. I reiterate my party did not support the Bill at that time because we believed it was a move away from universal entitlement, of which the Minister has been an advocate. I do not see now, and did not then, that it is a rights-based scheme. It is not comprehensive in terms of providing the wide range of care older people require and is no substitute for comprehensive, State-provided care for older people, including fully resourced and supported care for people in their homes in the community and, where necessary, in nursing homes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: I wish to share time with Deputies Mick Wallace and Richard Boyd Barrett.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joe Costello): Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: We heard positive news today that the scheme is back on track. However, I have many questions. I would have preferred to have had a question and answer session rather than one in which Members make statements after the Minister’s speech. I gave conditional support to the fair deal scheme when it was introduced because of the absence of sufficient numbers of publicly funded nursing home places and because there were two levels to the subvention scheme. The first of these was inadequate as to cost. The second was rationed where it was focused on higher dependency and very often that posed its own difficulties. That scheme was available during the good years; we all know the economic strait- jacket that exists today. Prior to the introduction of the fair deal scheme many people were in acute hospital beds rather than in nursing homes. “Blocked” beds was a derogatory term that was very hurtful to people who had paid taxes all their lives. We were at risk of repeating that situation for people who had lost their independence but who had paid their taxes throughout the years, hoping services would be there to meet their needs when they became older. When a person is a long- stay patient in an acute bed his or her quality of life is very much reduced. The Minister will understand that point. I have some questions and hope the Minister will be able to answer some of them. He stated he was unhappy with the information and historical data provided. If one designs an information system one does so against the system already in place. That tells me the system now in place is sick. All of us know that a computer system can only sit on the physical system provided. One must re-engineer the processes if one is to have a proper system that can deliver the kind of information which is needed. That must be addressed. I am very concerned by some of the points the Minister made. Will physiotherapy, occupational therapy and other kinds of services be available to people who will now enter nursing homes? Where else might they be provided if not in nursing homes? I may have picked the Minister up wrongly but I believe he stated patients would stay for four years in nursing homes rather than two and a half years. My understanding of the fair deal scheme is that one pays for 79 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

[Deputy Catherine Murphy.] the first three years but not after that period. To me, this comes across as offering a “free year”; that one should not get in unless one is sick. Perhaps he might return to that point because it comes across badly, at least as I understand how it was articulated. When highly dependent people such as those with dementia go into nursing homes — that is what such homes are for — the quality of life of others in such homes can be badly diminished. The mix is important. I completely support the care of people in their own homes. A radical job of work needs to be done to deliver a fair system. The embargo will have to be dealt with in that context. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Deputy Mick Wallace: I am not madly familiar with all of this area. Given that he has not been in the job for very long, it would be a bit premature to shoot the Minister.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: We will wait a few months.

Deputy Mick Wallace: He should be given the benefit of the doubt until he proves to be unworthy of it. I consulted a voluntary group that has done some research in this area and was very interested in what it had to say. I am aware that the programme for Government promised a review of the fair deal system. According to the group I consulted, there is a need to establish absolute legal clarity on the right to nursing home care of a highly vulnerable group of citizens. Equally, there is a need to consider different models for the financing of long-term care, including nursing home care. It is critical that the costs and benefits of those models be assessed. As we attempt to quantify current and future long-term care needs and costs, the key issue is not to identify the size of the older population, but to identify current and future disability and dependency levels within that population. A clear agreed understanding of what constitutes long-term care should be developed. I agree there is a need to establish absolute legal clarity on the right to nursing home care. The Ombudsman has been involved in a dispute in that regard. The 2009 nursing home support scheme is now deemed to supersede the provisions of the Health Act 1970, which obliged the State to provide for nursing home care. I have read that 95% of elderly people are cared for at home rather than in nursing homes. I assume that figure is correct. If so, it is brilliant. There is a fear that the 5% figure will increase in the years to come. The role of the extended family is probably decreasing, rather than increasing. The notion that grandparents should live with their children and grandchildren is not as popular as it was. It is probable that fewer people are available to look after our older people. I have been struck by the difference between the attitude to older people in Ireland and Italy, a country with which I am pretty familiar. I have watched older people in places like Turin. I am pretty familiar with a small village of 3,000 people in Piemonte. I have seen older people gathering together in such places. There seems to be more respect for older people in Italy. Rather than being seen as surplus to requirements, they are valued as people who are worthy of respect, having been there and done that. We have a lot to learn from other cultures. I cannot help feeling this country has probably been too Americanised in the past 15 or 20 years. Older people are not getting the respect they are due. Any Government should be well judged on how it looks after the most vulnerable people in society. This Government should be judged in those terms. I am not accusing it of anything, as it is only getting started. It is important that the Government treats older people with more respect than we have seen over the past 20 years.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joe Costello): I call Deputy Boyd Barrett. There are two minutes remaining in this slot.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Deputy Wallace robbed some of my time. 80 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

Deputy Mick Wallace: It is about time someone did so.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: The Deputy is right. Like him, I think it is too early to lay the blame for the crisis in the provision of nursing home places at the Minister’s door. It is a bit rich for members of the previous Government to be giving out about this crisis, frankly, given that it is clearly a legacy of their policy failures.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: This is the first time Deputy Boyd Barrett has made sense.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: It is obviously welcome that the Minister, Deputy Reilly, has come before the Dáil to try to explain this. I am pleased that the immediate crisis, at least, is over. Can the Minister assure us that the 500 people in acute hospital beds whose applications have been approved will get the places they need and deserve as a matter of urgency? Can he ensure the 4,500 outstanding applications will be processed quickly? Will the needs of those people be met as a matter of urgency? This issue raises serious questions about the provision of long-stay residential care to the elderly in nursing homes. I am critical of the Minister in the sense that it is unacceptable, frankly, that one of the consequences of the manner in which this crisis has been dealt with is that long-stay inpatient charges will have to be increased. If I understand it correctly, an extra charge will be imposed on patients. It is not clear how much this unacceptable increase will be. The Minister has said it will have to raise €12 million. We need clarity on where the rest of the money to make up the shortfall will come from. Will it affect other areas of service? I refer specifically to the provision of the physiotherapy and occupational therapy services needed by people in nursing homes. I will conclude by referring to the review of the whole thing. Many of the Minister’s statements have emphasised the fact that the private nursing home sector is cheaper than the public nursing home sector. However, this report informs us that part of the problem is that prices in the public sector are increasing. When one considers the horror of the Rostrevor 5o’clock House nursing home in Rathgar and cases like Leas Cross, perhaps one will understand why the private sector is sometimes cheaper. It seems that some nursing homes in the private sector are not providing the level of care they should to the elderly. The Minister should review the idea that the private sector offers a simple answer to this problem. The private sector is cheaper in many cases because it often does not provide the same level of care. In addition, the public sector has to take patients with higher levels of dependency. We need proper and fair funding of proper nursing home care of the elderly.

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): I thank everyone who has spoken during the debate on this issue. I agree with what Deputy Boyd Barrett said about the Fianna Fáil contribution to the debate, which was a bit rich. The stuff we heard today is about the only rich thing Fianna Fáil has left us. I remind Deputy Kelleher that this was not a “review” and was never referred to as such. It was always referred to as an “examination”. The proper and full review referred to in the programme for Government will take place in 2012, which is next year. The examination will continue until we have absolute clarity. I repeat that I am not happy that we have absolute clarity. I alluded to that in my opening statement. We have to deal with this exemplar of what is wrong in the HSE. The financial systems make it difficult to find out where decisions are made, where money is spent and how it is spent. We cannot have a scenario where a subhead, or a pot of money dedicated to one issue, can be used for other issues. The whole thing becomes completely confusing if pots are used in that way. Confusion is not the friend of clarity and it is certainly not the friend of good accounting. This matter will continue to be examined until I have absolute clarity. 81 Fair Deal Scheme: 9 June 2011. Statements

[Deputy James Reilly.]

I have to point out that this mess occurred because the previous Government underfunded the scheme. To suggest that the new executive board of the HSE could be culpable, when all of this predates its first meeting, is utterly ridiculous.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I did not suggest they were culpable.

Deputy James Reilly: I utterly reject Deputy Kelleher’s suggestion that it was not necessary to suspend approvals until there was clarity with regard to the funding. It would have been utterly irresponsible to do anything else. Clearly, Deputy Kelleher did not listen when he made his assertion that there is no increased provision for older people. I have already made it clear that there will be 1,700 places additional to the ones that were available at the time in May last. On Deputy Ó Caoláin’s assertion that I did would not answer questions, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch has responsibility for this area and is entitled to take questions on it. However, there were non-priority oral questions and I answered some of them. I am not afraid to answer questions. Indeed, I spent a full “Prime Time” programme answering questions on this and carers.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: As the Minister will be aware, the House is where he must answer them.

Deputy James Reilly: That is why I am making this statement here. I can inform the Deputy that anybody who has been on “Prime Time” on a one-on-one interview knows that one will be asked the difficult questions and one must be able to answer them. In so far as I can with the information available, I answered the questions. I do not run away from that responsibility. As I stated, I am not satisfied that we have total clarity. I stated that approvals would recommence, and they will. Delayed discharge is of considerable concern to me and to many people. Apart from the discomfort it causes families and the worry and concern about the whereabouts in which their loved one might find themselves, it is equally unkind to patients who must lie in those bed, often not getting ancillary services that would make their quality of life better. To answer Deputy Ó Caoláin’s question and the one raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett——

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joe Costello): The Minister has one minute.

Deputy James Reilly: ——those 500 patients who are currently described as delayed discharges will receive approval and will be prioritised. Universal health insurance is a goal of the Government. Free general practitioner care for all will be delivered in this term of Government and much of what needs to be done to deliver universal health insurance at the end of five years will have taken place, but it will take a second term to be fully established. Deputy Catherine Murphy and others mentioned the issue of physiotherapy. Those who have medical cards still get their physiotherapy but these ancillary services should not be paid for out of a fair deal subhead or pot of money that was designated for accommodation only. The Deputy had a concern about the two and a half years now becoming over four years. No matter how excellent nursing home care has been, it could not cause an increase in longevity of that nature in one and a half years. There is something else afoot. What I am suggesting 82 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions here, and will examine, as I stated in my opening statement, is a further evaluation of the assessment tool. If there is variation, both in terms of geography and in terms of the sort of patients that are being recommended for nursing home care, I want to check that it is appropriate to their need and that they are not ending up in long-term institutional care before they need to be there. As I stated earlier, people are quite entitled to stay, and should be supported, in their homes, which is where most people want to be. Deputy Wallace raised the issue of eligibility. It must be worked on and clarified by my Department. There is a host of issues in that regard, not only in this regard but in regards to medical cards etc. I agree that society should be judged on how we look after the most vulnerable and I believe that the Government will not be found wanting in that regard. There was an assertion that we see private nursing homes as the solution to our problem. We do not. We acknowledge the good work they do in the main, and that 11,600 people are cared for in private nursing homes in this country at a cost of €300 million versus 11,000 — 600 fewer — at a cost of €700 million in the public sector. There are ancillary costs included therein but when one strips all of them out, it is still 50% more expensive to care for the elderly in the public sector. Part of our valuation and examination will also include assessing the degree of disability among patients to see if there is a difference in the dependency level between the public and private sectors, or what other factors might be involved. I thank everybody who took part in the debate. I reassure older people and their families that the scheme will recommence approvals on Monday and we will keep the matter under constant review.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joe Costello): That concludes statements on the fair deal scheme.

Ceisteanna — Questions

Priority Questions

————

Proposed Legislation 1. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he had discussions on the Duffy/Walsh report on reforming the wage setting mechanism; if he has agreed a common approach; when he intends to introduce and implement legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14986/11]

5. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the number of families and persons his proposals for the reform of the joint labour commissions and registered employment agreements will push into poverty as defined in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016; the number of new jobs that will be created; if these new jobs will be outside or inside the definition of poverty as defined; and the savings, if any, that will accrue to the State. [14998/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 5 together. On 24 May last, the Government decided to publish the Report of the Independent Review of Employment Regulation Orders and Registered Employment Agreement Wage Setting Mechanisms. The report’s overall finding is that the basic framework of the current JLC-REA regulatory system requires radical overhaul so as to make it fairer and more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions. The report of the independent 83 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] review does not recommend, nor have I proposed, specific adjustments in wage rates for the sectors covered by JLCs and REAs. The proposal by the Government to retain the joint labour committee structure, along with the restoration of the recent cut in the rate of national minimum wage, together represents a significant commitment by the Government to low paid and vulnerable workers in the economy. Of course, the most vulnerable workers are those who have just lost, or are just about to lose, a job. We have a duty of care to protect existing employment in enterprises that are hanging by a thread and to incentivise employers to take on new workers where possible. Ultimately, the best way out of poverty for any individual is to have a job. The report states that there are potentially substantial competitive gains that could be realised in some of the affected sectors by reforming the structure of decision-making in JLCs so that the system is more flexible and responsive to the needs of particular sectors. Competitiveness can also be enhanced by simplifying the system in a way that reduces the burden of supervision and compliance and by providing a degree of co-ordination and oversight over the system that ensures that arrangements across sectors are reasonable and proportionate. Accordingly, the JLC system must be made more responsive and become more fit for purpose in the context of a modern economy. The benefits of retaining these sectoral wage-setting mechanisms cannot be outweighed by economic and competitiveness penalties incurred as a consequence of a lack of responsiveness, coherence and precision in both EROs and REAs. The report underlines these deficiencies once again and it is now time to signal that decisive action will be taken to remove them. The sectors and occupations where the greatest job losses have occurred in the economy generally coincide with the sectors where the minimum wage and sectoral agreements are most prevalent. In the past three years, there has been a 60% loss of employment in construction and 15% in the retail and wholesale sectors. While demand in these sectors is clearly a key factor, labour costs represent a relatively high proportion of total costs in these locally traded sectors. The sectors which are hardest hit by the economic collapse are particularly labour intensive, and the impact is badly felt by workers. Too often employers have chosen to let workers go instead of looking at other options. Retail, hotel and catering have seen a 20% loss in employment in the past three years. The Government believes tourism is a real opportunity, and we must be competitive with our neighbours. If we can find a way of increasing economic activity in these labour-intensive sectors, there is a large group of people who can immediately be brought back into employment. Action that we take in these areas can have an immediate impact on dole queues, and that is why we are prioritising it. I am, therefore, anxious to pursue the agenda for radical reform in this sector as a matter of urgency. To this end, I have set out an outline of my proposals for that agenda to the social partners, and these have already been the subject of discussion with the Construction Industry Federation, IBEC and ICTU. I have also heard the views of other employer bodies and groups representing vulnerable categories of workers, including migrant workers. In accordance with the terms of the EU-IMF programme, discussions have also taken place with representatives of the troika. It is my intention to complete discussions with relevant parties in the coming days with a view to submitting a final action plan for consideration by Government before the end of the month. The detailed plan will seek to implement far-reaching reforms of the current system, including making any legislative changes that may be necessary. 84 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Despite all the information he gave, he omitted one small item of information in which I am particularly interested, namely, when the legislation will be introduced into the House for implementation. The Minister is constantly making the point that this is vital to stem the haemorrhage of job losses in the sectors covered by joint labour committees, JLCs. If this is the case then why the lack of urgency with the legislation? Apparently, the Minister cannot inform us when approximately the legislation will appear. It is part of the Minister’s proposals that the scope of employment regulation orders should be limited to regulating pay and conditions for those on adult basic rates. Does he realise this will leave the rates for more experienced or skilled employees to be agreed between employers and employees at firm level? Does the Minister not agree that this will put an irresistibly downward pressure on wage rates in this sector?

Deputy Richard Bruton: The legislation will be introduced at the earliest stage. First, we must get a decision of Government and we hope to go to Government on 21 June. As the Deputy is aware, we have the shell of legislation prepared by the Deputy’s Government previously. Part of the legislation is drafted. We hope this will help us to minimise the delay and the Parliamentary Counsel’s time and that we can move swiftly to implement it. Several factors are at play and I cannot give precise predictions on the timing but it is my determination to do this as rapidly as possible. The review recommends that consideration should be given to confining the JLC rates to the basic adult rate. One of the recommendations put forward by our proposals is to implement what the review has raised as an issue for consideration. The reason for it is that in some sectors there are 25 different rates which must be recorded and accounted for separately. The review raised the point that this is too cumbersome and ought to be reformed. This is why the proposal is on the agenda and part of the ongoing discussions.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: In an earlier debate the Minister, Deputy Noonan, stated in jovial form that one of his colleagues had to bring his payslip with him to the local bar in his pocket to prove to the people in the pub that he was struggling himself. I realise the statement was made in humour but it is important to note that the average Deputy’s wage at the moment is nine times the average JLC wage. Roughly 300,000 people work under JLC agreements and they receive on average €18,000 per year in pay. That is a low wage. It is half the average industrial wage, nine times less than the average Deputy’s wage and approximately 12 times less than the average Minister’s wage at the moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Can we have a question Deputy?

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: There is a question. Several individuals will be pushed into poverty. Standards and criteria exist under which one judges what constitutes poverty. The question asked how many people will be pushed into poverty on this issue. I have not heard the answer to the question and I call on the Minister to address it.

Deputy Richard Bruton: There is no proposal to cut any specific rate of pay. As the Deputy is aware, the Duffy report did not recommend reducing JLC rates to the national minimum wage although it was one of the issues considered, nor has this been included in the proposals. All the assessments of the impact of poverty indicate that the greatest source of poverty is the loss of a job. Persons who are unemployed are at risk of being in serious poverty at a level ten times greater than a person in employment by all tests. The motivation is to reduce the number of people who are becoming unemployed and to increase the number going back to work. All the poverty analysis indicates that this is the best way. 85 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

These sectors have been subject to a great degree of attrition in employment. They are also sectors in which we hope to build opportunities under the Government’s initiatives for tourism. However, the businesses must be capable of responding to the opportunity. This is why we believe and the authors of the report believe that we must reform the system so that those employment opportunities can be seized.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: In reply to Deputy Tóibín, the Minister stated that the purpose of his reforms were twofold: to enable employers to create more jobs in these particular sectors and to prevent further job losses. The Minister stated in the public domain last weekend that this would apply only to new people, not to existing workers and that existing workers were already protected by contractual rights, legislation and the devil knows what else. If there is to be no change to those currently employed under JLC arrangements how will this assist in preventing job losses in these sectors? There will be no change. How will the reforms prevent further job losses?

Deputy Richard Bruton: For example, if we change the rule whereby a bar that offers food need not apply a premium, it could represent an opportunity for a business to protect part of its trade. If an employer can generate more business through the flexibility this generates, he or she can respond and protect employment. Many businesses are under severe pressure in these sectors. Let us not forget that we apply the rules in 25% of the retail sector. These arrangements are applied in some sectors but not in vast swathes. The issue of Sunday working has been raised as controversial. There is protection in the organisation of working time legislation for people in respect of Sunday working. One need not be part of a JLC arrangement to have protection under the law. This flexibility allow employers to have a better cost base and to seize opportunities. Clearly, this protects employment.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: The flexibility will not apply to existing employees.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: To implement something such as this there must be two criteria: it must create jobs and it must not push people into poverty. There are some 100,000 working poor in the State. Having a job in itself provides no insulation against poverty. Models exist within the Department of Finance into which Ministers, such as Deputy Bruton, can input figures which give readings of what job creation is to be expected. If the Minister intends to proceed with the policy outlined, how many jobs will be created? How many people will be pushed into poverty? The systems are in place for the Minister to analyse that much.

Deputy Richard Bruton: The view is linked to the impact on reducing the average wages of people already in work. I admit that although they are protected by existing contracts there may be reductions over time. That is significantly outweighed by the employment opportunity created by getting people back to work. I quoted the figure that a person is ten times more likely to be in poverty if he or she is out of work rather than working. That is a significant benefit. We do not have a model to predict accurately the impact of the changes. The changes cannot be computed by models which simply bring a rate down or up such as the minimum wage rate. Those changes have been analysed by these models but that is not what is being proposed. It is proposed to make some changes in respect of Sunday premiums, to standardise these over time, to look at excessive compliance costs in place and to create a more flexible model to respond to opportunities. There is no detailed model in my Department or any other Depart- ment that can predict the impact of these. 86 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions

Enterprise Support Services 2. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he has a State wide policy for small business; if he has developed a State wide comprehensive entrepreneurial development programme; and if the necessary funding is in place until the end of this year to meet the grant funding demands of viable start-up businesses. [14997/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy John Perry): I thank Deputy Tóibín for raising this important question. Small and medium enterprises are central to our economy. My appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for small business is confirmation of the Government’s commitment to this sector. The programme for Government outlines several measures which the Government will take to assist small and medium enterprises with a view to maximising their potential in the context of economic recovery. These measures build on the existing enterprise supports available to small business. Support nationally and locally for micro-enterprises, small businesses and new start-ups is provided by my Department through the wide range of assistance offered by the County and City Enterprise Boards, CEBs, and Enterprise Ireland. The role of the County and City Enterprise Boards is to provide support for micro-enterprises in the start-up and expansion phases, to promote and develop indigenous micro-enterprise potential and to stimulate economic activity and entrepreneurship at local level. The CEBs deliver a range of tailored programmes and supports to fulfil this role. CEBs are required to give priority to enterprises in the manufacturing or internationally traded services sector which, over time, may develop into strong export entities and graduate to the Enterprise Ireland portfolio. This is done through the provision both of financial assistance in the form of grants and non-financial assistance in the form of business advice, training and mentoring. The Exchequer allocation for the county enterprise boards in 2011 amounts to €27.242 million, of which €15 million is available for direct grants and training, mentoring and advice services to micro-enterprise clients. This represents a strong investment in the micro-enterprise sector. Beyond the micro-enterprise sector, Enterprise Ireland operates a range of enterprise supports which provide participants with the business skills, contacts, mentoring and support potentially to transform their innovative ideas or technologies into exporting businesses. Under the auspices of Enterprise Ireland, the Government has also invested significantly in the broader environment for business start-ups, including investment in incubators, seed and venture funds, angel networks and mentors. More than 90% of Enterprise Ireland’s company clients are small and medium-sized enterprises. Enterprise Ireland works with companies to strengthen their business plans, build their leadership and management capability, connect them for opportunities with overseas buyers and researchers, and provide them with access to finance. Additional information not given on the floor of the House. Funding of more than €213 million is available to Enterprise Ireland in 2011 from my Depart- ment’s Vote to support companies, including through research and development grants and collaboration with third level institutions. The allocations both to the county enterprise boards and Enterprise Ireland are very significant, especially in the context of the pressures on the public finances. It is a matter for each agency to determine how they will respond to client demand and allocate funding to clients during the year. In addition to these agency supports,the Government is developing a temporary targeted partial credit guarantee scheme and a micro-finance fund, both of which will be designed to help viable businesses at start-up and expansion stages. Other measures, such as the halving of 87 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy John Perry.] employers’ PRSI costs for employees earning less than €356 per week and the announced reduction in the 13.5% VAT rate to 9% are designed both to assist small and medium-sized enterprises and to stimulate consumer spending.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: Through my engagement with enterprise stakeholders throughout the State in recent months I have seen the fear among them that the Government may not have bought into the idea of entrepreneurship and that policy is not being generated around the needs of entrepreneurs. There is also concern regarding the transfer of enterprise responsibilities from Údarás na Gaeltachta, for example, to Enterprise Ireland, which will dilute the focus on jobs going into places like Carna, Gweedore and Dún Chaoin. It is difficult enough to get Enterprise Ireland to create jobs in Meath, never mind these more peripheral parts of the State. I accept there is a comprehensive structure in place in terms of assisting enterprise. However, in my county, for instance, there are no funds remaining for feasibility study grants for people who want to set up businesses. The money for the year is gone and it is only June. Does the Government have a plan to facilitate the needs of entrepreneurs? There is €100,000 in grant applications in the pipeline, which equates to approximately 20 jobs, all awaiting funding allocation.

Deputy John Perry: The Government certainly acknowledges the importance of entrepreneurship, as indicated by my appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for small business. We fully recognise and support the role of the 250,000 small companies in the State which employ 700,000 people. The Government is devising a clear and direct plan for small enterprises which will work with third level colleges and will recognise and support talent. A focused plan will be agreed by Government in the coming weeks which will directly benefit and support small businesses, sole traders and companies employing one or two people. The main task of this Government is to kick-start the domestic economy, and we fully recognise the role of small companies and entrepreneurs in that regard. I will deal with the allocation of funding in my response to a later question, but it is about ensuring value for money for the supports we provide. County enterprise boards have been very effective in terms of supporting and recognising incubation facilities at third level colleges and so on. The Government’s plan fully recognises the role of entrepreneurship in kick-starting the economy.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: On a related topic, I received a letter from the Office of the Ceann Comhairle during the week informing me that two questions of mine had been disallowed. These questions related to certain pre-election promises of the parties of Government and whether they would be implemented. The letter stated, “The Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for these matters.” As a person with a mandate to represent the people of Meath West, I am entitled to ask questions of a Government which ten weeks ago made promises with regard to investment in enterprise. It is a serious indictment of the Dáil system that these questions cannot be put to the relevant Ministers.

Deputy John Perry: The incentives for employers introduced by the Ministers, Deputies Bruton and Noonan, represents the first down payment in the Government’s jobs initiative. We are not yet 100 days in government but we have made clear our intention to fulfil the undertaking we gave in the election to deliver to local enterprise, to create hubs where people can avail of support and benefits. We will devise a clear plan for every county and region in regard to both micro enterprises and larger companies which employ more than ten people. It is disingenuous of the Deputy to claim we have failed to deliver in this regard. Unlike the previous Administration, we have an understanding, concern and respect for small companies 88 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions and will produce a detailed strategy for connecting with and supporting people who have talent and entrepreneurial skill.

Employment Rights 3. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will introduce legislation to compel all employers to recognise the right of the trade unions to negotiate on behalf of their members and the right for all individual employees to join a trade union. [14989/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: There are no proposals in the Government’s legislative programme that would require an employer to recognise a trade union or compel an employer to engage in collective bargaining with a union. While Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to form associations and unions, it has been established in a number of legal cases that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association does not guarantee workers the right to have their union recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to ensure that Irish law on employees’ rights to engage in collective bargaining is consistent with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This process will require consultation with stakeholders, including employer and worker representatives, and a review of the operation of the existing legislative framework as put in place under the Industrial Relations Acts 2001 and 2004 and the consequences of the litigation that has arisen in the course of the operation of those Acts.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: That was something of a non-answer. Union recognition by employers is a basic issue of democracy and the right to representation. Does the Minister agree, where employees come together for the purpose of securing their interests and protecting their conditions and are of the view that those rights are best served by being members of a trade union and selecting their own representatives to negotiate on their behalf, that they have the right to do so and that employers should respect that right? Does he agree that employers should negotiate with workers on that basis rather than do as some employers, such as Mr. O’Leary at Ryanair, have done, namely, to deny and subvert that right and to make their employees’ lives a misery for seeking to assert their right to trade union representation? Should a Government which claims to care about ordinary working people and the vulnerable in society — if its deeds are to match its words — not ensure such a basic right for workers?

Deputy Richard Bruton: As I outlined in my answer, the Constitution recognises the right to join a union and to select representatives, but it does not oblige employers to recognise trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. That is the law as it stands and it remains the law. The issue of collective bargaining and what happens where employers refuse to recognise unions has long been a contentious issue. As I understand it — and I am not an expert in this field — the industrial relations legislation introduced between 2001 and 2004 sought to introduce a system to deal with that. It was a negotiated solution between the two sides. Where a dispute had arisen and where the employer does not recognise the union, it allowed that the matter should go to the Labour Court for an adjudication. That is the system that has been developed under our voluntary industrial relations system. Some judgments have thrown doubt on that system and as I indicated in the initial reply, there will be discussions in this regard, as well on the issue raised by the European Court of Human Rights, which concerned the victimisation of individuals because they had joined trade unions. Consequently, the Government must ensure that Ireland’s law is in conformity in this regard. 89 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: The Minister’s response appears to be that the Constitution does not require mandatory recognition of unions but nor does it prohibit it. The question is what will the Government do and not what the Constitution states. While the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, he has adverted to the existence of union-busting employers. When such employers hear that employees of theirs are getting organised in trade unions, they sack them. They get rid of them and make life unbearable for them, which is unacceptable. The way to deal with this is for the Government simply to introduce legislation whereby in the case of workers who choose to join and be represented by a trade union, their employer is required to negotiate with them and not to victimise them. Why can the Government not introduce such legislation and why must it defer to Europe or anywhere else? It should simply bring in the legislation to give people the basic democratic right to be represented by those they elect to represent them.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I indicated in my first reply that no proposals exist in the Govern- ment’s legislative programme that would require such recognition by an employer of a trade union or to compel employers to engage in collective bargaining. As the Deputy is aware, this is a highly contentious issue and many companies that provide extraordinarily good employment do not recognise unions. This issue will not be decided by legislative fiat by the Govern- ment. The model that has been used in the past has been that where there is agreement between the two sides to develop proposals, they have been developed and have been enshrined into conventions and law but we have operated a voluntary system. The programme for Govern- ment has signalled that where there are flaws within the system that have been exposed by recent cases, the Government will move to correct them but again, this will be within a model of meeting and hearing the views of both sides.

Copyright Protection 4. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will respond to the High Court decision of 11 November 2010 (details supplied) concerning illegal copyright downloading. [14987/11]

Minister of State at the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Education and Skills (Deputy Sean Sherlock): In the EMI v. UPC High Court judgment of 11 October 2010, Mr. Justice Charleton decided that he was constrained by the wording of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and could not grant an injunction in respect of infringement of copyright against an information service provider, ISP, in the circumstances of “mere conduit”. Accordingly, he stated that Ireland was in breach of its EU obligations in that respect. “Mere conduit” provides that if an information service provider does not initiate a transmission or modify the material contained in a transmission and does not select the receiver of the transmission, it is granted a “safe harbour” against liability by virtue of the e-commerce directive. However, this does not affect the power of the courts to require service providers to terminate or prevent copyright infringements. Two EU directives, namely, the copyright directive of 2001 and the enforcement directive of 2004 specifically require that the holders of copyright, authors, music composers, lyricists, record producers, etc., are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right. My Department had considered that injunctions were already available under section 40(4) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act and the inherent power of the courts to grant injunctions, which are equitable and discretionary remedies, granted according to settled principles, developed by the courts. However, this was not the court’s view in the case. 90 Priority 9 June 2011. Questions

Having examined the High Court judgement referred to, which was extremely long and complex, the Deputy will be aware that my Department sought the advice of the then Attorney General as to the implications of the judgment and any legislative changes which might be required arising from it. In furnishing his advice on the issues raised, the Attorney General indicated it would be prudent to consult both with his office and with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources with regard to any implementing measures arising from the ruling concerned to ensure that any such measures do not impose any unnecessarily onerous obligations on the Internet service providers. Accordingly, my Department has been in consultations with both the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources as to the terms of any legislative instrument which should be made in this area and I expect to consult interested parties to the case very soon about proposed action in this respect. It is important to note that my Department does not propose to introduce a “three strikes” regime for disconnection from the Internet, as has been introduced by France and the United Kingdom, but simply proposes to provide explicitly for injunctions to be granted, as obligated by the two EU directives I mentioned earlier. Additional information not provided on the floor of the House. All other member states of the European Union would have powers to grant such injunctions enshrined in their domestic legislation by virtue of their transposition of the aforementioned two directives.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I greatly welcome the Minister of State’s reply. First, I must apologise as the question stated the judgment was given on 11 November 2010 rather than on 11 October 2010. Basically, this matter arose during the regime of the previous Government and when Mr. Justice Charleton handed down in that decision last October, representations were made to the then Minister, Mr. Batt O’Keeffe, but unfortunately other events appear to have overtaken the matter. However, the urgency of this issue has not lessened and, in fact, has grown. As the Minister of State is aware, Xtravision has been placed in administration since this topic was first raised and part of the problem arises from the issue to which I refer. While I take the Minister of State’s point about the “three strikes” legislation adopted in France being somewhat harsh, he has acknowledged the reasoning behind the High Court judgment, which is that the directives have not been properly transposed and that as Irish law stands at present, people cannot seek injunctive relief against the service provider. As I understand it, the Minister of State has stated that legislation will be prepared to allow people to seek such injunctive relief. Can he provide an indication as to how long this will take?

Deputy Sean Sherlock: As I have stated, a consultation process is ongoing. As Minister, I have just come to this issue, although as it happened I had taken an interest in the matter when the judgment was issued. I have consulted officials in my Department and, as Minister, I have signalled today that the Government must make progress on this matter. I am not in a position to provide a definitive timeline to the Deputy at this juncture but, as he stated, there is a clear and urgent need to engage on this issue and to ensure the directives are properly transposed. I will revert to the Deputy. While I am not obfuscating on the answer, given it was a 70-page judgment and is a quite complex area, I ask that I may revert to the Deputy within a week, when some indicative timelines could be available.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I appreciate the Minister of State’s response.

Question No. 5 answered with Question No. 1. 91 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

Other Questions

————

Employment Rights 6. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the way he envisages the local collective agreement alternative to joint labour committees will operate in practice; his definition of collective agreement; if he intends to enshrine this definition in law; his views on who might be competent on the employee side to reach such an agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14632/11]

30. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to implement the commitment in the Programme for Government to bring the law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining into line with recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights; his plans to introduce this change alongside his proposals to change the joint labour committee process; his views on the implications of his proposals to change the JLC process; his views on his proposals for the existing collective bargaining process; the implications of the Duffy/Walsh proposals, if adopted, for the collective bargaining process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14633/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 30 together. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to ensure that Irish law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining is consistent with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This process will require consultation with stakeholders, including employer and worker representatives, and a review of the experience of the operation of the existing legislative framework as put in place under the Industrial Relations Acts of 2001 and 2004 and the consequences of the litigation that has arisen in the course of the operation of these Acts. The report of the independent review of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreement wage setting mechanisms noted that the principle that the JLC system should only operate where, for whatever reason, collective bargaining does not take place already is recognised by the provision at section 46 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. This section provides that the Labour Court may exclude from the scope of a JLC an employment to which a registered employment agreement, REA, applies. This provision has been availed of by a number of enterprises in recent years, especially in the mushroom growing sector. However, under existing legislation, such exclusion can only apply where the remuneration and conditions of employment provided for by the REA are not less favourable than those provided for by the relevant employment regulation order, ERO. The review concluded that this qualification limits the capacity of parties to conclude agreements which may be more suited to the circumstances of individual employments but which may be regarded as less favourable than the ERO in some particulars. In this context, the report recommended that the legislation be amended to provide that the court may exclude an undertaking from the scope of a JLC through a collective agreement, negotiated at enterprise, group or sub-sector level, that is registered with the Labour Court. I endorse the review’s acknowledgment of the primacy of collective bargaining. How this recommendation can be progressed will, like other recommendations in the report, be considered in the context of the action plan for the implementation of all proposals dealt with in the report as well as other issues raised by the report which I intend to bring to Government shortly. 92 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Willie O’Dea: As the Minister has said, the JLC system was put in place to cover situations where collective bargaining was not possible for one reason or another, for example, in areas where there was no union representation. How does the Minister envisage a system will work if JLCs are replaced with this principle of collective bargaining? Who will be doing the bargaining on behalf of the workers? How will that be determined and who will decide whether the workers are properly represented and whether this is proper collective bargaining? I note a commitment in the programme for Government to reform the current law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining which is at present contained in the Indus- trial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Will the Minister give an indication what this means? What is his understanding of the conclusions reached by the European Court of Human Rights on the meaning of the term “collective bargaining”?

Deputy Richard Bruton: On the first question, the present system already allows a registered employment agreement to replace a JLC. The form of collective bargaining envisaged is clearly a trade union bargaining with employers. This is the current definition. The issue of whether that would go further is contentious and on which there are different views between the social partners. It will require to be considered when drafting final proposals. As Deputy O’Dea rightly remarked, many of the JLCs are in areas where either employer recognition of unions is low or trade union organisation is low, but it is not a case of straightforward agreement and it will require a bit of thought before we reach a conclusion. The compliance with the European Court of Human Rights judgment arose out of a judgment in the United Kingdom where, to paraphrase, a court judged that employers were giving priority to people who were not members of a trade union and in certain circumstances were deemed to have been victimising those who opted to join a trade union. The court found that the British law in that case was in contravention of human rights. The issue has arisen to proof our legislation against any similar frailty. This is my understanding of the matter.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I understand the point the Minister is making. It would appear to me that the judgments to which he refers and in accordance with which he intends to change Irish law mean that collective bargaining will henceforth be defined as representation by an official trade union.

Deputy Richard Bruton: There is no such proposal. This change in respect of the ILO refers to a very narrow set of circumstances which involved victimisation of workers. It is not reversing the entire edifice of existing Irish law; this is a fairly narrow flaw which was exposed. There needs to be consultation to ensure our legislation is not equally frail on that subject.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: The Minister could be forgiven for not reading that in the programme for Government.

European Space Programme 7. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he is committing any funding to the European Space Programme; and the cost of such funding to the State per year since such funding commenced. [14246/11]

Deputy Sean Sherlock: A table outlining the expenditure since 1975 is available with this reply. Ireland became a member of the European Space Agency in 1975. The purpose of Ireland’s membership of the ESA is to participate in the European space programme, thereby facilitating innovative Irish companies to develop leading edge space technologies and to com- 93 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Sean Sherlock.] mercially exploit their ESA participation. A total of €14.029 million has been committed in 2011 in respect of Ireland’s subscription to the European space programme. The focus of the Irish ESA industrial strategy is to build scale in participating Irish companies by supporting technology and product development that can be exploited in both the commercial space and other non-space markets. Ireland’s ESA membership has contributed to the development of a highly knowledge-intensive industry sector with in excess of 70 Irish technology companies having secured ESA contracts since 2000. ESA participation has a demonstrated direct effect on the participating companies’ ability to generate commercial export sales in the supply of products in the commercial space and non-space market. An analysis of Ireland’s ESA membership in 2008 concluded that Irish ESA contractors generated a total turnover of €136 million in 2007. A recent survey by Enterprise Ireland of the top 19 Irish companies representing over 60% of activities in the space sector projects an increased growth in ESA-derived sales from €35 million in 2010 to €96 million by 2014. Employment in these companies is projected to almost double from 865 in 2008 to more than 1,600 in 2014 and 65% of these jobs are at graduate and postgraduate level. Irish Public Spending on ESA Space Programmes 1977-2010

Year MAU* Year MAU* Year M€

1977 0.16 1989 3.2 1999 5.5 1978 0.17 1990 4.4 2000 7.2 1979 0.21 1991 5.0 2001 8.0 1980 0.30 1992 5.9 2002 9.3 1981 0.90 1993 5.1 2003 10.9 1982 0.90 1994 4.3 2004 10.8 1983 1.1 1995 4.6 2005 11.6 1984 1.2 1996 5.4 2006 12.3 1985 1.7 1997 5.7 2007 13.2 1986 2.1 1998 5.6 2008 13.5 1987 2.7 2009 14.5 1988 2.4 2010 14.4 *The figures for the period 1977 to 1999 are in MAU (Millions Unit of Account), which was in use at the time. The European Currency Unit ECU was a basket of the currencies of the European Community member states, used as the unit of account (AU) of the European Community before being replaced by the euro on 1 January 1999, at parity.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: I thank the Minister of State for his reply which has covered most of the information I requested. Given the Minister of State’s new-found insight into the problems the country is experiencing, has he considered using the services provided by the European Space Agency?

Deputy Sean Sherlock: If the Deputy will forgive me, I did not quite understand his question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is the Minister of State travelling somewhere?

Deputy Sean Sherlock: Not quite but I can tell the Deputy that in my own constituency of Cork East, which is also the constituency of his colleague, Deputy Sandra McLellan, we have Elfordstown which is doing a lot of work on commercial satellite technology and also research on space. I do not believe we should close our minds on this issue but rather have open minds and if commercial benefit can be derived from it, then we should take it. As to whether I am going to inhabit that medium, the jury is out on that one. 94 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

Departmental Responsibilities 8. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the division of responsibilities between his Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in relation to trade and if the appropriate arrangements have been carried out to bring this into effect. [14622/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: At the Government meeting on 24 May 2011 an order was made to transfer part of the trade function from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, now the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The order came into effect on 1 June 2011 and it has strengthened the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in trade promotion by specifically transferring responsibility to that Department for the management and chairing of key trade promotion functions, specifically the Trade Council, as well as responsibility for joint economic commissions. The Trade Council, now to be chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, over- sees the implementation of the recommendations in Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy, which was launched in September last. This strategy has brought together of the relevant agencies and Departments involved in promoting overseas trade, tourism and investment, with an integrated approach. Responsibility for the organisation and management of joint economic commissions and for setting up any new joint economic commissions is now also a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Joint economic commissions are formal intergovernmental bodies in specific high-growth markets. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade now has a very visible and tangible role in trade promotion, my Department retains lead responsibility for trade policy, including within the framework of EU common commercial policy and the World Trade Organisation. These discussions are directly linked to the sectoral enterprise and investment policies which are being developed by my Department and agencies and it is essential we maintain a coherent approach between export and investment policies. In addition, export control licensing for the export of military or dual use goods will remain in my Department. There are strong links between the licensing and control of export function and my Department’s enterprise development role. My Department will continue to manage the compilation of detailed trade statistics covering exports and imports. I will work closely with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in planning trade mission programmes for the months ahead. Our intention is to maximise the potential of these trade missions to bring Irish businesses from trade, investment and tourism sectors into direct contact with business opportunities abroad by targeting sectors and countries where there is significant potential.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I tabled the question to ascertain exactly how the scheme will work in practice. I am not being contentious, but from the Minister’s reply my understanding is that the only involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be organising foreign trips, trade missions and conferences. Have any civil servants been transferred from the Depart- ment of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to deal with the Tánaiste’s new responsibilities?

Deputy Richard Bruton: Staff have been transferred. Some three posts are to transfer to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, comprising one principal officer, one higher education officer and one clerical 95 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] officer. They are currently working in the bilateral trade unit of my Department and it is expected that their transfer to the other Department will be affected by mid-June. Enterprise Ireland does a lot of the background work in terms of planning trade missions and drawing together the companies involved. It makes the connections. It is a very valid aim of the Tánaiste that we use the muscle power of our diplomatic service to drive the trade agenda and use it as an outreach system. Enterprise Ireland does not have bases in many countries where we have diplomatic representation. It represents the best use of resources for what is our priority, namely, driving exports.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: There are commitments in the programme for Government to set up an export trade council and a home to export programme. There is also a commitment to strengthen relations with emerging countries and perhaps the prospect of setting up some sort of scholarship scheme. Who will be responsible for those initiatives and when can we expect to see them?

Deputy Richard Bruton: There will be combined responsibility. The export council will they chaired by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. It was previously chaired by a Minister of State. The strategy that was drawn together was largely about how we get the resources we have in the field to work more effectively together. It will now be driven at a much higher level. No criticism is intended of the previous Minister but it will be driven by the Tánaiste. There will be a very strong focus. I visited India recently which offers opportunities in the education sector. It had not had a visit from an Irish Minister for many years. We are already focusing on growth opportunities and there are many exciting opportunities for Irish companies in growing markets. We need to spend time and it will take time to build a base.

Deputy Stephen Donnelley: With regard to efficiencies, one of the major elements of the programme for Government is to build all-Ireland economic opportunities where they can be beneficial to both sides of the island. Invest NI officers are based around the world, as are those from Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. Is it the objective of the Government to amalgamate if possible with our Northern partners the facilities that are available around the world for the use of all the people on the island?

Deputy Richard Bruton: I do not imagine that the diplomatic service will be amalgamated.

Deputy Stephen Donnelley: We could amalgamate with Invest NI offices at least.

Deputy Richard Bruton: There are protocols of co-operation and both bodies involved are involved in InterTradeIreland, which is a joint body working on innovation and trade promotion and supports those. The Deputies question goes beyond the one I was asked and I would have to get more information to outline what level of co-operation is now occurring. Clearly there are a lot of very good relations and joint projects. Even last week members of the Oireachtas participated in an exercise in Stormont where we were celebrating the success of companies who had been supported by InterTradeIreland to develop new markets. There is a strong degree of co-operation already. I will endeavour to get a more detailed response for the Deputy.

Business Regulation 9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he consulted with the Department of An Taoiseach on his proposals on wage reform before they were presented to the social partners. [14526/11] 96 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

15. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he accepts the key findings of the Duffy/Walsh report. [14630/11]

16. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if his discussions with the social partners on the joint labour committee and registered employment agreements reform will include consideration of the Walsh Duffy report. [14714/11]

17. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in view of the current review of the joint labour committee and registered employment agreements, his views on the statement by the Employment Research Centre in Trinity College Dublin that the JLC system has kept more workers employed because they effectively outlaw zero hour contracts; if he will give a commitment not to reduce the time and a third payments for anti social hours; if he will ensure that an inability to pay clause will not be abused by employers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14730/11]

18. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the estimated fall in spending power due to the reduced demand as a result of the proposed reduction in the pay rates of the joint labour committee. [14711/11]

23. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the status of the review of the statutory wage-setting mechanism such as registered employment agreements and employment regulation orders. [11383/11]

24. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if his proposals for reform of the joint labour committees and registered employment agreements were subject to an equality impact assessment before being released to the social partners. [14715/11]

31. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the estimated increase or decrease in the numbers of jobs within the economy as a result of the proposed reduction in the pay rates of the joint labour committee. [14713/11]

34. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his understanding of France’s position on Ireland’s corporation tax. [14629/11]

35. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the cost to the State in terms of the reduction of taxation received and the increase of outgoing welfare payments as a result of the proposed reduction in the pay rates of the joint labour committee. [14710/11]

40. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if any final proposals for joint labour commission and registered employment agreements reform require the approval of the EU, ECB and or IMF before being enacted. [14717/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 15 to 18, inclusive, 23, 24, 31, 34, 35 and 40 together. I have already dealt comprehensively with the issues raised in this series of questions in my earlier reply to the Priority Questions on the issue of the review of employment regulations orders and registered employment agreement wage setting mechanisms. However, I would like to reiterate the main issues. The report’s overall finding is that the basic framework of the current JLC-REA regulatory system requires radical overhaul so as to make it fairer and more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions. 97 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

The report of the independent review does not recommend, nor have I proposed, specific adjustments in wage rates for the sectors covered by JLCs and REAs. Together with the decision to restore the national minimum wage to €8.65 per hour, the decision to reform the joint labour committee structure represents a significant commitment by the Government to the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in the economy. However, we need to ensure that statutory wage fixing mechanisms work effectively and efficiently and that they do not have a negative impact on economic performance and employment levels. Radical reform is required in order to protect existing jobs in these vulnerable sectors of the economy and to increase the likelihood of employment in these sectors and to restore competitiveness in key sectors of the economy, including the hospitality sector which is crucial to our tourism offering. I am anxious to pursue the agenda for radical overhaul of the ERO- REA system as a matter of urgency, including proposals dealt with in the report and other issues raised by the report. In this context, it is my intention to complete discussion with relevant stakeholders in the coming days with a view to submitting a final action plan for consideration by Government before the end of the month.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I thank the Minister for the extra information. My question asked whether he consulted with the Department of the Taoiseach on his proposals before he presented them to the social partners. I would like an answer to that. There is no reference in the Minister’s proposals to a number of the more minor recommendations of the Duffy-Walsh committee, namely recommendation No. 5 in regard to the reform and modernisation of the contract cleaning business, recommendation No. 15 on the electrical contracting REA and recommendation No. 19 to compliance away from the criminal domain and make it a civil matter as an alternative to the current situation. Is the Minister committed to those proposals?

Deputy Richard Bruton: I held consultations and all Ministers were aware that I would be introducing a wider range of recommendations to my discussions with the social partners. No one Minister was involved. In our discussions with the social partners we focused on key recommendations. The recommendations to which the Deputy referred have not been excluded and are receiving due consideration. Many of them are simply improvements in the effectiveness of operation. They were not included because they did not represent contentious issues. All of the recommendations will be given due consideration before the final paper is brought to Government for a decision.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: In regard to the Minister’s previous answers on the same issue, I ask him to justify what I believe is a completely false connection that he is making between job losses in the construction and retail sectors and those sectors which coincide with the JLCs and REAs. He seems to suggest that there is some connection between the two and that it justifies a review of the JLCs and REAs which will produce more jobs. I put it to the Minister that there is no connection between job losses and the operation of joint labour committees and employment regulation orders in construction, retail and other sectors. Jobs have been lost as a result of the greed of bankers and developers and the failure of Governments to control it. These factors crashed the relevant economic sectors 6o’clock and crashed demand in the economy. That is the reason companies are going out of business. It is false to suggest the problem is one of competitiveness or that wages must be levelled downwards by attacking pay and conditions via the JLCs and EROs. The Minister is wrong to suggest that eliminating premium payments will create more jobs. I ask him to respond to the argument that if one makes a bad situation worse if one takes money 98 Other 9 June 2011. Questions out of the pockets of low paid workers because it reduces demand and spending in precisely the businesses and shops he has in mind.

Deputy Richard Bruton: The Deputy asked a large number of questions. I have not made a false connection. The review group recommended that the joint labour committee and employment regulation order system be radically reformed to restore competitiveness. Its report sets out inflexibilities in the system which make it difficult to respond to the changed economic circumstances. I am not making anything up. We have lost substantial numbers of jobs. Job creation is the priority for the Government but there will be no return to building more and more houses in the construction sector. We must create jobs in tourism and other export sectors in which we can build sustainable markets. The report recommends that we must change the current system to enable employers, many of whom are hanging on by their fingernails, to avail of growing opportunities in sectors such as tourism. We must recognise that every business in the leisure and tourism sector is being compelled to change its offering by taking initiatives such as cutting rates, offering early bird deals and trying to reopen on Sundays to serve tourists who expect a seven day service. Many opportunities are developing and the report has told us that the structure we have imposed on certain segments of the retail and catering sectors is inflexible and will prevent such opportunities from being exploited. We are seeking to reform the system because jobs are our top priority. We must make choices and maximise opportunities.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: If jobs were the top priority, there would be empirical evidence to show the Minister’s proposal would create jobs. The report states there is no empirical evidence to show there will be a net increase in jobs as a result of some of the Government’s proposals. On the other hand, the Minister has admitted the policies the Government will implement will result in a reduction in wages. What we will have, therefore, is a policy defined on a hunch rather than empirical evidence, which will definitely reduce wages while failing to create jobs. Have other issues such as the Croke Park agreement been put on the table to placate Labour Party Deputies with regard to negotiations with the social partners on the joint labour committees?

Deputy Richard Bruton: I ask Deputy Tóibín to read the report. It did not produce any empirical evidence to suggest some of the proposals we are taking——

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: It stated there is no proof the proposals would create jobs.

Deputy Richard Bruton: It made one statement about employment, namely, that reducing the JLC rates to the national minimum wage rates would not have a substantial impact on employment. The Government has not made any proposal to reduce the JLC rates to the national minimum wage. The report used analysis that examines minimum wage systems across a range of countries in normal circumstances. It did not consider specific reforms in an inflexible system which are targeted at trying to make it easier to create employment in an economy that has suffered a collapse in employment and to avail of opportunities, wherever they can be found, to create jobs. That is the context. Time and again, the report states we must address the way in which the current arrangements are undermining competitiveness in the economy. This is not some sort of conspiracy but a question of how we can make certain sectors sufficiently flexible to respond to opportunities. The Government is not abandoning the joint labour committee system, as many people have advocated. On the contrary, we recognise that it provides important protection to workers but this protection must be balanced with the need to create employment opportunities. 99 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Joan Collins: Does the Minister agree that the issue is one of income and demand rather than the wage levels in sectors governed by joint labour committees and employment regulation orders? There is no demand for restaurant and hotel services because people do not have money. For this reason, reducing overtime and Sunday rates, as has been proposed, will not have an impact on the hospitality industry. Does the Minister agree that people working in the sectors covered by the JLCs and EROs need their current income if they are to sustain their current living standards and feed their children?

Deputy Richard Bruton: While I recognise that there has been collapse in demand in the economy, the volume of demand is not invariable but changes as businesses adapt to different circumstances. For example, some businesses will open on Sundays to win more opportunities to trade and create employment. They will adapt to respond to opportunities in the tourism sector. The Government has set a target of attracting an additional 1 million tourists and has abolished the travel tax, cut the VAT rate and reduced the lower rate of employer PRSI. In doing so, it will make the relevant sectors more competitive and create opportunities for further employment. We are told by an expert group that the JLC and ERO agreements are creating an inflexi- bility that is undermining competitiveness and our ability to respond to opportunities. We are seeking to reform these agreements to ensure the relevant sectors can respond to opportunities. While I do not pretend there is not a problem with demand, we must try to create employment within a demand constrained economy. This requires flexibility and competitiveness to win new markets and attract tourists.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: The Minister stated it is not part of the Government’s proposal to reduce pay rates in the relevant sectors. Does he not accept that if his proposals are accepted, wage reductions will be inevitable across these sectors? I have read the Duffy-Walsh report in detail and it clearly concludes there is only a marginal difference in wage rates between those employed in the JLC sector and comparable employments. For example, the chapter dealing with nominal wage rigidity and so forth does not suggest there is anything exceptional about the JLC sector that is giving rise to job losses or preventing employers from taking on more staff. This section of the report is detailed. Does the Minister hold to his statement at the weekend that current employees will not be affected by the proposals, which will affect only those who are recruited after they become law?

Deputy Richard Bruton: Existing employees are protected by their existing contracts of employment which would have to be renegotiated if there were to be any change. The changes would provide that a different regime could apply to new recruits. This offers flexibility. The report does not recommend — nor does the Government advocate — cutting JLC rates across the board or reducing them from their current levels to €8.65, the level to which the minimum wage is to be restored. That is the context within which they examined the impact, but that is not what is being proposed. They found that people working in JLC sectors, even with the same mix of education and experience, are not earning much more than in other sectors. Equally, however, they found that the systems in these sectors are hampering the ability to compete in areas where we need to create employment. We did not need a report like this to tell us that temporary retail workers, such as younger people and students who may have high qualifications, are not highly paid compared to where many of them may end up later. That finding is valid, but it does not invalidate the finding that these systems are undermining competitiveness and need to be reformed.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: With regard to the current negotiations with the social partners, is the Minister’s previous strongly held antipathy to the Croke Park agreement — as well as other 100 Other 9 June 2011. Questions issues affecting wages rates, pay and working conditions — on the negotiating table with regard to the JLCs?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Where is the evidence that lowering the income of the lowest paid workers — even by a marginal degree in terms of Sunday and other premium payments — will create extra jobs? There is no evidence to back it up. The Minister is cutting off his nose to spite his face because he will further constrict demand in the economy. There is an alternative proposal, however. Instead of trying to create jobs by taking from the earnings of the lowest paid, why not do something about differential rates? In that case, struggling small businesses would pay lower rates, which would be compensated for by the bigger and more profitable business chains paying higher rates. Would that not do a hell of a lot more to stimulate job creation, rather than taking earnings from low-paid workers who spend their money in those same shops and businesses?

Deputy Richard Bruton: I absolutely agree that we need to reform many areas in order to create employment. The Government is committed to reforming the legal system and introducing legislation on upward-only rent reviews. We have already cut employers’ PRSI and VAT. In addition, we are committed to many other reforms that will facilitate employers to create jobs. We need to examine rates and the previous Government’s study indicated that costs can be taken out of the local authority system, which can be used to bring down rates. We have to become more competitive as a community. However, the Deputy seems to overlook the fact that experts in this field, such as Mr. Kevin Duffy and Professor Frank Walsh, have reviewed this system and found it is undermining our competitiveness in these areas. There is evidence that if one can reduce labour costs and be more flexible in responding to opportunity, one can create employment. They have singled out areas where there are difficulties in this system, including where compliance is too high and they are too inflexible to changing circumstances, or are based on an antiquated view of the working week. They have identified many areas where this system is not serving the need to create employment. That is what we have set as our priority and there is ample evidence in that regard. This has got nothing to do with the Croke Park agreement, so I do not know where that question came from. The Government is examining the delivery of the Croke Park agreement and there will be a report on that matter from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Under the IMF-EU memorandum of understanding there is action which the Government needs to take to deliver certain cost commitments. They are part of the Croke Park agreement and the Minister will be returning to Government to say how much has been achieved in that area. That is clear.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: Were they were part of the negotiations, though?

Deputy Richard Bruton: No. I have not mentioned the words “Croke Park agreement” in that context.

10. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation when the proposed 25% reduction in the administration burden in business will be achieved. [14627/11]

Deputy Richard Bruton: The previous Government committed in 2008 to reducing administrative burdens by 25% by 2012. The work to reduce administrative burdens on business in Ireland is being progressed on two fronts. The High Level Group on Business Regulation works to fast-track simplifications to specific red-tape issues identified by business. In addition, an interdepartmental group of officials from all Departments, having regulation affecting busi- 101 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] ness, co-ordinates the measurement and reduction of administrative burdens in a systematic manner, based on the internationally recognised standard cost model. The high level group is chaired by my colleague the Minister of State for Small Business, Deputy John Perry. To date, the group has processed 48 specific red-tape issues brought to its attention by business, and continues to drive progress on a further 20 items. The group continues to work with business interests to identify new opportunities for simplification. In addition, my Department is in the process of measuring other burden reductions achieved across Government. The results of this measurement exercise are expected to be available in the second half of 2011. As far as quantification of the savings concerned, the CSO and my Department have done exercises to quantify the main burdens. My Department has already reduced measured burdens by 22%, or 90% of the target to be achieved, which is an annual saving of almost €187 million. I expect that I will be in a position to announce the initiatives that will make up the remaining 3% before the end of the year. To give greater momentum to this process and to reiterate the importance of continuing action in this task to other Departments, I intend to initiate a project shortly to measure the burdens across all remaining Departments. This is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2012. Each relevant Department will then prepare simplification plans detailing how they will meet any shortfall from the 25% target within their areas of responsibility.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: The Minister indicated in his reply that 2012 is the target, although it was supposed to be 31 December 2011. Will the Minister indicate whether that target date will be met? If not, when does he expect the 25% reduction to be finally achieved? Has his Depart- ment any estimate as to the actual savings to small business when that reduction is achieved?

Deputy Richard Bruton: When I assumed office, I was surprised to find how few hard facts had been assembled by the previous Government concerning a programme that was well under way and had started in 2008. I recognise, however, that there has been progress. The Revenue on-line system has been significant, but there is not the basic measurement matrix across each Department that would allow me to answer that question. That is why I have moved to bring momentum to this, get a proper measurement and start to obtain a baseline as to how much has been achieved. Many Departments have achieved a lot, but others have scope to do an awful lot more. I am therefore trying to pick up the pieces and give more momentum to this process. I am quoting figures from the previous Government. The overall figure is €500 million, which it is believed could be achieved. We have delivered €187 million in areas that bear directly on enterprise from my Department. We need to quantify how much has been achieved and what remains to be done. I want to give momentum to delivering on the target.

County Enterprise Boards 11. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will provide a breakdown by county of the amount of funding supplied to each county enterprise board in 2009, 2010 and 2011; the county enterprise boards that have exhausted their annual funding for 2011 between January and May 2011; the county enterprise boards who have applied for additional funding during the course of each year to discharge their functions in 2009, 2010 and 2011; the county enterprise boards who did not fully use their funding in 2009 and 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14770/11] 102 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

13. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will give an assurance that the proceeds from the sale of State assets will be used to fund job creation measures. [14635/11]

Deputy John Perry: I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 13 together. An Exchequer allocation is provided each year under the Estimates process for the funding of the county and city enterprise boards, CEBs. Allocation of funding to individual CEBs is conducted each year by the central co-ordination unit, CCU, within Enterprise Ireland. In determining these allocations a systematic approach is adopted by the EI to ensure the maximum degree of objectivity and equity of treatment and clarity on the allocation of funding. This approach involves the provision of funding on the basis of a standard allocation to each CEB as well as an extra allocation that is determined mainly by population but which also takes account of issues such as local unemployment trends, capacity to spend, existing commitments and regional spread. The Exchequer allocation is made in the context of the overall public finances and in 2011 amounts to €27.242 million, of which €15 million in capital is available for direct grants and training, mentoring and advice services to micro-enterprise clients. The bulk of the current allocation to each CEB pays the salaries of the business advisers and other staff who provide direct advice and mentoring to client companies. This represents a strong investment in the micro-enterprise sector, notwithstanding the additional level of demand on CEB services generated in the current difficult economic climate. None of the CEBs has exhausted their annual funding for this year. However, in regard to their capital allocations for 2011, the aggregate position of all 35 CEBs at the end of May is that grants approved to be drawn down by year end amount to 85% of the available Exchequer grants allocation moneys. Approvals in respect of soft supports such as training, mentoring and advice services to micro-enterprise clients amount to 74% of the available Exchequer grants allocation moneys. This represents the level of capital commitments at the end of May and the actual level of expenditure to arise will depend on the extent to which and the speed of the projects approved being finalised by the promoters. I point out that moneys committed to a project are open for 12 months, and that CEBs can carryover 50% of commitments into the following year. However, they are required to have a zero balance of funds at the end of each year. The CEB central co-ordination unit within Enterprise Ireland works closely with the CEBs throughout the year reviewing individual expenditures to ensure that the funding allocated to the CEBs is utilised to the maximum. Should it arise during the year that some boards are not in a position to spend all of their annual allocation — a point raised in the questions tabled — for example, where an approved grant is decommitted late in the year if the project has not started, it is reallocated to any boards that are in a position to spend additional funds within the year. Moneys identified under this process tend to arise late in the year, are not generally significant, and are allocated to other CEBs who have viable projects that can draw down the funding. However, the €3.3 million made available in the last quarter of 2010 was additional to the Exchequer funding originally made available to the CEBs for that year. It is a matter in the first instance for individual CEBs to determine how they will use allocated funds in the most effective way. Some boards may choose to commit all of their available funding as projects present themselves, even if this means that their funding is committed relatively early in the year, while others may decide differently. Substantial funds have been allocated to the CEBs this year having due regard to the pressures on Exchequer finances. While I accept that it is vital that CEBs continue to promote and support enterprise development, due to the finite nature of public finances, it is not always possible for a CEB to provide financial assistance to every eligible project that presents itself. 103 Other 9 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy John Perry.] This is an operating reality with which all CEBs are already familiar. Tables showing the relevant data have been supplied to the Deputy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. My attention had been drawn to an inadequacy in this respect in Kildare and I note that there is a means whereby funds can be moved from one place to the another. It appears obvious that the success rate of start-ups is very much predicated on the amount of effort spent on business planning and feasibility studies before the enterprise is up and running. If we are to encourage people to move from welfare to self-employment — in the micro-enterprise sector an enterprise can have up to ten employees — it is essential to monitor the position to ensure there is sufficient funding and that such funding is stable at the very basic level. There is a saving on both sides if people can avail of the system and move from welfare to this sector and in many enterprises that is case. I will carefully study the content of the Minister of State’s long reply.

Deputy John Perry: I thank the Deputy for her question. The CEBs stimulate enterprise potential at local level and play a key role in creating jobs in the local economy. I fully respect where the Deputy is coming from, namely, that an allocation of funding to a enterprise board may have been spent. There is a system at the year end whereby there can be a reallocation of unspent funding. Much of the funding is in the form of repayable loans. Clearly, the mentoring, supports and entrepreneurial encouragement given by enterprise boards have been very effective. The case for the need for the continuation of such supports has been well made. The funding allocated by enterprise boards is only a small part of the supports given. There is also support given by the banks on foot of the investment in the two pillar banks. They will be very much focused on lending such support. Some €20 million will be made available to small companies over the next three years. Such companies will work with the enterprise boards. Enterprise Week is very much promoted by enterprise boards in local counties. Enterprise boards play a critical role in providing mentoring and assistance with the formulation of business plans. I agree with the Deputy that they have been successful. They have encouraged many successful businesses and when the plans are finally put together by the Government, I am sure they will provide a focused service with solution-centred desks for small companies in every region.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: There is no doubt that enterprises that have business plans and research carried out at the very start of their experience are more likely to exist in five years time and their productivity is also much more likely to be higher. One of the major problems is at a time of the biggest jobs crisis in the State we have an infrastructure around the State, the county enterprise boards system, most of which have exhausted their grant funding for feasibility studies, etc. One woman——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: A question, please, Deputy.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: What will be done at this crisis time to ensure that people who have feasible business ideas that would create indigenous jobs will get the funding they need this year?

Deputy John Perry: On that point, I draw the Deputy’s attention to the level of soft supports given by enterprise boards. It is all about business plans and the formulation of them. The boards are certain that funding is only one part of the success of any company. The formulation of the business plan, meeting an enterprise officer, getting the mentoring support and the initial allocation of funding are important aspects. There are many ways to securing funding be it through the credit unions or the local banks. Clearly, the banks are now beginning to have a 104 State 9 June 2011. Airports focus on small enterprise. The figures I have indicate that all the funding allocated has not been spent by the enterprise boards to date. That is a fact. They can carry forward unspent funds in their allocations to next year. If the Deputy wants to forward me details of a particular case, I will be happy to examine it. The central co-ordination unit operated by Enterprise Ireland closely monitoring the allocation of funding and it has carried out a review. It has been effective and increased funding in the last allocation to enterprise boards. What is involved is not only about giving money, although it is a help. It is the level of the formulation of a business plan, which in many cases can be the difficulty in a business surviving, especially if it does not have the necessary feasibility study carried out and the concept of the business plan thought out. What is involved is not the matter of putting money into a business that is not viable — the viability of the project must be assured. It is not about giving out handy money to assure an entrepreneur that the level of support will meet the needs and survival of the project. It is about the overall due diligence required on the application. The Deputy can rest assured that within the Department such money is still available and can be reallocated from one country to another if the need arises.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Adjournment Debate Matters Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): 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 Nicky McFadden — the need for admissions to be accepted at Athlone hospital, County Westmeath; (2) Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn — the need for the Minister for Health to intervene to have the extension at Letterkenny Hospital, County Donegal, completed; (3) Deputy Joe Costello — the need to introduce an inspection regime at Shannon Airport to ensure that the integrity of Irish airspace is protected; (4) Deputy Simon Harris — the need to prioritise the establishment of the EU hotline for missing children number in Ireland; (5) Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin — the need to take action to get financial institutions to extend credit to viable businesses; (6) Deputy James Bannon — the need to review the by-law which has banned eel fishing here; (7) Deputy Terence Flanagan — the plans there are to eliminate long-term homelessness; and (8) Deputy Dessie Ellis — the need to maintaintheruraltransportnetworkandtoextendittointegratewiththeHSEandschoolbusservices. The matters raised by the Deputies Joe Costello, James Bannon, Nicky McFadden and Dessie Ellis have been selected for discussion.

Adjournment Debate

————

State Airports Deputy Joe Costello: The matter I wish to raise on the Adjournment is the need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to introduce an inspection regime at Shannon Airport to ensure that the integrity of Irish airspace is protected. As the Acting Chairman will have read in the newspapers, there have been some disturbing revelations in regard to WikiLeaks in recent times. These revelations show that the previous Government was effectively paying lip-service to maintaining the integrity of Irish airspace. One of the main concerns was that one of the coalition partners, Fianna Fáil, was keeping its other partner, the Green Party, in the dark about what was going on. In the revelations the 105 State 9 June 2011. Airports

[Deputy Joe Costello.] former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, is quoted as being: “behind Ireland’s steadfast support for the United States in permitting US military transits (347,000 US troops alone in 2005) that backstop US activities especially in Iraq and Afghanistan”. Clearly, Shannon was the hub for the transportation of the vast majority of US troops to and from Iraq. The Iraqi war was initiated under false pretences, namely, that the Iraqi regime was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which was patently untrue. Nor did the war have a UN mandate at the time of its initiation. The Minister of State will remember that more than 100,000 people marched in Dublin alone against the war and the use of Shannon Airport for the transportation of US troops to what was then an illegal war. The Iraqi war has ended, I presume no further troops are going to Iraq through Shannon and the Afghan war is coming to an end. Given the fact that we have a new Government with a new mandate, it is appropriate that we introduce a new regime of inspection, which was not done by the previous Government. The programme for Government reads, “We will enforce the prohibition on the use of Irish air space, airports and related facilities for purposes not in line with the dictates of international law”. It would be impossible to ensure international law was observed and implemented unless some mechanism was put in place to supervise that implementation. This would require an inspection regime that at least involved some degree of random inspection of military and civilian aeroplanes. Another commitment in the programme for Government effectively requires Ireland to assert its neutrality and the integrity of its air space. The programme reads, “We will position Ireland, in particular Shannon airport, to become an international hub for the storage and distribution of emergency humanitarian supplies”. To do this, we need to assert our integrity in terms of our air space, our adherence to international law and our neutrality. I will briefly mention a few background points. Irish law and international human rights law make specific provision against torture, inhumane and degrading treatment and placing individuals at risk to such treatment. The Dáil transposed the European Convention on Human Rights into Irish law in 2003. In 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe conducted a report, the findings of which were alarming, namely, that there was a considerable amount of passive and active collusion with CIA flights to and from EU countries, including Ireland. Subsequently, the European Parliament took up the issue and made the same determi- nations. For example, it found that there had been 1,245 CIA-operated flights in EU air space between 2001 and 2005, the secret detention of prisoners and the illegal transportation or extraordinary rendition of detainees. In Ireland’s case, the Parliament determined that 147 stopovers at Shannon Airport were made by CIA-operated aircraft that came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition. Some of these aircraft were shown to have been used for the transportation of detainees by the CIA. Amnesty International took up the issue in 2008. Its report reads, “Also aircraft directly en route or returning from rendition missions have transited Shannon Airport”. Given the number of serious allegations about the abuse of Irish air space and the lack of an independent or governmental mechanism to determine what is occurring, does the Minister of State not agree that now is the appropriate time to introduce a supervisory regime as mentioned in the programme for Government?

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Fergus O’Dowd): I congratulate the Deputy on his good news today. I wish him all the best in his Chairmanship. I am taking this matter on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. As the Deputy will recall, the programme for Government makes clear that the Government 106 State 9 June 2011. Airports

“will enforce the prohibition of the use of Irish air space, airports and related facilities for purposes not in line with the dictates of international law”. In the House in March, the Tánaiste stated, “Shannon will not be used as a means of rendition, facilitating torture or any other activity which violates human rights”. It will be appreciated by the Deputy that responsibility for Irish air space and airports lies not with the Tánaiste, but with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. A significant level of international traffic in terms of civilian aircraft transits through this jurisdiction, particularly through Shannon Airport. This traffic is controlled, serviced and despatched in accordance with the standard practices obtaining in the civil aviation industry worldwide. The handling of this traffic also accords with the rules and practices set down by the relevant multilateral instruments governing air traffic. Under legislation, the Garda has the authority to inspect and enter any civil aircraft on Irish territory. The great majority of US service personnel who pass through Ireland do so on char- tered civilian aircraft, which are subject to the normal regulations applying to civilian aircraft, including the provisions of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1946. In addition, if the aircraft in question are carrying arms or ammunition, such as personal service weapons, prior permission must be obtained under the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Wea- pons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973, as amended in 1989. When such permission is granted, it is a condition that the weapons must be stowed in such a way that they are not accessible to passengers while the aircraft is in flight or on the ground. The situation regarding military aircraft is different. In accordance with the Chicago convention of 1944, which provides the basis for the regulation of international civil aviation, military aircraft are deemed to be state aircraft and are excluded from the convention’s application. Accordingly, section 3 of the 1946 Act excludes state aircraft from its provisions. In accordance with international practice, military aircraft are not normally subject to search or inspection. Under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, all foreign military aircraft require the permission of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to overfly or land in the State. Permission is requested by the embassy of the country concerned. When overflight or landing permission is granted to foreign military aircraft, certain conditions are normally applied, such as that the aircraft are unarmed, are not carrying arms, ammunition or explosives, are not engaged in intelligence gathering and are not taking part in military exercises or operations. Arrangements for the overflight and landing of US military aircraft have been continuously in place for more than 50 years and no changes of practice in this regard are envisaged. Where complaints of alleged unlawful activity concerning the use of Irish airports have been made to the Garda, investigations have ensued and, where appropriate, files have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In no case has a direction to prosecute been given. On learning of the first allegation of US involvement in extraordinary rendition, the then Government made contact with the US authorities to seek assurances that such renditions had not taken place and would not take place through Irish airports and to make clear that such activity would be illegal under Irish law. Specific and unique assurances were sought and received from the US authorities that no such prisoners had been transferred through Irish territory, nor would they be without our express permission. None of the various investigations into allegations of extraordinary rendition revealed any evidence that rendition through Irish airports had occurred, nor is there any new information or allegation linking Irish airports to extraordinary rendition. To conclude, adequate protection for the integrity of Irish air space exists in the inspection powers available to the Garda under existing legislation and this is combined with the specific 107 Fisheries 9 June 2011. Protection

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd.] and high-level assurances received from the US on the issue of extraordinary rendition, reassur- ances we have no reason to question.

Fisheries Protection Deputy James Bannon: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me time to discuss an important issue, namely, the need for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to expedite a review of the by-laws that banned eel fishing in 2009 and left a reported 500 fishermen out of work. The review is not due until 2012, but the delay is untenable. What happened to eel fishing thanks to the previous Government was an environmental scandal. It was also a legislative and economic scandal. A considerable question hangs over the fact that the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government exceeded his brief by introducing the ban on eel fishing through a by-law, No. CS 303, 2009, without seeking legislative enactment. Scientific advice such as that provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, and European Council Regulation No. 1100/2007 is no justification for the previous Minister going on an over the top and ill-advised save the European eel campaign, above and beyond requirements. He single-handedly introduced changes to the detriment of our native eel fishing industry. Properly handled, the eels, the rights of our eel fishermen and those with an interest in fishing as a leisure pursuit could have been protected. The bottom line is that both Councils recommended measures for a recovery plan and cutting down of eel fishing and not wholesale closing down of such activity. The directive from Europe was for a 40% reduction and not the 100% reduction introduced by the then Minister. Rather than depriving fisherman of their livelihood, it would have served the previous Mini- ster better had he turned his attention to the main reason the eel stock has been depleted. Unregulated electric generation turbines have destroyed much of our eel population, which is evident in the Shannon. For example, turbines at Ardnacrusha power station have been causing problems with eel and salmon since inception of the station in the 1930s. Turbines are the elephant in the room. Promises to protect migrating fish have not been kept and salmon have been wiped out on the Inny and the Shannon system and no money has been spent by the ESB to rectify this appalling situation. In terms of the national economy, salmon fishing could be worth far more than the electricity generated at Ardnacrusha. Given the tourism potential, salmon fishing on the Shannon could generate €1 billion per annum. In what can only be referred to as a total farce, the catch and release programme results in 20 tonnes of fish being caught and released while 200 tonnes are destroyed in the turbines. In what defies belief, a local smokehouse and another in County Clare, were recently offered dead eel to smoke by the ESB. What is to happen to the boats, engines, nets and lines of those fishermen who depend on eel fishing for their livelihood? The by-law mentioned diversification but no money was provided for this or for compensation for fishermen. The loss of eel fishing has hit not only fishermen but associated businesses which supply outboard motors, boats, boat repairs, nets and so on. It must also be remembered that 100% of eels caught in Ireland are exported. While Ireland is forced to lose such revenue fishing is still taking place in other European countries, with France in particular exporting to Asia. The by-law also stipulated that those disaffected by its provisions could appeal to the High Court. A case in this regard, which was to be heard next month, has been brought forward and has been before the courts for the past three days. I appeal to the Minister to bring forward a review of the over-zealous provisions made by his predecessor. I cannot over-emphasise the need for him to reconsider this matter and to provide an equitable solution for the preservation of the eel stock and a guarantee of employment for our eel fishermen. 108 Fisheries 9 June 2011. Protection

I thank the Acting Chairman, Deputy Mathews for his indulgence and look forward to a positive reply from the Minister.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I thank Deputy Bannon for raising this matter, which he has discussed privately with me on numerous occasions. I am taking this Adjournment debate on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte. International expert advice is that European eel stocks have declined steeply and in 2008 the expensive delicacy was listed as officially endangered, following a 90% plunge in stocks during the previous 30 years. Following scientific research conducted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, indicating that European eel stocks are in a critical state, the EU introduced Council Regulation 1100/2007, the objective of which is to achieve recovery of the stocks to previous high levels. The regulation required that all member states prepare a national eel management plan, EMP. Ireland’s plan was approved by the European Commission in July 2009. The decision to cease the eel fishery was taken based on the best management and scientific advice available, along with other conservation measures to support a recovery of the stock in the shortest time possible. The conservation of eel fishing by-law No. CS303/2009 gives effect to this decision and provides for closure of the fishery until June 2012 when the status of stocks will be fully reviewed and reported on to the European Commission. This review will consider whether the eel fishery could be reopened in any river basin district in light of the data gathered in the interim and the performance of stocks. The EMP includes a comprehensive programme of monitoring and evaluation of management actions and their implementation. It also includes a programme of scientific eel stock assessment to establish a stock baseline, estimate current silver eel escapement and monitor the impact of the management actions on the local stocks. In 2010, ICES reiterated its previous advice, that all anthropogenic mortality — recreational and commercial fishing, barriers to passage, habitat alteration, pollution, and so on — affecting production and escapement of eels should be reduced to as close to zero as possible until there is clear evidence that the stock is increasing. A concerted effort by all European countries to conserve eel habitats is urgently needed. ICES concluded that there is no change in the perception of the stock. The status remains critical and shows no sign of recovery. The advice remains that urgent actions are needed to avoid further depletion of the stock. The report to the Minister of the National Eel Management Plan for 2009 and a recent update from Scientific Eel Group, who are responsible for monitoring their scientific actions outlined in the eel management plan for 2010, states that the gathering of information continues and indications are that some local stocks are in a perilous condition. The 2010 report is due to be submitted shortly. I understand that comprehensive surveys and assessments of recruitment, yellow eel and silver eel were undertaken in 2009 and 2010 by Inland Fisheries Ireland, the National University of Ireland Galway, ESB and the Marine Institute. In summary, recruitment remains low but patchy. Some yellow eel stocks are showing indications of low recruitment, low numbers of small eels and increasing average size, density dependent responses to low recruitment — higher proportions of larger female eels — may be leading to higher than expected biomass but this may not be sustainable. Preliminary estimates of silver eel escapement in some catchments have shown a positive response to the fishery closure and these preliminary estimates of escapement are in the range of expectations presented in the eel management plans. Full estimates of silver eel production and escapement will be available for the 2012 report to the EU. It is still not possible to estimate stock size for large water bodies or for transitional 109 Hospital 9 June 2011. Services

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd.] waters and these are the subject of long-term mark-recapture studies and modelling exercises to try to estimate local stock size and potential or actual silver eel production. The continued spread of the invasive swimbladder parasite, Anguillicoloides,gives cause for serious concern. In so far as the international response to the decline in stocks is concerned, there are 18 EU Commission approved eel management plans in accordance with the Council regulation. In December 2010, the EU scientific review group assessed the situation for European eels and agreed unanimously that it was not possible to perform a “non-detriment finding” for the export of European eels. This essentially means that no exports or imports of eel can now take place between EU member states and third countries. Last year, for the first time ever, the UK environment agency imposed a temporary ban on all fishing for mature eels, declaring a six-month closed season in England and Wales. Fishing for elvers and glass eels was similarly restricted. A revised Dutch EM plan was submitted to the Commission for approval before the start of the silver eel fishing season in April. Following the discovery that eels in certain areas contained higher dioxin levels than those allowed, the Dutch authorities are preparing legislation to forbid the sale of eels caught in these areas. They expect that, as a result of the ban, fishing effort may be diverted to areas which constitute key migration routes for eels. In order to avoid a negative impact on the stock, the Dutch Minister, Mr. Bleker, has decided to close these key areas to fisheries. I understand that 2008 data indicated the Irish eel fishery harvested approximately 100 tonnes per annum and there were up to 150 fishermen who held a maximum of 296 licences, not all of which were actively fished. However, the low recruitment of juvenile eels in 2009 appears to be the worst yet, and gives rise to serious concern for the future of the eel. We owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to save this vulnerable species, not only for its own sake but also to protect ecological biodiversity. To do otherwise would consign our remaining stock, challenged by so many pressures from ocean changes due to global warming, habitat degradation, parasites and disease, to possible extinction.

Hospital Services Deputy Nicky McFadden: I thank the Minister of State for agreeing to take this Adjournment matter. Athlone district hospital, as it was known, is now a care centre for the elderly but it encompasses physiotherapy, occupational therapy, X-ray services, visiting consultant services, mental health services, primary care and MIDOC. As matters stand, the centre has 18 long- stay patients on one floor and 22 on the lower floor, which is a result of HIQA standards. Particularly in light of the Rostrevor nursing home case, I appreciate that HIQA must be a serious watchdog. However, we must get value for money. There are nurses and care assistants who are not only prepared but tripping over themselves to care for the elderly. I am deeply concerned that as patients are dying, new patients are not being admitted, which is why I have put down this Adjournment matter. I agreed fully with the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, when he said today that 95% of elderly patients stay at home, which is proper because they live with dignity and respect in the home. However, there are people who need to be cared for and some need specialised nursing care. I would advocate that new admissions be accepted at Athlone hospital. I have taken up this issue with the HSE and have spoken to the relevant manager. I am aware there is new management in the hospital and I look forward in the near future to new admissions being taken in. The care, compassion and the understanding the elderly are treated with in Athlone hospital is phenomenal. A four bed hospice unit attached to the campus of Athlone hospital has been 110 Hospital 9 June 2011. Services newly built following the raising of a lot of money by the community. It is urgent and necessary that there would be new admissions. Families of the existing patients are worried that it will be gradually closed down. As a politician, I know of great numbers of people who want to be cared for in this excellent centre. I await the Minister of State’s reply and hope it is positive.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I thank Deputy McFadden for raising this issue. The Government is committed to supporting people to live in dignity and independence in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. Where this is not feasible, the HSE supports access to quality long-term residential care where this is appropriate. We continue to develop and improve health services in all regions of the country to meet this objective and to ensure quality and patient safety. The HSE has sole operational responsibility for the delivery of health and social services, including those at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Athlone. St. Vincent’s Hospital was built in 1946 and occupies two floors. It is located on a campus with a variety of community care facilities, including a public health centre, mental health services, an out-patient clinic and an out-of-hours GP service. The hospital, as of today, has a capacity of 40 long-stay beds and four palliative care beds. The current capacity is directly related to the number of staff available to provide services within the confines of the public sector moratorium and allocated budget. As the Deputy will be aware, significant work has been undertaken over the last 18 months to bring the services provided in line with recommendations from the Health Information and Quality Authority. This required some strategic decisions to ensure the sustainability and viability of St Vincent’s, including the development and opening of a four-bed level 2 palliative care unit in September 2010. The decision, for clinical reasons, not to allow further admissions was taken to allow necessary capacity to be created to facilitate the transfer of a prioritised client with complex needs from a hospital in Dublin to Athlone. This situation is being monitored on a regular basis. Once the transfer is complete, it is expected that beds will become available. The Deputy will appreciate that all developments have to be addressed in the light of current economic and budgetary pressures and any decisions taken by the executive must have regard to this and the current moratorium. The executive has been asked to make a rigorous examination of how existing funding might be re-allocated to ensure maximum service provision. In particular, we need to ensure that the highest standard of care will continue to be provided to all residents in a safe and secure environment. The employment control framework for the health sector gives effect to Government priorities on employment policy in the public sector and provides that there will be a net reduction in employment to 2014. The framework is designed to maintain tight control on the cost of providing public services while protecting front-line services as far as possible. It is necessary to ensure that there is sustainability in the cost of providing public services relative to the Government’s revenue. The framework does allow for the targeted growth of certain grades which are exempt from the moratorium on recruitment, including medical consultants, physiotherapists and social workers, in order to deliver on key priority services. It also provides for the filling of non- exempted posts on exceptional grounds in order to maintain essential services and to meet priority service change or re-organisation requirements. However, given the overall requirement on the health services to achieve the target employment reductions and to live within the overall funding available, the number of exceptions is minimal. 111 The 9 June 2011. Adjournment

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd.]

The HSE has confirmed it is committed to the future of St. Vincent’s Hospital and it has indicated that there are no plans or proposals to close any beds. The Department of Health is currently reviewing the provision of public long-stay care in light of the need to meet national standards and regulations, local demographic pressures and public and private provision. The review will inform the development of an overall strategy on how the HSE should continue to provide this service in future in view of current budgetary and other pressures. It is expected the review will be completed later this year. I would like to confirm to the House that following his appointment as Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly requested that the HSE suspend any current plans to close or withdraw residential care beds until he has had an opportunity to review the position. I should make it clear, however, that the HSE must maintain appropriate staffing levels to meet the needs of residents. Providing quality and safe care will have to remain at the heart of any considerations.

The Dáil adjourned at 7 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 June 2011.

112 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Written Answers.

————————

The following are questions tabled by Members for written response and the ministerial replies as received on the day from the Departments [unrevised].

————————

Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, answered orally.

Grocery Sector 12. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation when he will introduce a code of practice for the grocery goods sector, and if it will be statutory or voluntary. [14626/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Programme for Government contains a specific commitment to “enact the Fair Trade Act, which will ban a number of unfair trading practices in the retail sector such as ‘hello money’ which suppliers have to pay to secure a place for their goods on supermarket shelves”. I recently received the report of the facilitator appointed to explore the possibility of drawing-up a voluntary code of practice for the grocery goods sector. He concluded that it is very unlikely that a voluntary code of practice will be agreed between the bodies concerned at this time, given the wide disparity of views amongst stakeholders. It is my intention to give effect to the commitment in the Programme for Government by including a specific enabling provision in the legislation, currently being prepared to merge the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority. The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that Ireland continues to have vibrant agri-food and retail sectors, particularly given the importance of these sectors to the national economy. The Government considers it important, therefore, that there is balance in the relationship between the various players in the grocery goods sector. The introduction of a Code of Practice is intended to achieve such a balance taking into account the interests of all stakeholders in the grocery goods sector including the interests of the consumer and the need to ensure that there is no impediment to the passing-on of lower prices to consumers.

Question No. 13 answered with Question No. 11.

Jobs Initiative 14. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the measures he will introduce to assist the retail sector. [14636/11] 113 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The jobs initiative announced by the Government on 10 May includes a number of measures which will assist the retail sector. In particular, the commitment to halve employer’s PRSI costs for those earning less than €356 per week will be of benefit, particularly given the part-time nature of many jobs in that sector. Also the reduction in the 13.5% VAT rate to 9% which will apply to hairdressing and printed matter is intended to stimulate consumer spending. With regard to labour costs, the Deputy will be aware that I published the Report of the Independent Review of Employment Regulation Orders and Registered Employment Agree- ment Wage Setting Mechanisms on 24 May. The Report’s overall finding is that the basic framework of the current JLC/REA regulatory system requires radical overhaul to make it fairer and more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions. I have held discussions with various representative bodies on my proposals to overhaul the ERO/REA system, including discussions with employer representative organisations in the retail sector. These discussions afforded me the opportunity to hear at first hand the views of the main representative bodies on how a meaningful and overdue reform might be implemented in these wage-setting mechanisms in order to protect existing jobs and encourage employment growth in key sectors of the economy, including the retail sector. It is my intention to complete discussions with relevant parties by Friday 10 June with a view to submitting a final action plan for consideration by Government before the end of the month. Along with my colleagues in Government, I will be taking further actions to improve the competitiveness of the retail sector over the coming months. Following the report of the facilitator, John Travers, on a Code of Practice to regulate relationships and practices in the Grocery Goods Sector, I intend to enact legislation that will ban a number of unfair practices in the retail sector. Provision for the Code of Practice will be included in the forthcoming Competition and Consumer Bill. I am also keen to ensure that Local Authority costs which impact on businesses are kept as low as possible. While almost all Local Authorities have again frozen or decreased their Annual Rate of Valuation in 2011, I have had detailed discussions with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on how we can work together to maximise opportunity for local business development and to keep all costs which impact on business as low as possible. This work will continue and will include the exploration of options for further reducing Local Authority charges to business. Rental costs are an important factor for high street retail businesses in particular. Under the Land Conveyancing and Law Reform Act 2009, upward-only rent reviews were abolished for all new leases signed on or after 28 February 2010. The Programme for Government expresses our intention to legislate to end upward-only rent reviews for existing leases. This is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality in the first instance and I understand that the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, has been in contact with the Attorney General on this matter.

Questions Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, answered with Question No. 9.

19. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he is actively considering a €500 million jobs fund. [14728/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): 1On 10 May, the Government launched a €500 million Jobs Initiative which has the objective of:

— restoring confidence in the economy, both internationally and domestically,

— supporting the maintenance of existing jobs, and facilitating the creation of new ones, 114 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

— improving the business environment, and

— assisting people to get back to work.

The Initiative includes a range of measures which will be taken across Government Depart- ments — including my own — to stimulate the economy and help get people back to work. The key elements of the Jobs Initiative include:

— a commitment to maintaining our 12.5% corporate tax rate;

— the introduction of a new temporary, second reduced rate of VAT to apply primarily to restaurant and catering services, hotel and holiday accommodation and various entertainment services;

— the halving of the lower rate of employer’s PRSI on earnings up to €356 per week;

— the reduction of the air travel tax rate to zero;

— a major reform to the visa application system for entry to Ireland;

— a focusing of the State’s capital expenditure towards more employment-intensive projects in the areas of education, local and regional roads and sustainable transport projects;

— additional funding for energy efficiency schemes;

— the provision of an extra 20,900 activation places for the unemployed; and

— improvements to the R&D tax credit scheme.

— developing proposals for a partial credit guarantee scheme to improve access to finance for SMEs, and for a Microfinance Start-up Fund.

This Jobs Initiative is an important first step in putting jobs at the heart of the new Govern- ment’s strategy. The Programme for Government outlines a much broader range of initiatives which will be embodied in that strategy.

County Enterprise Boards 20. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he has considered or will consider altering the organisational structure and administration of the county enterprise boards from a county to a regional basis; his views on whether the narrow definition of county creates a false barrier to industry and individuals that straddle county boundaries and thus encounter problems in correctly engaging with CEBs; his views on whether the consolidation of county enterprise boards into regional enterprise boards may prove more administratively and financially efficient while still maintaining a sub-national focus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14709/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Deputy will be aware that the issue of restructuring the CEBs has been in the public domain since the publication of the McCarthy Group Report under the last Administration. I should say that I am of the view that it is timely and appropriate to re-structure, and re-focus, how the State delivers its support to the indigenous micro-enterprise sector as, after all, this Sector will be vital to job creation and to overall economic recovery in Ireland. 115 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

However, I am also of the view that any restructuring should not result in a compromise on service delivery to the end user and that it is vital to ensure that State support for enterprise and job creation activities is delivered in a coherent, effective and efficient manner. I and my officials are currently seeking to determine the extent to which there should be restructuring of the County and City Enterprise Boards having regard to the Programme for Government, and to other recommendations on CEB restructuring, to the need to achieve a rational and focused model for entrepreneurs, as well as the need to ensure that there is targeted local delivery of enterprise support, driven by a national enterprise policy, in a manner which eliminates overlap and duplication.

Wage-setting Mechanisms 21. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will provide a detailed account of his or his officials’ discussions with Commissioner Olli Rehn and his officials on the issue of the reform of joint labour committees and registered employment agreements. [14716/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I have had no meeting with Commissioner Olli Rehn, who is the member of the European Commission with responsibility for economic and monetary affairs, since my appointment as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. I did have an opportunity, along with senior officials of my Department, to meet on 12 April with the combined staff teams from the European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund who visited Dublin during April 5-15 for the first quarterly review of the government’s economic program. On that occasion our discussions ranged over the different elements of the structural reform package to underpin growth that is a feature of the EU/ECB/IMF Programme of Support for the period 2010-13. We discussed the anticipated Jobs Initiative and the prospective completion of the report of the independent review of sectoral wage-setting arrangements. I recall that the visiting delegation also inquired about the new Government’s plans to introduce legislative changes to remove restrictions on trade and competition in sheltered sectors, including the legal profession, medical services and the phar- macy profession. Officials of my Department also participated, together with colleagues from the Department of Finance, in preliminary technical discussions with the staff teams from the European Com- mission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund on 6th April. This was at the outset of the first quarterly review of the Government’s economic program in order to assess progress and discuss operational aspects of policy implementation to achieve the objectives set down under the structural reform headings of the EU/ECB/IMF Programme. Follow- ing the publication of the Report of the Independent Review of Employment Regulation Orders and Registered Employment Agreement Wage Setting Mechanisms on 24th May last, my officials participated on 7th June, at the invitation of the European Commission’s Director- ate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), in a teleconference together with officials of the European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monet- ary Fund to consider the outcome of the report and the timetable for consideration of an action plan by the Government following the consultations with social partners and other stakeholders.

Innovation Policy 22. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the fund- 116 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers ing allocated to encourage innovation over and above that which was allocated by the previous Government. [14628/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): 1The use of innovation has a crucial role to play in supporting economic recovery and in driving sustainable employment in the current environment. A wide range of programmes are being delivered by the Enterprise Agencies — IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland, to promote innovation and give Irish enterprise a competitive edge in the global market place. Numerous measures have been taken to supporting enterprise to ensure that trade, exports and investment are positioned to retain sustainability and to ensure that emerging opportunities can be maximized. These include: — R&D Funding through Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland — Competence Centres established in strategically important sectoral areas like nano- technology and bioenergy, and the new generation of Technology Centres. The Centres are designed to allow groups of multinational and indigenous firms to work together with academics to undertake cutting edge, industry led research. — Supports for new start-up companies with the potential to achieve significant exports — 80 new High Potential Start Ups were established in 2010 — In 2010, over 49 pieces of commercially relevant technology were transferred from State Funded Research into industry. — The Enterprise Ireland Technology Transfer System facilitated the creation of 31 spin-out companies in 2010 — 526 Innovation Vouchers were redeemed in 2010 worth over €2.5m, bringing the total number of Innovation Vouchers redeemed since the scheme opened to over 1,000. — Collaboration between SFI funded researchers and industry has also increased significantly in recent years. At present SFI is supporting 29 top-class research centres (9 CSETs and 20 SRCs) and SFI funded researchers are collaborating with over 550 industry partners, both multinational and indigenous. — Both in 2009 and 2010, IDA investments of over €500m were in research, development and innovation, and these investments are central to productivity and new business development in the multinational sector. The Exchequer allocations for 2011 from my Department to the agencies under its remit involved in encouraging innovation are as follows

Enterprise Ireland — Subhead F — Research and Development is in receipt of €140.259m from my Department, (of which €131.393m is capital and €8.866m current funding).

Science Foundation Ireland has a budget of €175.142m, (of which €160.8m is capital and €14.342m current).

IDA has been allocated €124.577m, (of which €86m is capital and €38.577m current funds).

These allocations are provided for ongoing Enterprise Agency activities aimed at encouraging innovation, and ensuring that emerging opportunities are maximized. The Government has arranged that a comprehensive spending review of existing capital and current spending will be undertaken, and it is currently ongoing. All allocation of funding will be considered in this process, my Department will be fully engaged in that Spending Review and future funding will be determined by the outcome of this work. It will be my aim to enable the enterprise agencies under the remit of my Department to continue to support and encourage innovation and thereby help enterprise to be sustainable, develop, grow and provide jobs in this country for Ireland’s workforce.

Questions Nos. 23 and 24 answered with Question No. 9. 117 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Proposed Legislation 25. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to update the current partnership law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14639/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Company Law Review Group (CLRG) gave in-depth consideration, over a period of 4 years, to the reform of partnership law, in particular to the possibility of introducing Limited Liability Partnerships for accountants and solicitors. In general, the CLRG did not find any strong tide of opinion running in favour of introducing Limited Liability Partnerships. However, the Group did say that the issue warranted some further consideration and recommended that the Department of Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation and the Department of Justice and Equality should establish a committee, made up of representatives of both Departments and of the CLRG, the Irish Accountancy and Auditing Supervisory Authority and the Courts Service, to consider whether accountants and solicitors should be permitted to form Limited Liability Partnerships or companies. The issues at stake here are complex and wide ranging, particularly as it could involve the establishment of a new legal form which would have to apply generally and not only to the professions. The committee considering the issues will also have to take into account the taxation and transparency issues before coming to a conclusion and recommendations. In the meantime, there have been some changes to the overall position on liability. Section 44 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 2008 provides that a solicitor may contract with a client to limit his/her liability to that client. Furthermore, S.I. 220/2010, European Com- munities (Statutory Audits) (Directive 2006/43/EC) Regulations 2010, provides, among other things, for the removal of the prohibition on auditors incorporating as a limited liability company.

Job Creation 26. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his job creation target for 2011 and 2012, and over the Government’s term of office. [14631/11]

32. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the extent to which he has examined the potential job creation targets throughout his Department with the objective of achieving a reduction in the numbers on the live register; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14696/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 26 and 32 together. Job creation is central to our economic recovery and the Programme for Government has job creation at its core. It is only by creating the right environment for businesses to expand that we will see new jobs coming on stream. In this context, the objective of the Jobs Initiative announced on 10 May is to put policies in place to improve the business environment in Ireland, drive competitiveness, continue to grow our exports, and restore confidence in the economy, both internationally and domestically. The Jobs Initiative will support the maintenance of existing jobs, as well facilitating the creation of new ones. The Initiative includes a range of measures, which will be taken across all Govern- ment Departments — including my own — to stimulate the economy and help get people back to work. 118 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

The Programme for Government recognises that economic recovery must be export-led. Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy is an integrated strategy that is global in scope and covers both existing and new high growth potential markets. It has set a number of ambitious targets to be achieved by end 2015 i.e. to create 150,000 new jobs (manufacturing, tourism and traded services). The jobs total figure of 150,000 direct new jobs, is from agency estimates based on their growth targets over the Strategy period to the end of 2015 i.e. 75,000 (IDA Ireland), 60,000 (Enterprise Ireland) and 15,000 in the tourism sector. The strategy also foresees the creation of a similar number of new indirect jobs. Enterprise Ireland will support the achievement of these job creation targets through a number of key interventions such as:

— support for start-ups, R&D and Innovation, and securing exports:

— supporting the establishment and growth of High Potential Start-Ups.

— supporting companies to target new opportunities in overseas markets

— continuing to be focused on supporting company investments

— continuing to invest in R&D both in terms of in-company investments, and by supporting the commercialisation of Ireland’s research.

Just this week, I announced that Enterprise Ireland has invested in 80 new High Potential Start-Ups (HPSU), in 2010. These innovative young companies will create over 770 new jobs over the next three years, bringing their total employment to almost 1,300. Total sales over the same three year period are expected to reach €528 million, with exports accounting for over 80% of this figure. In addition to its existing offer for Irish companies, Enterprise Ireland recently launched a new fund with the aim of assisting its client companies achieve enhanced growth through increased employment. The competitive Job Expansion Fund will provide grant support up to a maximum of €150,000 towards the recruitment of new employees, with the first call for applications closing on 30 June 2011. FDI has been, and will continue to be, a key element in the export led recovery of the economy. IDA will focus on winning new investments in areas such as Global Services, High End Manufacturing and Research, Development and Innovation. IDA will also target new investments from sectors such as Life Sciences, Medical Devices, Information and Communi- cations Technology, Financial Services, Content Industry, Consumer and Business Services, Diversified Industries and Engineering and Clean Technologies. Fifty per cent of these investments are to be based in locations outside of Dublin and Cork. A growing proportion of FDI will come from high-growth markets new to Ireland.

27. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the job creation targets for the Industrial Development Agency for the period 2011 to 2014. [14625/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): In March 2010, IDA Ireland published ‘Horizon 2020’, its strategic blueprint for attracting Foreign Direct Invest- ment (FDI) into Ireland in the coming decade. FDI has been, and will continue to be, a key element in the export led recovery of the economy. ’Horizon 2020’ sets out a compelling argument for the need for ongoing ‘transformation’ in our approach to secure leading FDI here in Ireland. ‘Horizon 2020’ sets out a road-map of what is needed to fuel Ireland’s future success with leading global corporations over the coming 119 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] decade. The investment targets for this strategy include the creation of 62,000 direct new jobs with 105,000 total jobs impact in Ireland from the period 2010-2014 and 50% of these investments are to be based in locations outside of Dublin and Cork. Building on existing regional strengths to ensure Ireland’s economic development and optimising regional spread, in line with the NSS Gateway and Hubs, of overseas investments is central to IDA’s core activities. The Strategy is being implemented over a five year period (2010-2014). IDA has made good progress since the strategy was launched in March 2010. IDA Ireland’s specific targets for job creation for the period 2010 to 2014 are as follows:

— 105,000 new jobs (of which 62,000 will be direct employment)

— 640 investments

— 50% of investments will be located outside Dublin and Cork

— 20% of greenfield investments originating from emerging markets by 2014

— Annual client spend of €1.7bn in Research, Development and Innovation by 2014

IDA will increase its focus on winning new investments in the following areas:

— Global Services

— High End Manufacturing

— Research, Development and Innovation

IDA will focus on winning new investments, particularly from the following sectors:

— Life Sciences

— Pharma and Biopharma

— Medical Devices

— Information and Communications Technology

— Financial Services

— Content Industry, Consumer and Business Services

— Diversified Industries and Engineering

— Clean Technologies

A growing proportion of FDI will come from high-growth markets new to Ireland and IDA will win investments from these markets. FDI will also come increasingly from early-stage companies, which IDA can help attract to Ireland in part because so many established leading multinationals are already here.

Ministerial Meetings 28. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the meetings he has had with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Irish Business and Employers Confed- eration, Irish Small and Medium Enterprises and other employer and employee representative groups since taking office; if he will report on the details of these meetings; the dates of these 120 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers meetings and the matters discussed; if there have been no meetings to date, the date on which he proposes to meet with these groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14634/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Since taking office on 9 March last, I have held meetings with sixteen employer and employee representative groups as detailed in the table below. Further meetings with these and other such representative groups will be scheduled as necessary as issues arise.

Name of Employer / Employee Date of meeting Details of meetings / Matters discussed Representative Group (include dates of planned meetings, if known)

Irish National Organisation of the 07 April 2011 Discussion on a range of issues relating to Unemployed employment and unemployment. Irish Business and Employers 11 April 2011 Discussions on Corporation tax, Internship Confederation (IBEC) scheme, National Minimum Wage, Sectoral Wage Agreements, industrial relations. Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) 11 April 2011 Discussion on a range of issues relating to Minister’s responsibilities. Small Firms Association (SFA) 11 April 2011 Discussion on a range of issues relating to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Irish Small and Medium Sized 11 April 2011 Discussion on a range of issues relating to Small Enterprises Association (ISME) and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Chambers Ireland 18 May 2011 Discussion on a range of issues relating to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. IBEC CEO Panel / President of US 19 May 2011 Discussions on the concept of a tariff free trade Chamber regime between the EU and the US. Financial Services Ireland, a constituent 25 May 2011 Periodic meeting with internationally traded part of IBEC Financial Services Industry representatives to advance policy issues relating to the promotion of employment and output in the sector. Mandate Trade Union, SIPTU, Bakers’ 26 May 2011 Discussions on a matter relating to a specific Union company. Construction Industry Federation 31 May 2011 Discussions on Report on Review of JLC/REA mechanisms. IBEC 31 May 2011 Discussions on Report on Review of JLC/REA mechanisms. Retail Excellence Ireland 31 May 2011 Discussions on a range of issues relating to retail enterprises. ICTU 01 June 2011 Discussions on Report on Review of JLC/REA mechanisms. IBEC (Retail Ireland) 07 June 2011 Discussions on JLCs, economic recovery. Irish Farmers Association 07 June 2011 Discussions on retail issues. RGDATA — Jobs Alliance 08 June 2011 Discussions on Report on Review of JLC/REA mechanisms.

Departmental Bodies 29. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to renegotiate EU-imposed grant ceilings throughout the State. [14723/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The various EU State Aid regulations and frameworks set out the types of activities that can be supported by the Member States and stipulate the maximum percentage of eligible costs that can be aided. 121 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] These ceilings vary according to the type of aid measure involved but typically allow higher rates of aid for small and medium sized enterprises. Most measures are horizontal and do not have differentiated aid rates depending on the location of a company in the EU. By contrast, the Regional Aid Guidelines govern the areas in which Member States may grant regional aid, more commonly known as investment aid. Investment aid is intended to promote the economic development of certain disadvantaged areas within the European Union in order to redress regional disparities. The Guidelines specify rules for the selection of regions which are eligible for regional aid and define the maximum permitted levels of this aid. Under Ireland’s current Regional Aid Map, regions covering 50% of the population are entitled to grant Regional Aid. Under the Regional Aid Map, the highest rates were afforded to the Border, Midlands, West (BMW) region. For the period of 2007 to the end of 2010, the region qualified for a rate of 30% for large firms; for medium and small firms the rates were 40% and 50% respectively. In accordance with the Guidelines, a reduced rate of aid for the BMW region is applicable from 1 January 2011: 15% for large companies, 25% and 35% for medium and small firms respectively. The maximum aid rates for eligible regions within the Southern and Eastern Region remain at 10% for large companies, 20% and 30% for medium and small firms respectively. No scope exists to renegotiate aid rates within the current Guidelines, which are due to expire on 31 December 2013. To launch the work on the new Guidelines beyond 2013, the European Commission hosted a workshop for Member States in Brussels last March. The purpose of the workshop was to gather information on the operation of the current Guidelines and the experiences of Member States and to give Member States the opportunity to express preliminary views on the issues that should be reviewed in the future framework. Following consultation with stakeholders, my Department made preliminary submissions to the Commission both in advance and after the workshop. There are as yet no proposals from the Commission on a future Regional Aid Framework. The next steps are that the Commission is to undertake an Impact Assessment, which will involve questionnaires to Member States. This is due to be followed by further multilateral meetings in advance of adopting new Guide- lines by end of 2012. The process of notification of the new Regional Aid Maps for the Member States will continue throughout 2013, after which the new Regional Aid Guidelines will enter into force. My Department will continue to liaise with stakeholders throughout the process.

Question No. 30 answered with Question No. 6.

Question No. 31 answered with Question No. 9.

Question No. 32 answered with Question No. 26.

Credit Guarantee Scheme 33. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans regarding the development of an enterprise loan guarantee scheme; the amount of additional credit it will deliver into the system; how the criteria for the granting of credit differ from the criteria currently used by banks; and the annual cost to the State of such a scheme. [14724/11]

43. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation when he expects the partial guarantee scheme to come into effect; the period to which it will apply; if

122 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers it will be applicable generally or for specific sectors; and the estimated annual cost to the taxpayer. [14624/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 33 and 43 together. As part of the Jobs Initiative announced in this House on, 10th May, both the Minister for Finance and I confirmed the Government commitment to initiating a tendering process for the development of a temporary partial credit guarantee scheme. The design of the scheme will draw from international experience to support new lending that would not otherwise have been extended by the banks. In this way, the scheme will be targeted in its scope and will complement, rather than be a substitute for, existing lending activities by the main financial institutions. It will be designed to encourage banks to lend to these new or expanding commercially viable SMEs so that they can grow their company, develop new products or expand in to new markets. The Government’s commitment will be for an initial period of one year. Specific performance criteria will be set down that allow for review and revision of the scheme at the end of that initial period before committing to a roll-over of the scheme for subsequent years. There will be a modest level of exposure to the taxpayer when the scheme is launched but there will be a significant positive knock-on benefit to the economy in terms of job creation, welfare savings and returns to the Exchequer by way of tax revenue generated. Any costs arising in 2011 will be minimal and associated with the design and set up of the scheme which is due to be in place by the autumn. The tendering process will be commenced shortly.

Questions Nos. 34 and 35 answered with Question No. 9.

Job Creation 36. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he remains committed to investing €7 billion over the lifetime of the Government to create 100,000 jobs; and if he will outline his plans on this matter. [14726/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The role of Govern- ment is not to create jobs directly, but to put in place the environment where businesses can prosper and generate jobs. In this context, the Jobs Initiative which was announced by the Government on 10th May will support the maintenance of existing jobs, as well as facilitating the creation of new ones. The Initiative includes a range of measures which will be taken across all Government Departments — including my own — to stimulate the economy and help get people back to work. Additionally, the NewERA project is an integral part of the Government’s commitment to refocus and streamline the semi-state sector to support employment in the short-term and provide a basis for sustainable jobs and growth in the long term. NewERA will focus on investment in next generation water, broadband and bioenergy infrastructure. The NewERA plan is the responsibility of the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Mr. Fergus O’Dowd, T.D. I am aware that Minister O’Dowd is working intensively to shape the programme with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Minister Rabbitte, and with other relevant Ministerial colleagues with a view to progressing the project as expeditiously as possible. It is likely that the impact on employment of these, and other initiatives which will be introduced

123 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] by the Government, will be most visible from 2012, as economic activity picks up in response to the Government’s policies. The Stability Programme Update, which was laid before the Dáil on 29th April, foresees net employment creation of the order of 100,000 over the period 2012 to 2015. The overall level of investment in facilitating job creation will be determined by economic conditions over the lifetime of the Government.

37. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans and those of the Industrial Development Agency to try to create jobs in an area (details supplied) which is now suffering from a critical lack of employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14637/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Job creation is central to our economic recovery and the Programme for Government has job creation at its core. The role of my Department is to ensure that we have the right policies in place that will support and grow our enterprise base in order to facilitate both job creation and job retention. The Jobs Initiative announced on 10 May focuses our limited resources on measures that offer the greatest potential for expansion and employment creation in the domestic economy. The Initiative has a significant focus on tourism and the reduction in the VAT Rate and the abolition of the travel tax will provide an important stimulus to tourism businesses in Kerry and around the country. The programmes supported by my Department and its agencies will be critical in achieving economic growth through promoting the export potential of enterprise in Ireland and driving our Smart Economy. The allocation of €508 million in funding for 2011 will ensure that the core programmes of the enterprise agencies are sustained and targeted as well as driving investment in research and development. This investment in the Enterprise Development agencies will drive recovery in the economy by facilitating the winning of foreign direct investments, the growth of indigenous exports and the creation of sustainable jobs. IDA Ireland promotes Co. Kerry for new inward investment across the ICT, International Financial Services and Globally Traded Business sectors. As well as attracting new foreign direct investment, IDA works closely with its existing clients to encourage them to expand their operations in the County. In selecting locations to show companies, IDA Ireland seeks to include locations, which have been affected by closures and job losses. However, the final decision on where to locate is taken in all cases by the promoting company. At present there are 15 IDA Ireland-supported companies in Co. Kerry employing more than 1,300 people. Enterprise Ireland continues to support job creation through a number of interventions, such as supporting the establishment and growth of high potential start-up companies and supporting companies to target new opportunities in overseas markets. At present there are 133 Enterprise Ireland client companies in Co. Kerry employing more than 3,000 people. In 2010, Enterprise Ireland paid out over €3.2m in financial support to its client companies in Co. Kerry. In addition, the agency has been providing support to seven community enterprise centres. Kerry County Enterprise Board continues to be actively involved in the economic development of the Caherciveen area and the County as a whole. Since its inception in 1993 to end 2010, Kerry CEB has issued almost €7.1m in grant assistance to 888 clients. So far this year, Kerry CEB has approved €153,000 in grant support to 16 micro-enterprise projects in the County, supporting the generation of 44 new jobs. There are approximately 1,300 people employed in companies assisted by Kerry CEB.

124 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

The State Enterprise Development agencies, together with the Kerry County Enterprise Board continue to work together with other stakeholders in relation to enterprise development. The actions to be taken across Government will stimulate the economy, facilitate enterprise and encourage job creation, including in Co. Kerry.

Departmental Agencies 38. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans regarding the reorientation of enterprise development agencies towards emerging markets in Brazil, Russia, India and China. [14722/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Government believes that our economic recovery will be export led and in this regard is fully committed to developing and expanding engagement with the key high potential markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The agreed Programme for Government commits us to achieve the maximum potential growth in exports, including the long-term development of new and emerging markets. In this context the Government has given a commitment to progressively implement the recommendations in the strategy and action plan for Irish Trade, Tourism and Investment to 2015, entitled Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy which will inter alia, position Ireland to develop better trade relationships with emerging economies. That Strategy takes a two-pronged approach, focussing on particular markets and sectors. In terms of markets, it identifies potential to further grow our existing key markets and, most particularly, to increase or gain a foothold in high-growth and high-potential markets, such as Brazil, Russia, India and China. The targets in Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy which have been agreed by the relevant State Agencies — Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Bord Bia, Tourism Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland- will of course guide their activities in the coming years. Following a Government decision on 24 May, the transfer of trade promotion functions from my Department to the new Department of Foreign Affairs took place on Wednesday 1 June. The new Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for the management of the Export Trade Council to be established following the commitment in the Programme for Government, Key instruments to pursue trade expansion are, of course, Trade Missions and over the last five years, Taoiseach-led Trade Missions have been organised to China and India and several other Ministerial-led Trade Missions have taken place to China, India, Russia and Brazil. I myself led a Trade Mission to India in April last, with 22 Enterprise Ireland client companies participating, where I officiated over a successful programme of events to promote our exports to that country. My Department and the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade will work closely together in planning for trade missions. It is envisaged that these missions will include visits to high-growth developing markets, A further indicator of commitment is the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs has expanded its network of Embassies and Consulates in some of those countries and Enterprise Ireland has opened new offices to facilitate Irish companies developing export opportunities there. In addition, Enterprise Ireland has a dedicated High Growth Markets Unit in Dublin to provide further assistance to client companies doing business in a range of countries, including Brazil, Russia, India and China. Furthermore I retain responsibility for trade policy. Consequently, my Department is engaged in the promotion of Ireland’s trade interests through for example, the negotiation of Free Trade Agreements between the EU and third countries. A Free Trade Agreement is now under negotiation with India and another with South Korea comes into effect on 1 July this

125 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] year. I also place a particular emphasis on promoting less restrictive global trade arrangements by means of the current round of world trade talks at the World Trade Organisation and developing new opportunities for exporters by reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers through trade and regulatory discussions between the EU and China, Russia, Brazil and the United States. All the efforts have borne considerable fruit. Between 2005 and 2010, Merchandise exports to these countries have risen 73% and between 2004 and 2009 (latest available year) Services exports have risen by 622%. A key example of this success is the fact that Ireland now has a modest trade surplus with China, a dramatic turnaround from the position only three years ago when we had a trade deficit of €2.9bn with that country.

EU Funding 39. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the extent to which he is in communication with the European Commission with a view to utilising all possible assistance towards the generation of employment through EU-sponsored innovation initiatives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14697/11]

102. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will set out the extent of EU support toward job creation with particular reference to innovation and research; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14949/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 39 and 102 together. I fully support the core elements of the European Union’s new strategy for Jobs and Growth: Europe 2020 and its objectives to stimulate growth based on knowledge and innovation and a more sustainable and greener economy with high employment and social inclusion. These objectives are also broadly consistent with the Government’s own strategies as set out in the Programme for Government and with the National Recovery Plan. I believe that it is of vital importance to Ireland’s interests in implementing this strategy that both Ministerial and Official links with the EU Commission, the European Parliament and other EU Institutions be strengthened and maintained. At Official level, my Department has regular contact with EU Commission Officials on foot of the EU competitiveness and National Reform Programme monitoring and tracking processes. At Ministerial level, we are increasing our levels of engagement as we look forward to the Irish EU Presidency in 2013. Since my appointment as Minister, I have attended 2 formal Councils in Brussels and have met with four Commissioners, including Commissioner Maire Geoghegan-Quinn who has responsibility for research and innovation. At these meetings I took the opportunity to, first and foremost, underline the important national efforts at recovery underway and explained that restructuring of the banks was key in terms of releasing lending to SMEs. I emphasised that exports are key to our growth model which is built on tax certainty and therefore I also highlighted our concerns on Corporation Tax. In recognition that business and enterprise create jobs and drive economic growth and innovation, the Commissioners concurred that it was essential that the optimal environment and framework conditions be in place to allow this to happen. At EU level, I agreed that it was important that we continue to develop strong demand side innovation policy instruments in areas such as standardisation, public procurement supporting innovation, an integrated EU venture capital market and the development of more competitive solutions, better regulation

126 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers and tackling red tape and duplication. We will be working with our EU partners and the EU Commission to bring these policy instruments and associated measures to fruition through the various Council Working Groups and Committees and in particular through the EU Competi- tiveness Council. The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7), with a budget of over €50 billion over the period 2007 to 2013, is the EU’s main instrument for funding research and development in Europe. In order to extract the maximum benefit from the opportunities available within FP7, a National Support Network has been put in place, headed by a National Director for FP7 based in Enterprise Ireland who leads a team of national contact points for various elements of the Programme. Ireland’s target for drawdown of funds from FP7 over the lifetime of the programme is €600 million. Achievement of this target is well on track, with some €269m already awarded by end 2010. I am determined that we will achieve the target set. Ireland also continues to exploit its membership of the European Space Agency (ESA) by supporting Irish companies to develop new products and services, generating increased employment and export sales in participating companies. Ireland’s ESA membership has contributed to the development of a highly knowledge-intensive industry sector with over 60 Irish technology companies having secured ESA contracts since 2000. Both the Minister for Research and Innovation, Mr. Sean Sherlock, and the Minister for Small Business Mr. John Perry are actively engaged in Europe, Minister Sherlock on the Research, Development and Innovation agenda and Minister Perry as the newly appointed National SME Envoy for Ireland, following the Commission initiative to gather a group of High Level Representatives from each Member State to meet regularly and to represent the interests of small business.

Question No. 40 answered with Question No. 9.

Jobs Initiative 41. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the steps he is taking to support enterprise development in the midland and western regions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14640/11]

127 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] located outside of Dublin and Cork. To date in 2011, of the 22 investments announced, 16 have met have met this criteria. Six of these are located in the West Region and five in the Midlands. These announcements alone have the potential to create up to 1,000 jobs. Considerable success has been achieved in attracting high quality investment to both regions. At present, there are a total of 115 IDA supported companies employing over 18,000 people between both regions. The key sectors of focus are life sciences, information and communications technologies and high value services activities. IDA has a good pipeline for 2011 and is hopeful of securing further investments across a number of locations. Enterprise Ireland has a wide range of programmes to address the multi-disciplinary demands of entrepreneurship and the diversity of business types. The agency supports companies to achieve productivity gains, internationalisation and export growth. It assists with research and development, management skills acquisition, market information and seed and venture capital. Between the two regions, the agency has almost 700 clients employing over 17,000 people. In 2010, Enterprise Ireland-assisted companies created 457 new full-time jobs in the Midlands region and 786 in the West. In addition, over €23m was approved for the agency’s client companies in the two regions. To stimulate entrepreneurship within the regions Enterprise Ireland is supporting an Enterprise Platform Programme based in GMIT (Galway and Castlebar) and in the Athlone Institute of Technology. This programme will start at the end of June 2011 and is open for applications. During 2010, the CEBs in the two regions paid out over €2.3m in grant assistance to 207 clients. Of this, €1.1m was paid out to 101 client companies in the Midlands Region comprising counties Laois, Offaly, Longford and Westmeath. €1.2m was paid out to 106 client companies in counties Galway, Mayo and Roscommon, which make up the West Region. This year, the CEBs are continuing to support enterprise development through the provision of both direct financial assistance (in the form of capital, feasibility and employment grants) and through indirect or “soft support” assistance such as management development, capability support and the development and delivery of activities to highlight and promote enterprise.

Economic Competitiveness 42. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans for reform of wage levels for highly paid professionals such as consultants and lawyers and other sheltered sections of the labour force. [14712/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): In order for the Irish economy to make the necessary transition from a reliance on domestic demand to sustainable export-led growth in the medium term, a convergence of Irish costs, charges, professional fees, etc towards the levels of Ireland’s trading partners is required. Therefore, to improve Ireland’s relative cost competitiveness, there is a need to achieve reductions in costs faster than the Eurozone average. Ensuring competition within Ireland’s domestic economy is vital to improving overall competitiveness. More competition will result in better value for money, lower prices for consumers and greater opportunities for job creation. Well-run markets are vital from every side of the perspective. The Competition Authority has published a number of reports resulting from studies it carried out on various sectors or professions since 2004. The reports usually contain a suite of recommendations, aimed at improving competition in the relevant area and are addressed to the responsible Government Department or body. Such reports have included the medical and legal professions.

128 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Responsibility for any proposals aimed at ending apparent restrictions on competition in a particular sector rests with the Minister with responsibility for that particular policy area. For example, policy proposals concerning the legal and medical sectors are matters for my colleagues, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Health respectively. I understand that both Ministers are working on proposals in respect of these sectors at present. Given the responsibility of my Department for competition policy in general, I will be reporting to Government shortly on the progress achieved by a number of Government Depart- ments in the implementation of the Competition Authority recommendations and I will continue to work with my Government colleagues to ensure that everything is done to help improve competitiveness in their areas of responsibility.

Question No. 43 answered with Question No. 33.

Overseas Trade 44. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will indicate his strategy to establish new export outlets or trade links with EU and non-EU states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14954/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): I and my colleagues in Government are firmly of the view that Ireland’s economic recovery will be export led. In the Programme for Government, we committed to implementing a number of actions to achieve the maximum growth in exports, including the long-term development of new markets. One of the key actions in this regard is to progressively implement the recommendations in the Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy Strategy. This Strategy is an action plan for improving trade, tourism and investment links with new and fast-developing markets. It sets out cross-sectoral priorities and a series of recommended actions that will enable the export sector to realise its potential for growth in coming years. To take forward the recommendations within the Strategy and to coordinate our efforts to expand trade links in new and existing markets, the Government has also committed to establishing an Export Trade Council. Under the new arrangements for trade promotion, my Department will have responsibility for managing the Export Trade Council, which I will chair. As well as Government and State Agency representatives, it will have private sector representation and draw on the experience of those directly involved in growing export oriented business. This Council will examine how we can ensure that every opportunity possible is taken to develop links and enhance trade relations with existing and new partners, within and outside the EU, including in emerging high growth markets. Discussions on the practical arrangements for the transfer of enhanced responsibilities for trade promotion from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to my Department are currently being finalised. Once this has been done, I intend to put in place arrangements for the first meeting of the Export Trade Council.

45. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the degree to which he has been in contact with trading partners in the European Union and worldwide with a view to maximising export opportunities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14956/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): Trade and business events are included in my programme of meetings overseas wherever possible. In

129 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Eamon Gilmore.] March I visited New York for St. Patrick’s Day events before travelling on to Washington D.C. for a bilateral meeting with the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In New York I addressed the Ireland-US Council and met with U.S. based Irish business networks. I also attended a Bank of America — Enterprise Ireland Technology Innovation event in which Irish high-tech companies met with some of the leading technology companies in the US. I visited London at the start of May where I met with the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Foreign Secretary William Hague, as well as a number of key Enterprise Ireland clients. On 13 May, I visited Oslo and had discussions with the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, and a separate meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre. More recently, I attended an OECD meeting in Paris at the end of May and took the opportunity to meet with the French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, as well as my counterparts from Australia and New Zealand, and to speak with them on economic matters. I also met with Enterprise Ireland clients while in Paris. Building and strengthening Ireland’s economic and trade links abroad is a key focus of the work of my Department, and its network of Embassies throughout the EU and the world. At last week’s Ambassadors Conference I underlined the priority to be given to the promotion of Ireland’s economic interests. The Government’s objective is to ensure we get the maximum co- ordinated approach and impact from our entire presence abroad and give it a renewed focus on trade and business.

Human Rights Issues 46. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if any action is being taken at EU and UN level to protest at and reverse the sentencing to death of Asia Bibi in Pakistan under the country’s blasphemy laws; if his Department has contacted the ambassador of Pakistan and the Pakistani Government on this matter; if he will indicate if he has been briefed on this issue by any organisation, including the Irish advocacy group for persecuted Christians, Church in Chains; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14858/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): I am gravely concerned about the case of Mrs. Asia Bibi. In November 2010, Mrs. Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging in a Punjab court for blasphemy. I understand that this is the first time a woman has been sentenced to death in Pakistan under its blasphemy law. When reports of the case came to the attention of my Department, a senior official contacted the Embassy of Pakis- tan to express our concern at the conviction and sentence. He also expressed our disquiet at the nature of Pakistan’s blasphemy law. Mrs. Bibi’s case and Pakistan’s blasphemy laws were discussed at the 23 May bilateral political consultations in Dublin, with the Pakistani Additional Foreign Secretary for Europe and the Pakistani Ambassador, when our strong concerns about the conviction, sentence and the nature of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws were re-iterated. At European level High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, has also expressed her concerns at the Asia Bibi judgement and others like it, and called on Pakistan to respect human rights as guaranteed under international conventions to which it is a party. She also re-affirmed the European Union’s position on the death penalty as a cruel and inhuman punishment. Respect for human rights is a cornerstone of foreign policy for both Ireland and the Euro- pean Union as whole. For its part, the Pakistani Government has given clear commitments to protect religious minorities and to promote religious tolerance. The establishment of a Ministry

130 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers for Human Rights, a Ministry for Minorities and the proposed establishment of an independent national Human Rights Commission are welcome initiatives in this regard. I would add that Ireland is at the forefront of efforts to promote the total and universal abolition of the death penalty. It has been almost ten years since the Irish people voted in a referendum to abolish fully and formally the use of the death penalty. In so doing, Ireland stands out as one of the few countries in the world where the electorate has voted to insert an article into our Constitution explicitly forbidding use of the death penalty. I would take this opportunity to again urge the Pakistani Government to resolve Mrs. Bibi’s case as soon as possible and to initiate a thorough review of its blasphemy law, in particular, the use of the death penalty. I will continue to follow Mrs. Bibi’s case closely and officials will remain in contact with the Pakistani authorities in relation to this matter.

Sunday Trading 47. Deputy Gerald Nash asked the Minister for Finance if he has any plans to amend the Betting Act 1931 to permit bookmakers’ shops to open to the public on Sundays; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14901/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The permitted opening hours for bookmakers’ shops is one of the issues being considered in the context of the proposed Betting (Amendment) Bill 2011. I would however draw to the attention of the Deputy that bookmakers’ shops are currently permitted to open to the public on all Sundays except Easter Sunday.

Credit Unions 48. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding stress testing of the credit union sector which was due to be completed by the end of May 2011. [14777/11]

49. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding the plan to underpin the solvency and viability of the credit union sector which under the revised EU- IMF deal was due to be completed by the end of May 2011. [14779/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 49 together. Under the EU/IMF Programme of Support for Ireland, stress tests on credit unions have been completed by the Central Bank. Credit unions were subjected to a detailed stress testing exercise to make an assessment of the likely impact of a given stress scenario on the capital buffers of credit unions. The purpose of this work is to provide the Central Bank with the necessary regulatory information to concentrate its supervisory focus and, where necessary, to take pre-emptive remedial action to maintain member confidence and protect the financial stability of the credit union sector. These stress test results also feed into Government policy in relation to the credit union sector. In light of the stress tests on credit unions, I have prepared a plan to underpin the solvency and viability of undercapitalised credit unions. I intend to bring this Strategy to Government shortly.

50. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding the establishment of a commission on credit unions which was due to be in place by the end of May 2011. [14780/11]

131 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): At its meeting of 31st May 2011, the Govern- ment agreed to establish a Commission on Credit Unions to review the future of the credit union movement and make recommendations in relation to the most effective regulatory structure for credit unions, taking into account their not-for-profit mandate, their volunteer ethos and community focus, while paying due regard to the need to fully protect depositors’ savings and ensure financial stability. I hope to make the formal announcement regarding the establishment of the Commission by the end of this week. This announcement will include the membership of the Commission and the Terms of Reference.

Tax Code 51. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Finance if exemptions will be put in place for persons who were contracted workers for semi-State companies with regard to their late entry into a pension scheme. [14797/11]

58. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Finance if the 0.6% levy on the pensions industry will be applied to pension funds in distress, particularly those in debt; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14862/11]

59. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Finance if he intends to ensure that the 0.6% levy on the pensions industry will be taken from its charges or profits rather than from pensioners themselves. [14863/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 51, 58 and 59 together. As regards exemptions from the levy, the intention is that the levy will not apply to the assets of occupational pension funds in respect of the provision of retirement benefits to current active members whose employment in relation to the scheme is and always was exercised outside the State, or, in the case of members whose employment in relation to the scheme has ceased, either through leaving the employment or retirement, where the employment was always exercised outside the State. The aim is to exclude members of pension funds approved by the Revenue Commissioners who have no connection with Ireland as such. Also, the levy will not apply to occupational pension funds where the trustees pass a resolution to wind-up the fund and where the trade or undertaking in relation with which the scheme was established is insolvent. No other exemptions are proposed. On the question of fees or charges, I take the view that there is scope for the pension fund industry to absorb the impact of the temporary pension scheme levy by way of a reduction in the fees and charges made on those schemes. I have made that clear in this House and I have conveyed that view to representatives of the pension fund industry at face-to-face meetings. I have also written to the main representative organizations of the industry in this matter and I am awaiting a response from them.

Coastal Protection 52. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Finance if he will make funding available for coastal protection works at Rossbeigh Beach, Glenbeigh, County Kerry. [14800/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): An application for funding was received from Kerry County Council on 31 May, 2011, under the Minor Flood Mitigation Works and Coastal Protection Scheme, to undertake works involving the strengthening and extension of the rock armour structure at this location. The Council estimate the cost

132 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers of the works to be €350,000. The application is one of five schemes for which the Council have applied for funding in 2011. The application is currently being assessed in accordance with the scheme criteria, and also having regard to the overall availability of resources.

Tax Code 53. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding a levy on text messages; if he has pursued such a proposal; the legislation that will be needed to enact such a proposal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14834/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Text messages are currently subject to VAT at 21%. A levy on text messages could have a behavioural impact if it was directly imposed on customers or imposed on the mobile telephone companies and passed on to customers. Thus it is not safe to estimate the potential yield of such a tax from the current level of text message usage. As such a levy would probably be a Stamp Duty charge, the legislation required would be contained in a Finance Bill as an amendment to the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999. I am not aware of a similar tax anywhere else in the world and I have no plans to introduce such a tax at this time.

Flood Relief 54. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Finance the progress made to date on the remedial works carried out with regard to flooding and those that are about to be carried out in places at which there was severe flooding in late 2009; the position regarding the drainage scheme at Ballinasloe town and the drainage on the Dunkellin river from Craughwell to Kilcolgan; the other areas that are to be grant aided this year; the flooding black spots that are being addressed in 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14836/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): Details of funding allocated in 2010 by the Office of Public Works under the Minor Flood & Coastal Protection Scheme are given in the table below. To date in 2011, 9 local authorities have had 24 applications approved for funding totalling €1,037,425. Of these, 12 applications were from Galway County Council, totalling €338,850. Progress in relation to the works to be undertaken in each particular case is a matter for the local authority concerned. Following a call for proposals in 2011, twenty one local authorities have recently submitted applications and these are currently being assessed in accordance with the scheme criteria and also having regard to the overall availability of resources. In December 2009, the Office of Public Works and Galway County Council established a Joint Working Group to examine the causes of flooding in the County and to identify interim flood mitigation measures. Regarding Ballinasloe, the Office of Public Works has provided funding to Galway County Council to construct a flood wall to protect the Derrymullen area, which is approaching completion and has also funded a number of other works including blocked openings at East Bridge and the removal of obsolete sluices at the same location. In the past few weeks Galway County Council has applied for funding to improve the East Bridge, this application is under consideration at present.

133 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Hayes.]

In relation to the Dunkellin River, the Office of Public Works has agreed to progress a programme of flood alleviation works for this River and the Aggard Stream. It has been agreed that Galway County Council will act as the Contracting Authority with overall responsibility for the Flood Relief Scheme and that OPW personnel will, on scheme approval, carry out the channel construction works, acting as agents of the Local Authority. The Council has appointed the engineering & environmental consultants needed to complete the scheme design and to attain the necessary statutory permissions for the scheme. OPW have made provision in their current budgetary estimates to commence construction works on the Dunkellin Flood Relief Scheme in the latter half of 2011. However, this is contingent on all environmental considerations and issues being resolved to the satisfaction of the National Parks and Wildlife Services Division of the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. It is also a prerequisite of the scheme that the Council secure the appropriate statutory permissions to allow the scheme to advance to construction. Subject to the scheme obtaining the required approvals and consents and to continuing availability of funding, it is anticipated that the scheme will be at construction stage by the end of 2011 or early in 2012. In addition, the Office of Public Works, in association with Galway County Council, are currently developing a Flood Relief Scheme for the Clare River in the environs of Claregalway, Caherlea/Lisheenavalla, and the Carnmore/Cashla areas. OPW has appointed environmental & consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of the scheme including the preparation necessary to have the scheme brought to Public Exhibition. If the scheme meets with approval from National Parks and Wildlife Services, the general public and other stakeholders it will be put forward to the Department of Finance for confirmation and approval. Subject to the scheme obtaining the required approvals and consents and to continuing availability of funding, it is anticipated that the scheme will be at construction stage by the end of 2011 or early in 2012. The OPW currently has provision in its budgetary estimates for the construction of the works. In response to concerns of immediate flood risk last winter, it was agreed that the following remedial works would be carried out in advance of the Claregalway flood relief scheme: installation of an additional flood eye at Claregalway Bridge; construction of a new bridge at Crusheeny. The works on Claregalway Bridge will be completed in June/July 2011 with works at Cru- sheeny Bridge, commencing with the demolition of the existing bridge, due to start in September 2011. The study for the Shannon catchment based flood risk assessment and management plan began earlier this year. The study will identify and examine in detail the causes of flooding throughout the Shannon catchment and produce an integrated plan of specific measures to address the significant flood risk factors in a pro-active and comprehensive way.

Minor Flood Works & Coastal Protection Scheme 2010:

Local Authority No of Applications No of Applications Total Funding Received Approved Allocated €

Carlow County Council 3 3 741,510 Cavan County Council 26 1 72,000 Clare County Council 22 6 643,800

134 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Local Authority No of Applications No of Applications Total Funding Received Approved Allocated €

Cork County Council 42 9 1,344,000 Cork City Council 1 1 900,000 Donegal County Council 21 13 506,979 Dublin City Council 3 0 0 Dun Laoghaire/ Rathdown County Council 1 0 0 Fingal County Council 6 0 0 Galway County Council 113 67 3,706,905 Galway City Council 2 2 148,995 Kerry County Council 16 2 407,700 Kildare County Council 5 5 1,467,020 Kilkenny County Council 6 5 679,000 Laois County Council 2 1 14,400 Leitrim County Council 9 4 220,860 Limerick County Council 33 17 777,915 Longford County Council 10 3 201,936 Louth County Council 8 2 234,000 Mayo County Council 16 5 191,700 Meath County Council 4 1 315000 Monaghan County Council 11 1 31500 Offaly County Council 12 4 234000 Roscommon County Council 31 14 951,143 Sligo County Council 1 1 423,000 South Dublin County Council 2 0 0 North Tipperary County Council 8 4 94,164 South Tipperary County Council 11 10 302,399 Waterford County Council 4 4 53,550 Westmeath County Council 7 3 520,070 Wexford County Council 16 3 641,700 Wicklow County Council 13 4 398,700

Total: 465 195 16,223,946

Departmental Staff 55. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons employed by his Department by grade; and the pay scale of each grade. [14838/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): At present there are 564.18 Whole Time Equivalents (WTEs) employed in my Department. When formally established, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will be comprised principally of staff currently allocated to the Sectoral Policy and Public Service Management Development Divisions of my Department together with the staff of the Modernisation Unit of the Department of the Taoiseach who have redeployed to my Department. After the changes, my Department will consist of policy areas within the Financial Services and Budget, Taxation & Economic Divisions. Areas such as Corporate Services Division (Human Resources and Facilities Management), Finance Unit, Salaries Section and the Press Office will continue to provide services to staff in both Depart- 135 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] ments on a ‘shared-service’ basis. Similarly, services will be provided to both Departments by an IT Unit based in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The precise number of staff to be allocated to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is currently being finalised and assignments will be complete by the date of establishment. The current payscales for civil service grades generally are outlined in Circular 28/2009 which is available on the Department’s website www.finance.gov.ie. The pay rate for certain staff members specific to the Department which are not included in the circular are listed below. — Secretary General, Department of Finance — €228,466 per annum. — Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform — €200,000 per annum. — Second Secretary — €188,640 per annum. A detailed list of pay rates for grades specific to this Department will be forwarded to the Deputy in due course.

National Lottery 56. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Finance the amount of revenue that was generated for the Exchequer through sales of National Lottery tickets for each of the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011. [14839/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The amount of revenue (surplus) generated by the National Lottery through the sales of National Lottery tickets (i.e. its turnover net of prizes and all costs) is shown in the table below. The final figures for 2011 are not yet available.

National Lottery surplus transferred to the Exchequer

Year € million

2007 245 2008 268 2009 264 2010 244 2011 230 (Estimated)

Car Scrappage Scheme 57. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance if he plans to extend the car scrappage scheme until 30 June 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14855/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I have no plans to extend the car scrappage scheme beyond 30 June 2011.

Questions Nos. 58 and 59 answered with Question No. 51.

Pension Provisions 60. Deputy Ciara Conway asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding a request for an extension of the retirement age by one year from a public service worker (details supplied) in County Waterford, under the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, in view of the date on which they entered the public service and the positive effect that this extension would have on the person’s pension entitlements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14871/11] 136 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I regret I am unable to answer the Deputy’s question as the information supplied is not sufficiently specific. The Deputy’s office has been contacted for further information on the case and a response is awaited.

Pay Rates 61. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider the establishment of a high pay commission to examine the levels of high pay and compensation across the economy in both private and public sectors in view of the high levels of remuneration in the Irish economy, which can be multiples of more than 30 times the average industrial wage or 50 times the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14938/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I have no plans to establish a commission to examine levels of pay in the private and public sectors of the economy. Apart from instances where statutory rates of pay apply, pay rates in the private sector are generally a matter for negotiation between individual employers and employees. In the public service where the Government has a direct role in the determination of pay rates as employer, pay rates have already been reduced by up to 15% and a progressive pension related reduction applied through the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts. I am currently reviewing the issue of the appropriate level of senior pay in the public service and I will be bringing proposals to Government shortly.

Bank Guarantee Scheme 62. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance the amounts repaid to senior bondholders by the covered financial institutions in 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14939/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Central Bank of Ireland has advised my Department that the total amount repaid to senior unguaranteed bond holders by the covered institutions is as follows:

From 2009 2010 2011 Total September €m €m €m 2008 €m

Senior Unguaranteed Secured 23 69 477 729 1,298 Senior Unguaranteed Unsecured 0 0 2,430 3,599 6,029

Total 23 69 2,907 4,328 7,327

My Department is awaiting up to date information requested by the Central Bank from the covered institutions of the amounts of senior guaranteed bonds that have been repaid by the covered institutions and I will send this information to the Deputy as soon as possible.

Fiscal Policy 63. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance the size of the projected total deficit in the budget 2011 current and capital accounts; the amount of that deficit that is composed of payments to banks and bondholders under the blanket guarantee; how the total State income breaks down between taxes raised by the State and troika moneys; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14940/11] 137 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Stability Programme Update (SPU), which was published at the end of April and submitted to the European Commission, updated the economic and budgetary forecasts contained in Budget 2011. The SPU projected an Exchequer deficit in 2011 of €18,165 million, made up of a €12,035 million current budget deficit and a €6,130 million capital budget deficit. The bank guarantee has not been called upon, so no money has been paid to the banks and bondholders under the guarantee. Indeed, the current-side of the Exchequer account benefits from fees paid under the bank guarantee schemes. At end-May, some €286 million had been received in this regard as non-tax revenue, with a total of €800 million expected for the year as a whole. Of course, there has been and is a large cost associated with bank supports and these have been widely documented. For example, in terms of 2011 cash spend, there is a non-voted capital expenditure payment of approximately €3.1 billion, representing the first instalment of the Promissory Notes issued to Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Nationwide Building Society and Edu- cational Building Society, the purpose of which was to provide capital injections to these financial institutions. However, this amount does not impact the General Government deficit in 2011. As regards 2011, the SPU projected tax revenue receipts of €34,900 million. Taking account of this projected tax revenue, the Exchequer deficit, as outlined above, is projected at €18,165 million. The Deputy may like to bear in mind that the figure for the cash deficit differs from the General Government deficit, which is projected at €15,665 million. The funding which is available for sovereign purposes under the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support is not an income of the State. Rather it is essentially borrowing which is used to fund the difference between the State’s revenues, including those from tax receipts, and the State’s expenditures, namely the Exchequer deficit. As of end-May 2011, approximately €22.4 billion has been drawn down from the EU/IMF under the Programme, with a total of €38.4 billion projected for the year as a whole.

Fiscal Policy 64. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin asked the Minister for Finance the legislation needed for a levy to be introduced on the tuition fees paid to primary and secondary schools and fees paid to grind schools; his views on the amount of revenue which could be raised if a 1% levy was introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14959/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): If a levy such as is suggested was a taxation measure it would probably be a Stamp Duty, so the legislation required would be contained in a Finance Bill as an amendment to the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999. I am advised there is insufficient information to estimate the potential yield from a levy on tuition fees. While any additional revenue would be welcome in the current circumstances, I must also take into account the wider social and economic factors which might militate against the introduction of a levy on tuition fees. Also, the potential yield from such a levy would be affected by the possible behavioural impact of the charge. I have no plans at this time to introduce such a tax.

Mortgage Arrears 65. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Finance his views on a proposal (details supplied) to assist those who are struggling to make their monthly mortgage payments. [14964/11]

138 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I would like to inform the Deputy that there are a number of measures in place to assist mortgage holders who are in genuine difficulties with regard to the payment of their mortgages. The Deputy will be aware of the work of the Expert Group on Mortgage Arrears and Personal Debt. This Group published its final Report in November 2010. All of the Expert Group’s recommendations are listed in Chapter 2 of the Report which can be accessed at www.finance.gov.ie. One of the recommendations of the Group was that lenders should offer a Deferred Interest Scheme (DIS) to borrowers. Under this Scheme, borrowers are allowed, subject to certain criteria being satisfied, to pay at least 66% of their mortgage interest but less than 100%. Payment of the balance may be deferred for up to five years. Lenders representing the majority of the market have already indicated their willingness to implement the Group’s proposals for a DIS or a variation of it. I am awaiting information from the Central Bank on the up-to-date position on this and, on receipt, I will communicate the information to the Deputy. While the scheme is voluntary for all lenders, those who have signed up in support of the scheme will be monitored by the Central Bank to ensure compliance. Since the publication of the Group’s Report, the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (CCMA) has been revised by the Central Bank to reflect many of the recommendations, including key recommendations relating to the introduction by all regulated lenders of a standardised Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process (MARP). The most significant changes in the revised CCMA include: — Penalty interest charges may not be imposed on borrowers in arrears who co-operate with the MARP; — Harassment of borrowers through unsolicited communications is outlawed; — Borrowers in financial difficulties, but not in arrears, are allowed to come under the MARP; · — When a lender is determining the 12 month period the lender must wait before applying to the courts to commence legal action, the lender must exclude any time period during which a borrower is complying with the terms of an alternative repayment arrangement, making an appeal to the internal appeals board or making a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman. The revised CCMA came into effect on 1 January 2011 and can be accessed at www.centralbank.ie. Lenders are required to comply with the CCMA as a matter of law but have been given a period of six months grace ending on 30 June 2011 to put in place the requisite systems and training of staff necessary to support the implementation of the MARP. The recommendation of the Group to amend the local authority needs assessment process has been implemented by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Govern- ment. Local authorities have been provided with guidance on the treatment of applicants for social housing support whose mortgages have been deemed unsustainable. Discussions are ongoing between that Department and the Irish Bankers’ Federation to enable borrowers, whose properties are to be repossessed to remain in their homes for a period of time, pending the sourcing of appropriate accommodation by the housing authority. As regards the recommendations of the Group in relation to the Mortgage Interest Sup- plement Scheme (MIS), I have been informed by the Department of Social Protection that the implementation of these recommendations will require changes to both primary and secondary legislation. That Department is currently finalising an implementation plan that will set out a framework for the future of the MIS.

139 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

People in debt or in danger of getting into debt can avail of the services of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service. This is a national, free, confidential and independent service.

Banks Recapitalisation 66. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if the recent recapitalisation of Permanent TSB will affect individuals with shares in Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc; if the recapitalisation of PTSB will result in the transfer of wealth from IL&P shareholders to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14967/11]

67. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if issues surrounding the Irish Life and Permanent situation as it pertains to shareholders (details supplied) have been brought to his attention; and whether the points contained therein have been addressed. [14968/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 66 and 67 together. As the Deputy will appreciate, important aspects of the matters raised in his questions on this issue are commercially sensitive and it would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment beyond what I have stated in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 95 of 25 May 2011.

Higher Education Grants 68. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills, in view of the cuts being made to third level grants for the coming academic year 2011-2012 (details supplied), if a provision will be considered for those who entered into courses of two years’ duration, as distinct from two separate years of study. [14969/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I regret that the economic circumstances of the country are such that I am not in a position to reverse or vary any of the changes to the student grant measures announced in Budget 2011 by the previous Fianna Fáil — Green Party Government. I am very conscious of the fundamental role played by the student grant schemes in supporting families who are putting their children through further and higher education and I understand their concerns at the 2011 budgetary measures. I will take account of these in considering any future changes to the student grant schemes as part of the budgetary process for 2012 and beyond, having regard to the position of the public finances.

69. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason a website (details supplied) still states that no decision to cut higher education grants has been finalised when individuals affected by this cut have been notified by their local councils of the change; when this decision was finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14970/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department is aware of the position with the website in question. It has been in contact with the HEA in relation to this. While some updates have been carried to reflect the changes introduced under Budget 2011 by the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government, work on updating it fully for the 2011/12 academic year is on-going. This will be completed when the student grant scheme for the 2011/12 academic year is available. I expect to be in a position to publish this shortly.

FÁS Training Programmes 70. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills if his attention has been

140 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers drawn to the fact that persons (details supplied) travelling for work experience on unpaid FÁS courses are only eligible for €4.60 per week travel expenses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14991/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): The rate of travel allowance provided for FÁS course participants is not fixed but varies in relation to the journey travelled. In the case in question the amount cited by the Deputy is the amount originally received by the person, which related to the distance between the home address and course location. The allowance has however been increased to take account of the additional distance now involved in travelling to the work experience location, and the increase applies from the time the work experience commenced.

Languages Programme 71. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will report on the development of meanscoil facilities for students learning through Irish in the Dublin North-East constituency (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14801/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): As the Deputy may be aware, Gaelcholáiste Reachrann, Donaghmede, Dublin 13 currently provides all-Irish second level education for children in the areas concerned. The Forward Planning Section of my Depart- ment is analysing all areas of the country in order to determine the level of additional school provision which will be required at both primary and post-primary levels up to 2017. Overall post-primary requirements in the areas referred to by the Deputy, including the case for additional Irish language post-primary provision, will be fully considered in this context.

Physical Education Facilities 72. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will confirm that the staff cuts of 13 workers who work for the trust at Tallaght Sports Complex in Balrothery, County Dublin, will be recorded as part of his target for cutbacks; and the amount of savings that will be generated from the axing of these jobs. [14802/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The sports complexes attached to a small number of community and comprehensive schools, including that referred to by the Deputy, were established in the early 1970s on the basis that they would operate on a self- financing basis. In recent times, the complex at Tallaght Community School has experienced some difficulty in matching its operating costs and its income. Accordingly, the Board of Man- agement, in consultation with the school’s Trustees, has restructured its operations, which will involve making some staff redundant. The employees are recruited and paid directly by the sports complex management. They are not, therefore, funded by my Department or included in my Department’s Employment Con- trol Framework. My Department has been kept informed by the Board of Management on the issues involved, and will support the Board and the Trustees in their efforts.

Departmental Funding 73. Deputy Patrick O’Donovan asked the Minister for Education and Skills if assistance can be provided in respect of a school (details supplied) in County Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14812/11]

141 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department has no record of an application for assistance from the school referred to by the Deputy. Should an application be received it will be assessed and the school authorities will be notified of the outcome. The application form, concerned, can be downloaded from my Departments website on www.education.ie.

Special Educational Needs 74. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding the provision of special needs assistants and resource teaching hours in primary schools here; the amount available in the current school year and his plans for these facilities for the next school year starting in September; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14816/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Deputy will be aware that it is necessary to ensure that educational services are delivered within the resources available due to the current fiscal position. I intend to prioritise and support special educational services. However, I cannot re-visit the previous Government’s decision to place a cap on the number of posts available under the Special Needs Assistant (SNA) scheme. This number is 10,575 whole time equivalent (WTE) posts. This is a significant number of posts and unlike other areas of the public sector vacancies are being filled up to this number. It also represents continual increases in the number of SNAs over recent years. It is considered that with equitable and careful management and distribution of these resources that there should be sufficient posts to provide access to SNA support for all children who require such care support to attend school, in accordance with Departmental criteria. The NCSE has issued a circular to all schools advising of the allocation process for the 2011/2012 school year. A key feature of the amended scheme will be to provide for an annual allocation of Special Needs Assistant support to eligible schools. The NCSE asked schools to submit all applications for SNA support to them by 18th March, 2011 and intend to inform schools of their annual SNA allocation as soon as possible, in advance of the coming school year. In respect of the allocation of Resource Teaching hours/posts, the total number of Whole time Equivalent (WTE) posts that are being provided for resource teaching/learning support (including under the General Allocation Model) for 2011 is approximately 9,950 WTE posts. By comparison approximately 9,600 WTE posts were provided for 2010. The Deputy will note that this is an increase in the number of WTE posts available for the previous year. Circular 37/2011 provides information to schools regarding the arrangements which are being put in place for the 2011/12 school year for the allocation of Resource Teaching hours for children with assessed special educational needs.

Higher Education Grants 75. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Education and Skills if his attention has been drawn to an anomaly in the higher education grant system in which a student’s whole family income is assessed for awarding of a higher education grant at the full non-adjacent rate, but when the student’s family passes the reckonable income limit for receipt of the special rate of grant but the family income is received by a non-biological parent of the student, and the biological parent is unable to receive a social welfare payment in their own right, the student in financial need is unable to receive the special rate grant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14830/11]

142 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The decision on eligibility for a student grant is a matter for a student’s grant awarding body. The Deputy will appreciate that, in the absence of the all of the relevant details contained in an application form, it is not possible for me to say what rate of grant a student qualifies for or, indeed, if he/she qualifies for a grant at all. However, to qualify for the special rate of grant for the 2010/11 academic year, an applicant must meet the following conditions: 1. Qualify for the ordinary rate of grant; 2. Total reckonable income must not exceed €22,703; and 3. On the 31st December 2009, the reckonable income must include an eligible long-term payment prescribed under the scheme. In the case of a dependent candidate, the reckonable income taken into account is that of the candidate and of the candidate’s parents or legal guardian. The income of a non-biological parent is not taken onto account unless they are a student’s legal guardian. My advice in this case is that if the student feels that the terms and conditions of the grant scheme have not been correctly applied, he or she may appeal this to his or her grant awarding authority. If he or she is unhappy with the outcome of the appeal, then that decision may then be appealed to my Department. All appeal documentation is available from the student’s grant awarding authority.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio 76. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin asked the Minister for Education and Skills the current teacher-pupil ratio for primary and secondary private fee-paying schools; the estimate of the savings which could be generated by increasing the ratio by one point and by two points; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14832/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department does not allocate or fund teachers in private fee charging schools at primary level. At post-primary level the pupil-teacher ratio is one teacher for every 20 pupils for fee charging schools. Each one point increase in the staffing ratio for post-primary fee charging schools is estimated to lead to annual savings of the order of €3.5m.

Schools Building Projects 77. Deputy Derek Keating asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason for the delay in approval for an extension to a school (details supplied) in County Dublin; the progress of the proposed extension; and the likely timeframe for it to be completed. [14833/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The building project for the school referred to by the Deputy is currently at an advanced stage of architectural planning. In January 2011 my Department authorised this project to complete Stage 2(b) — Detailed Design. Sub- sequently, a request for additional fees was received from the design team. The initial fee was considered excessive by my Department and a revised fee proposal was sought. The revised fee proposal is currently being considered by my Department and when this consideration is complete my officials will revert to the Board of Management regarding next steps. Upon completion of stage 2b the Design Team will submit same to the Department and thereafter, assuming no further issues arise, my Department will be in contact with the Board of Management with regard to progressing the project to tender and construction stages.

School Staffing 78. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will reform the

143 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[ Deputy Anne Ferris.] teacher panel system to allow for a specific panel in respect of vacancies for teachers in gaelscoileanna; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14868/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Over half of the Gaelscoileanna are under Catholic patronage and the redeployment of surplus teachers from these schools is through the relevant diocesan panels. Under the existing redeployment arrangements a board of management has the right to interview, once there is more than one teacher on a panel. My Department had discussions recently with An Foras Pátrúnachta in relation to its request for a separate panel for Gaelscoileanna under its patronage. These discussions are on-going and a key issue for my Department is how best to facilitate this request in a manner that avoids the inherent inefficiencies of a separate panel for a relatively small number of schools. Given our budgetary situation we need to have sufficient flexibility in the redeployment arrangements to ensure that surplus teachers in all schools regardless of patronage type can be readily redeployed to vacancies wherever they exist. The existing arrangements for the redeployment of surplus teachers operate between schools of the same patronage and are not certain to bring about the redeployment of all surplus teachers. To address the current limitations my Department has recommenced discussions with the relevant education partners, including An Foras Pátrúnachta, on changes necessary to achieve our objective of absorbing all surplus teachers into vacancies that exist in other schools. These discussions can also deal with the request for a separate redeployment panel for Gaelsco- ileanna under the patronage of An Foras Pátrúnachta.

Teacher Training 79. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to create a teacher training college run through Irish; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14870/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I have no plans to establish a teacher training college run through Irish. The 20 year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010- 30 includes a number of actions relating to teacher education which will be progressed by my Department as resources allow.

National Lottery Funding 80. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Education and Skills the exact amount of National Lottery funding included in subhead B1, grant-in-aid fund for general expenses of adult education organisations, in the Revised Estimates for public services 2011. [14884/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): The Revised Estimates Volume (REV, published by the Department of Finance) provides summary details of programmes part-financed by the National Lottery and disbursed by relevant Govern- ment Departments and Offices. The REV provides these details at Vote subhead level and identifies the aggregate amount of National Lottery funding towards the programme in question, together with the amount of Exchequer funding. My Department cannot disaggregate the National Lottery funding. The 2011 REV allocation to subhead B1 (Grant in Aid for General Expenses of Adult Education Organisations) is €854,000. By way of background, the 2011 REV indicates that the estimated total expenditure from subheads with a National Lottery designation is €349.26m, of which €230m is scheduled to be made from National Lottery funds.

144 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

81. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Education and Skills the amount of National Lottery funding included in subhead B14, grant-in-aid fund for general expenses of cultural, scientific and educational organisations, in the Revised Estimates for public services in 2011. [14885/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Revised Estimates Volume (REV, published by the Department of Finance) provides summary details of programmes part-financed by the National Lottery and disbursed by relevant Government Departments and Offices. The REV provides these details at Vote subhead level and identifies the aggregate amount of National Lottery funding towards the programme in question, together with the amount of Exchequer Funding. My Department cannot disaggregate the National Lottery funding. The 2011 REV allocation to subhead B14 (Grant-in-aid fund for general expenses of Cultural, Scientific and Educational Organisations) is €196,000. By way of background, the 2011 REV indicates that the estimated total expenditure from subheads with a National lottery designation is €349.26m, of which €230m is scheduled to be made from National Lottery funds.

School Transport 82. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Education and Skills the transport provision that will be made for the pupils at a school (details supplied) in County Longford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14897/11]

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 Value for Money Review of the scheme. These changes include the requirement that a minimum of 10 eligible pupils, residing in a distinct locality, will be required to retain or establish a school transport service from 2011/12 school year. As is currently the position, families of eligible pupils, for whom there is no school transport service available, may apply for the remote area grant towards the cost of making private transport arrangements. Decisions in relation to the retention or establishment of school transport services will be made when all applications for school transport, for the 2011/12 school year, have been received and assessed.

Disadvantaged Status 83. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason the rural co-ordinator for disadvantaged status is to be suppressed with effect from 1 September 2011 at a school (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14898/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The school to which the Deputy refers was selected to participate in the rural element of DEIS (Delivering Equality of Oppor- tunities in Schools) the action plan for educational inclusion. My Department is currently preparing for the next cycle of DEIS. An evaluation of DEIS has been undertaken by the Edu- cational Research Centre on behalf of my Department and a report of this evaluation is expected shortly. It is expected that the evaluation will inform any future changes to the current programme. There will not be an opportunity to consider the re-classification of this or any other school in DEIS until this process has been complete. The decision to remove the Rural Coordinator Service from 331 rural DEIS schools was a measure taken by the last Government to secure some €24m in savings in the 2011/2012 school year. The service will therefore be discontinued with effect from 31 August 2011. I cannot revisit the decision of the previous Government to withdraw rural coordinator posts. The

145 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] requirements to make expenditure savings and to ensure that staffing numbers remain within the Public Service Employment Control Framework prevent me from re-visiting this decision. This measure will not affect the provision of HSCL services which remain in 200 post primary and 345 urban primary participating in DEIS. DEIS rural primary schools will continue to receive the following supports: — additional capitation funding based on level of disadvantage. — additional funding for schools books. — access to the School Meals Programme — access to numeracy/literacy supports and measures. — access to planning supports. — access to a range of professional development supports.

Schools Building Projects 84. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Education and Skills when an approval for tender documents submitted by a primary school (details supplied) in County Wexford will issue. [14916/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I am pleased to inform the Deputy that the school to which he refers was recently authorised to commence the award process.

85. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding an application for an extension to a school (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14924/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The school to which the Deputy refers has applied to my Department for large scale capital funding for an extension. The application will be assessed in accordance with the published prioritisation criteria for large scale building projects and a band rating will be assigned if appropriate. Information in respect of the current school building programme along with all assessed applications for major capital works is available on the Department’s website at www.education.ie. The progression of all large scale building projects, including any project at this school, from initial design stage through to construction phase will be considered in the context of my Department’s multi- annual School Building and Modernisation Programme. However, in light of current competing demands on the capital budget of the Department, it is not possible to give an indicative timeframe for the progression of any project at this school at this time.

86. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding an application for an extension to a school (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14925/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The school to which the Deputy refers has applied to my Department for large scale capital funding for an extension. The application has been assessed in accordance with the published prioritisation criteria for large scale building projects and 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 project referred to by the Deputy, is available on the Department’s website at www.education.ie. The progression of all large scale building projects, including this project, from initial design stage through to construction phase will be considered in the context of my Department’s multi-annual School Building and Modernisation Programme. However, in light of current competing demands on the capital budget of the Department, it is not possible to give an indicative timeframe for the progression of the project at this time.

146 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

School Enrolments 87. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of primary gaelscoileanna in the country; the number of students and staff concerned; the number of Educate Together primary schools; the number of students and staff concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14929/11]

88. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of secondary gaelscoileanna in the country; the number of students and staff concerned; the number of Educate Together secondary schools; the number of students and staff concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14930/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I propose to take Questions Nos. 87 and 88 together. The Statistics Section of my Department’s website contains extensive information relating to primary and post-primary schools and the number of pupils in each school. My Department’s Teacher Allocation Section is currently focused on the redeployment process and on the allocation of staffing for the coming school year and I do not propose to divert them from this work at this key time.

Departmental Funding 89. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide financial or other support for an educational facility (details supplied) in County Meath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14931/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): My Department has no record of receiving an application for funding from the facility referred to by the Deputy. However, I also understand that the facility concerned would not qualify for support as it accommodates a private college which is not recognised by my Department for funding purposes.

90. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will consider a matter (details supplied); if he can identify any source of funding such as grants or bursaries which would facilitate this person in developing their considerable potential; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14932/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Unfortunately, my Department does not have any sources of funding which would facilitate the individual concerned.

School Patronage 91. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to set up an Educate Together primary school in the Dublin 4 area. [14962/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): A review of the criteria and procedures for the establishment of new primary schools has been undertaken by the Commission on School Accommodation and its report has recently been published on my Department’s website. It will be necessary to consider the report’s recommendations and proposals. In the interim it is not proposed to recognise any new primary schools, except in areas where the increases in pupil numbers cannot be catered for in existing schools and which require the provision of new schools.

147 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.]

The establishment of new schools, including the request for an educate together primary school in the Dublin 4 area, will be considered in this context. In line with a commitment given in the programme for Government I have launched a Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector which will enable all stakeholders including parents to engage in open debate on change of patronage in communities where it is appropriate and necessary. The Forum intends to develop a mechanism by which a change of patronage in existing schools can occur. I want to assure the Deputy that I am committed to ensuring our education system caters for a pluralism of choice which reflects the needs of Ireland today and into the future.

92. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on whether the restrictive practices that are in place in State schools with a Catholic ethos, such as that disqualifying unbaptised children from enrolment, are acceptable; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14963/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): It is the responsibility of the mana- gerial authorities of schools to implement an enrolment policy in accordance with the Edu- cation 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. The criteria to be applied by schools in such circumstances are a matter for the schools themselves. 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. Under section 15 (2) (d) of the Education Act 1998, each school is legally obliged to disclose its enrolment policy and to ensure that as regards that policy that principles of equality and the rights of parents to send their children to a school of the parents choice are respected. Equality legislation, which also outlaws discrimination in relation to the admission of a student, makes provision for exemptions to apply in the case of single sex schools and in the case of schools where the objective is to provide education in an environment that promotes certain religious values. The legislation provides that any school that has this objective may admit a student of a particular religious denomination in preference to other students.

School Transport 93. Deputy Michael McNamara asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will make the records of the 1969 closure of a school (details supplied) in County Clare available to the board of management, in order that they can confirm the agreement given to parents about the new arrangement for school bus transportation of children; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14982/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): I wish to inform the Deputy that school transport arrangements under the Closed School Rule orig- inated from the last major amalgamation of schools in the late 1960s. Under the Closed School Rule, transport is generally provided to the school of amalgamation for pupils who reside in a closed school area. However, over the course of the last 42 years, many parts of Ireland have experienced changes in population, the number of schools in an area may have increased and private transport is more widely available. While my Department acknowledges the importance of school transport, my Department must always seek to ensure that every service that is funded by the public is operated in a manner that delivers for pupils, parents and taxpayers alike. In light of this, the Closed School Rule changes to school transport services were announced in the 2011 Budget by the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government and derive from

148 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers recommendations in the Value for Money Review of the scheme. One of the changes, which takes effect from the beginning of the 2011/12 school year, is that the distance eligibility criterion will be applied uniformly to all pupils attending primary schools and the exemption under the ‘Central/Closed School Rule’ (CSR) will cease. This means that children who reside less than 3.2 kilometres from their school of attendance and who are currently availing of free transport to that school under the CSR will lose their transport eligibility. Bus Éireann, which operates the school transport schemes on behalf of my Department, has advised that the children referred to reside less than 3.2 kilometres from the school in question and will therefore not be eligible for school transport from 2011/12. Children who are not eligible for school transport may apply to Bus Éireann for concessionary transport in accordance with the terms of the scheme.

Schools Building Projects 94. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding an application for a new school building (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15019/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The building project for the school referred to by the Deputy is currently at an early stage of architectural planning. The stage 1 submission which incorporates Preliminary Design was received on 9th May and is currently being reviewed by my Department. Subject to no issues arising in relation to the stage 1 submission it is envisaged that the project will thereafter advance to completion of stage 2(a) — Developed Sketch Design and stage 2(b) which will include applications for planning permission and other statutory approvals. Until planning permission has been secured and stage 2(b) of architectural planning has been completed, it will not be possible to give an indication of the timeframe for completion of the subsequent tender and construction stages.

Pension Provisions 95. Deputy Jim Daly asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the options available to a person whose employer did not make the compulsory contribution to the Con- struction Industry Federation pension fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14782/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I am advised that the best option for the person concerned is to take the matter up with the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman. That Office provides a free, independent and impartial service investigating complaints and disputes concerning maladministration and financial loss of pension entitlements. The office is located at 36 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2 and can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected], by telephone at (01) 6471650 or by fax at (01) 6769577.

Job Initiative 96. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he is satisfied that the measures taken to date by him to combat unemployment are adequate. [14988/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The live register figures published last week remind us once again of the scale of the challenge facing the economy and the government. The seasonally adjusted live register for May 2011 shows 440,947

149 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] persons seeking employment compared with 154,000 in May 2007, an increase of approximately 286,000. These figures underline the extent of the challenge we face in reducing unemployment. On 10th May, the Government launched a range of measures under the Jobs Initiative to improve the competitiveness of the economy, to support the maintenance of existing jobs and the creation of new ones, and to assist those who are currently unemployed to return to work. The labour market aspect of the Jobs Initiative includes the creation of an extra 20,900 activation places for the unemployed. These places will be delivered by the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Education and Skills. The overall objective of the Govern- ment’s labour market policy is to ensure a pathway to appropriate employment, training and education opportunities for those on the Live Register, and to improve their employment prospects as new job opportunities become available through economic recovery. In addition to the labour market interventions in the Jobs Initiative, the Government also introduced a number of measures to boost the domestic economy, including:

• the introduction of a new temporary, second reduced rate of VAT to apply primarily to restaurant and catering services, hotel and holiday accommodation and various entertainment services;

• the halving of the lower rate of employer’s PRSI on earnings up to €356 per week;

• the reduction of the air travel tax rate to zero;

• a major reform to the visa application system for entry to Ireland;

• the focusing of the State’s capital expenditure towards more employment-intensive projects in the areas of education, local and regional roads and sustainable transport projects;

• additional funding for energy efficiency schemes;

• improvements to the R&D tax credit scheme.

Commitments were also given in the Jobs Initiative to developing proposals for a partial credit guarantee scheme to improve access to finance for SMEs, and for a Microfinance Start- up Fund. All of these measures will contribute to combating unemployment by stimulating the economy and facilitating job creation and retention. The Jobs Initiative was an important first step in putting jobs at the heart of the new Government’s strategy. The Programme for Govern- ment outlines a much broader range of initiatives which will be embodied in that strategy.

Departmental Correspondence 97. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the action he will take to address the issues raised in correspondence (details supplied); if he or his Department has made contact with the company which corresponded with him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14877/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): EU Regulation 245/2009 of 18 March 2009 provided, inter alia, for the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs over a period between 1 September 2009 and 1 September 2012. The purpose of the Regulation is to phase out inefficient incandescent light bulbs throughout Europe on a staged basis and replace them with more energy-efficient alternatives such as new improved halogen light bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and LEDs. The aim of the Regulation is to save energy,

150 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

limit CO2 emissions and help consumers save money in lower electricity bills without the loss of functionality. I have received correspondence from a company concerning the presence, on the retail market, of incandescent light bulbs of 100W and higher, which in general were to be phased out from 1 September 2009. However, I should point out that stocks that were already on the shelves of retailers or in retailer stocks before 1 September 2009 can continue to be sold until they are depleted. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is the designated authority for the surveillance and enforcement of the EU Regulations on light bulbs and other energy- related products, and I have forwarded the correspondence which I have received to the Mini- ster for his attention and any further action which may be appropriate. A reply to this effect will also issue from my Department to the correspondent.

Job Losses 98. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on the recent proposals by a company (details supplied) to move more than 130 Dundalk- and Dublin-based jobs to offshore locations in India and Egypt, in view of the multi-million euro profits the company makes in the Irish telecommunications sector each year; if he has contacted the company on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14879/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I am very concerned about the job losses that have been announced and of the impact that they have had on the workers concerned and their families as well as the communities affected. I understand that Vodafone Ireland, which is not an IDA or EI client, has announced this as a part of a review of its European operations and which will also impact on its operations in other EU Member States. I am advised, as part of this process, that the company has been in discussions with unions and its Irish Call Centre contract partner, Rigney Dolphin. I am aware that Vodafone has decided that a portion of the existing contracted call centre operations in Dundalk and Dublin will be moved to other locations — Egypt and India — within the Vodafone Group and to other specialist contractors in Ireland. This decision will impact 45 Vodafone roles and 139 in Rigney Dolphin — the 139 staff are employed by Rigney Dolphin but are in-sourced to Vodafone and are based at its sites in Dublin and Dundalk. I have been assured that Rigney Dolphin will work through the implications of the redundancies with their employees. I also understand that all impacted Vodafone employees will be offered the opportunity to transfer to alternative roles within Vodafone Ireland, and voluntary redundancy packages will be offered. A consultation process is now underway with all Vodafone employees affected by the decision to finalise the alternatives available. The changes to Vodafone Call Centre operations will take place in late 2011 and early 2012. Yesterday, my officials and Minister of State Sean Sherlock met with Vodafone. The company explained that in the current market environment, cost efficiencies are a prerequisite so as to ensure their continued ability to compete in the Irish market where they employ over 1,000 people. In particular, this includes being in a position to make major funding investments in Ireland that will be required in the future to compete in the market. Job creation is central to economic recovery and the Programme for Government has job creation at its core. The role of my Department is to ensure that we have the right policies in place that will support and grow our enterprise base in order to facilitate both job creation and

151 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] job retention. The programmes supported by my Department and its agencies will be critical in achieving economic growth through promoting the export potential of enterprise in Ireland and driving our Smart Economy.

99. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views in regard to the attached submission (details supplied); the actions he has taken or meetings he has had regarding this problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14910/11]

State Agencies 100. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his proposals to rationalise the number of agencies within his Department dealing with matters concerning consumer protection, competition and regulation of retailers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14923/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): As part of the plan for rationalisation of State agencies, the amalgamation of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority is being pursued. As both the National Consumer Agency and the

152 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Competition Authority were established under statute, it is necessary to give effect to the newly merged body by way of primary legislation. I will shortly be seeking Government approval to draft the Bill which will, inter alia, provide for the merger of the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency.

Job Losses 101. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the number of jobs lost on a monthly basis in each of the past five years and to date in 2011; the number of new jobs created during the same period; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14948/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Figures in respect of the number of jobs created or lost in firms assisted by the industrial development agencies, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and Shannon Development, are compiled annually in the Forfás Annual Employment Survey. As the information is compiled on an annualised basis, the figures in respect of 2011 will not be available until 2012. Details of the number of jobs created and lost on an annual basis over the last five years are set out in the following tabular statement. My Department does not collect or retain information on the number of jobs that have been created or lost in County and City Enterprise Board assisted companies. However, statistical information in relation to details of jobs existing in companies assisted by the County and City Enterprise Boards is collated annually and is set out in the following tabular statement for the last five years. Figures in respect of 2011 will be available in early 2012.

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Full Time Job Gains in Enterprise 34,520 28,708 23,508 14,272 17,582 Ireland, IDA Ireland and Shannon Development assisted companies

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Full Time Job Losses in Enterprise 21,347 24,141 30,290 45,927 23,704 Ireland, IDA Ireland and Shannon Development assisted companies

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Jobs Existing in CEBs (Based on CEB 32,279 34,545.5 33,811 30,726.5 32,910 Annual Employment Survey)

Question No. 102 answered with Question No. 39.

Economic Competitiveness 103. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the extent to which he has identified issues affecting national economic competitiveness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14950/11]

153 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Improving Ireland’s competitiveness is essential in order to achieve a return to sustainable economic growth. Improved competitiveness will help businesses to retain existing jobs, create new ones, increase exports and contribute to economic recovery. The National Competitiveness Council (NCC) monitors and analyses costs and other competitiveness issues in the Irish economy through its suite of reports and offers recommendations for policy actions required to enhance Ireland’s competitive position. The Council produces an annual Competitiveness Challenge report which identifies priority competitiveness challenges for Ireland. The issues identified by the NCC in its 2010 Competitiveness Challenge were:

• tackling unemployment;

• driving productivity growth;

• sustaining and deepening our competitive advantage in key sectors;

• broadening our export base;

• delivering further improvements in cost competitiveness;

• building a stronger physical and knowledge infrastructure base;

• restoring macroeconomic stability; and

• delivering on public sector reform and implementation.

These issues are consistent with the Government’s objectives, as set out in the Programme for Government. The Government has already made progress in tackling the competitiveness of the economy through the restructuring of the banking system, the introduction of a Jobs Initiative and in its commitment to public sector reform. Further measures to improve the competitiveness of the economy will be explored and implemented by the Government over the coming months.

Economic Policy 104. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the extent to which he has met with or intends to meet all of the stakeholders in the economic sphere with a view to identification of objectives in the context of economic recovery; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14951/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Since I took up office as Minister with responsibility for jobs, enterprise and innovation, I have met with various stakeholders to hear their views on the economy, job creation and the needs of enterprise. These stakeholders include employer representatives, employee representatives, business representatives, individual companies and other relevant parties. I have also led trade and economic missions to Germany, India and Saudi Arabia, where I had the opportunity to see and hear at first hand the importance of these key markets to trade and investment. I met with many Irish companies operating in these markets, as well as with potential new investors in our economy. They, too, had interesting ideas and suggestions that could enhance our exports and investment performance. The Government has obtained a secure and stable mandate to bring about economic recovery and our objectives are set out in the Programme for Government. These objectives include:

154 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

• restoring our public finances,

• supporting the protection and creation of jobs,

• restoring confidence in, and getting the economy moving,

• fixing the banking system,

• radically reforming our system of public administration, and

• rebuilding Ireland’s reputation on the international stage.

We are well on the way to delivering on these objectives. The Jobs Initiative which was announced on 10th May was one of the early steps taken by the Government to deliver an improvement in the growth rate of the economy. This year, we can look forward to positive growth after three successive years of economic decline. We fully expect this growth to accelerate as we move into 2012 and beyond. In my capacity as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, I will continue to meet with representative bodies, companies and individuals who can offer helpful suggestions as to how we can continue to build on the progress we have made so far in bringing about economic recovery.

Job Creation 105. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the extent of inward investment leading to job creation from other EU member states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14952/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Ireland’s position as a leading international location for value intensive FDI remained strong in 2010 with IDA Ireland securing 126 investments. IDA has continued to increase the number of companies investing in Ireland for the first time while encouraging existing operations to expand and diversify their operations here. The average employment per investment in 2010 was double the 2009 level. Ireland’s value proposition which includes our talent pool, attractive corporation tax regime, strong track record of FDI companies and technological capability remains strongly attractive to many of the world’s leading multinationals and emerging companies. IBM’s 2010 Global Locations Trends report ranked Ireland 1st globally for jobs by inward investment per capita, injecting renewed confidence in Ireland’s reputation for FDI. Also in 2010, the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, for the key measures influencing foreign direct investments, ranked Ireland;

• 1st for corporate taxes

• 4th for the availability of skilled labour

• 4th for being open to new ideas

• 6th for labour productivity

• 7th for the availability of financial skills

• 7th for the flexibility and adaptability of people

Ireland also ranked first in Euro-zone of best countries for business. (Source: Forbes 2010). These are critical criteria for multinationals making mobile investment decisions.

155 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

At 31 December 2010 there were 403 IDA supported companies from other EU member states in Ireland, with total employment of 32,621. Inward investment has continued in 2011 with in excess of 3,000 jobs announced from 25 companies, including Valeo and Murex. In total, IDA supported companies directly employ approximately 139,000 people with a total impact of 240,000 jobs in the Irish economy, accounting for €110bn or over 75% of total Irish exports (goods and services). These companies contribute over €19 billion in direct expenditure to the Irish economy.

Job Losses 106. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the extent to which he has studied the reasons for investment and job relocations from this country to other EU member states in each of the past five years and to date in 2011; the steps he proposes to take to address any issues arising; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14953/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Many of the recent jobs losses which have occurred are as a result of the restructuring process which is going on in industry in Ireland whereby activities (and hence jobs) at the lower end of the value added scale are being phased out as these activities become uneconomic in an Irish context. Manufac- turing is the bed-rock on which the growth in Ireland’s FDI was founded. Mirroring the rest of our economy, manufacturing is also in transition. Historically, it has been a significant seg- ment of our investment portfolio and it will continue to remain so. Higher technological investment and higher value products will be the hallmark of future manufacturing operations in Ireland. The sector will be characterised by increased international competition and enhanced output volumes due to investments in technology and automation. These operations will be knowledge, capital and skills intensive, characterised by a participative innovative culture where management and staff continuously collaborate to drive innovation, productivity, agility, learning and adaptability. Globally, manufacturing jobs, as a percentage of total employment, will continue to decrease even in lower cost locations. In March 2010, IDA published its strategy for the forthcoming decade, Horizon 2020. This presents our view of how the environment in which we operate will change over the next ten years, and the opportunities for FDI created by global trends. Horizon 2020 sets out IDA’s targets for the 5 year period to 2014 as well as the direction IDA will take in the pursuit of these goals. IDA’s strategy includes winning as many new jobs as possible each year and giving equal priority to maintaining existing jobs. We recognise that jobs losses occur every year for a variety of reasons including changing competitiveness, competition from sister sites, product and technology life cycles or global location rationalisation as a result of mergers and acquisitions. To address the need to maintain jobs in Ireland, IDA is actively encouraging its clients to strongly engage in transformation initiatives, and is assisting them in programmes to:

— Improve company-wide competitiveness.

— Enhance use of new technologies.

— Grow the skills of the business.

— Engage in Research, Development and Innovation.

— Develop new business processes.

156 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

— Make company operations more energy efficient.

There is a requirement to have a constant agenda to support clients to improve and invest to transform their Irish operations to ensure jobs can be maintained and losses minimised. Over the past number of years (2006-2010) IDA has continued to attract and retain high value manufacturing investments from leading Global Corporations. A total of 126 investments were announced in 2010 with a combined total of almost 11,000 jobs. The combined influence of Ireland’s increased competitiveness in business costs, commitment to our 12.5% corporate tax rate, transformation of client operations and activities, national Infrastructure development, Government’s investment strategy for Science, Tech- nology and Innovation and development of growth markets will continue to attract and increase the level of inward investment in Ireland. Inward investment has continued in 2011 with announcements from companies including Intel, PayPal, Fidelity and LinkedIn. Fourteen out of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies have plants in Ireland, including Abbott, J&J, Pfizer, Schering Plough and Wyeth Medica mainly in high value manufacturing activities. A significant number have supplemented this manufacturing activity with RD&I investments and high value services activities.

Job Creation 107. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the extent to which he expects to see job creation through innovation over the next five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14955/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The Government is committed to using Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) as a means of adding value to Ireland’s output and thereby achieving increased demand, sales and exports and headlining Ireland’s attractiveness as a locale for FDI. The overall objective is the maintenance and growth of well-paid sustainable jobs. In order to develop the companies of the future in Ireland, both indigenous and multinational, we must not only fund high tech research in our universities but also crucially ensure that the research ideas we have developed can be put into action in industry. In this way, new businesses can be created and established companies can expand and create more jobs. The Programme for Government commits to addressing that gap through establishing technology centres in order to develop good ideas into workable businesses so as to create the jobs of the future and get the economy growing again. Recent announcements that I have made involving investments of over €65 million demonstrate that this initiative is being implemented. The key challenge facing the Government is to strike the correct balance of investment in RDI, both as regards the level of investment and types of activities to support. Other countries are growing their investment in RDI but we are not in a position to significantly increase the level of public investment given the fiscal and banking pressures on the economy. We have, however, as part of our National Reform Programme, confirmed that we will maintain the existing levels of RDI investment until 2014 and significantly increase such investment over the period 2014 to 2020. At the same time, we have to ensure that every Euro invested in RDI, as in every other area, is achieving the maximum possible impact. A Steering Group, chaired by Mr. Jim O’Hara, former GM of Intel Ireland, is carrying out a project to establish priority areas of focus for Irish research. This very important piece of work will take account of research areas where Ireland has built significant strength to date and particular areas that have the greatest potential to deliver sustainable economic return through enterprise development, employment creation,

157 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] or indeed, quality of life. The Steering Group has been tasked with submitting its report by Autumn 2011. The Government will carefully consider its findings as we decide future areas of RDI for investment. In the meantime, the agencies under the aegis of my Department are working to ensure that investment in RDI is directed towards job creation. Enterprise Ireland (EI) aims to create 60,000 new jobs and €17 billion in export sales by 2015. This will be achieved by enabling Irish companies to develop the important competitive advantages through innovation. EI will help 1,200 companies in 2011 with RDI activities. It will generate 85 new companies with high potential this year and move up to 100 per year by 2015. It will place greater focus on collaboration between industry and third level institutions; this will include doubling the number of technology centres from the current 8 to 16 by 2015. EI will enhance the opportunities for commercialisation to ensure that the best use is made of research with commercial and market potential. IDA Ireland’s current strategy sets the following high-level goals for the five-year period 2010 to 2014:

— Create 62,000 new direct industrial jobs and 43,000 indirect;

— 640 investments;

— 50% of FDI projects outside of Dublin and Cork;

— 20% of greenfield investments from emerging high growth markets; and,

— €1.7 billion investment in RDI per annum by client companies.

These targets demonstrate the Government’s determination to make significant public investment in RDI for the collective gain of the country. We are clear that this approach will stimulate the market and result in productive partnerships with the private sector in order to regain competitiveness, increase exports and create jobs. There is a well-founded belief among OECD and BRIC countries of the central importance of innovation and technological change to the growth process. This view, that RDI is one of the key drivers of economic growth, has been underscored very recently in a trenchant analysis by Dr. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Supply (the central bank of the USA).

Job Losses 108. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will set out the full extent of high-tech jobs lost to other competing economies during the past four years to date; the number of low-tech jobs lost in the same period; the extent to which the causes of such job relocation have been identified; the action taken or proposed to address the issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14957/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): It is not possible to identify with any certainty the number of jobs lost to competing economies. However, we do know that there are many differing and complex factors that can influence a firm’s decision to relocate and these are a reality of the modern globalised economic environment. Notwithstand- ing this, IDA Ireland has continued to attract and retain high value manufacturing investments from leading global corporations.

158 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Job ‘churn’ occurs in the internationally trading sector of the economy, in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons. Companies adjust their plant location and utilisation strategies to address matters such as accessing new markets, moving production nearer to customers, meeting firm or market specific customer relationship issues, accessing technology, in addition to business takeovers and consolidations. For much of the last decade, this churn has been positive for Ireland with companies replacing lower value activities with activities of higher value, resulting in better-paid, more highly skilled jobs. In terms of supporting the creation of new employment opportunities across the country the State Development agencies, Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, together with the County and City Enterprise Boards assist and promote enterprise development and employment growth in businesses. Enterprise Ireland delivers a wide range of supports to Irish companies, targeted at the specific requirements of clients throughout all regions to ensure that they develop to their full potential in terms of innovation and exports, which in turn, stimulates job creation. The role of the County and City Enterprise Boards is to provide support for micro-enterprise in the start-up and expansion phases, to promote and develop indigenous micro-enterprise potential and to stimulate entrepreneurship at local level, with a view to growing firms to exporting stage. While it is clear that we are operating in a very difficult economic environment, there are still investment opportunities in global markets and IDA will continue to compete vigorously for projects for Ireland. So far this year, there have been 22 IDA announcements with the potential to create nearly 3,000 jobs.

Employment Support Services 109. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will set up a jobs register and a register for prospective employees; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14804/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Through FÁS Employment Services, responsibility for which has been transferred to my Department, a fully integrated nationwide range of services and supports is available to Employers and Jobseekers. Employers Employers can access a wide range of Jobseekers by using FÁS Employment Services. FÁS Jobs Ireland provides a service for employers who wish to register with FÁS and advertise job vacancies/opportunities. Vacancies can be registered either on line at www.fas.ie or by contacting the FÁS National Contact Centre (NCC) on Freephone 1800 611 116. All vacancies advertised via FÁS Jobs Ireland are validated by the NCC before publishing. These opportunities are accessible via the: Internet; WAP enabled mobile phones; Self Service Kiosks located in FÁS Offices and displayed in FÁS Offices, and through the EURES network. FÁS Employment Services can assist in identifying potential candidates who match the vacancy specification and also with recruitment supports. Jobseekers and Job changers Jobseekers and Job Changers can register at one of the 63 local FÁS Employment Service Offices nationwide, for on-site career guidance and job placement services. FÁS also contracts with partnership companies and community organisations for the delivery of the Local Employ- ment Service (LES) which provides career guidance/support in a further 25 locations throughout the country. In addition, FÁS Employment Services & the LES are the ’Gateway’ to all FÁS training and employment programmes for Jobseekers and Job Changers. Further infor-

159 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] mation for Jobseekers and Job Changers is available online at www.fas.ie, or from any one of the local FÁS Employment Service Offices nationwide. The FÁS Jobs Ireland service is provided free of charge to both Employers and Jobseekers. Information provided to FÁS by Jobseekers and Employers is subject to the terms of the Data Protection Act 1988 and 2003.

Enterprise Support Services 110. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Social Protection the funding available for the short-term enterprise allowance; the amount allocated for 2011 versus the amount drawn down; and her plans for guaranteeing the future of the scheme. [14961/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Short Term Enterprise Allowance (STEA) is one of a range of activation supports and policies with the objective of assisting social welfare recipients to improve their life chances by facilitating access to self employment, work experience, education and training. The STEA is designed to provide immediate support for a person who qualifies for Jobseeker’s Benefit (JB) and who wishes to engage in self employment; it is payable for the duration of their JB entitlement. Accordingly there is no discrete fund from which expenditure on the scheme is drawn down. At the end of May 2011 there were 1,222 participants in the STEA. The STEA, in conjunction with other employment support schemes, was considered under the Programme for Government 2011-2016 and will be monitored on an ongoing basis.

Redundancy Payments 111. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of redundancies arising from the liquidation of a company (details supplied) in County Clare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14793/11]

112. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent of redundancy payments which have been paid to date in respect of a company (details supplied) in County Clare; the number of outstanding redundancy payments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14795/11]

113. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Social Protection when is it expected that all redundancy payments will be made in respect of a company (details supplied) in County Clare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14796/11]

114. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Social Protection when a redundancy payment will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14798/11]

115. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Social Protection when redundancy payment will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14810/11]

116. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Social Protection when a redundancy payment will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14811/11]

160 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 111 to 116, inclusive, together. On 1 January 2011, my Department assumed responsibility for making redundancy payments from the Social Insurance Fund. There are two types of redundancy payment made from the fund i.e. rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation. I can confirm that over one hundred and sixty one statutory redundancy lump sum claims have been received over various dates in March 2011 in respect of the former employees of the company concerned and these claims await processing. Lump sum claims from January and February of this year are currently being processed. Current processing times are attributed to a high level of claims over the past number of years, and delays are regretted. The Department is investing in a new IT system and process which is due to go live in the final quarter of this year, which will impact positively on processing times.

Social Welfare Appeals 117. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding disability allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry. [14829/11]

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, allowed the appeal of the person concerned by way of an oral hearing. The person concerned has been notified of the decision. However, the file was returned to the Appeals Officer by the Depart- ment with a query in relation to the Appeals Officer’s decision. The Appeals Officer has dealt with the query and the file has been returned to the Department to implement the Appeals Officer’s decision. 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.

Pension Provisions 118. Deputy Damien English asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of people paying into private pension funds here; her plans to promote an increase of the coverage and adequacy of pensions; her views on the auto-enrolment of persons into pension schemes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14865/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): In 2010, just over 550,000 people were members of a defined benefit schemes. In the same period, almost 260,000 people were members of defined contribution schemes. At the end of 2010 there were over 187,000 Personal Retirement Savings Account contracts in force, which represents an increase of 16,252 contracts over 2009. The most recent coverage figures available from the Central Statistics Office indicate that just over half of workers aged between 20 and 69 had a pension at the end of 2009. The fact that supplementary pension coverage continues to be relatively low is of major concern to the Government. That is why the Programme for Government includes a commitment to achieve universal coverage, with a particular focus on low paid workers. A soft-mandatory approach such as that envisaged by an auto-enrolment scheme is a very proactive way in which we can increase pension coverage. This proposal was set out in the National Pensions Framework and the Implementation Group, chaired by my Department, has

161 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] been working on the development of the detailed regulatory, legislative and operational aspects of this scheme in detail. In addition, we must continue to raise awareness about pensions and about the importance of having a pension. In that regard, the Pensions Board runs the National Pension Awareness Campaign each year. I am pleased that my Department is continuing to support that campaign through the allocation of €400,000 in funding this year. With regard to adequacy, the State pension is the bedrock of our pension system. We are introducing a number of reforms in order to increase the sustainability of the system so that we can continue to maintain the value of the State pension. I am also examining ways in which the defined benefit model in particular can be strengthened in order to improve the position of members of such schemes, particularly where the schemes are underfunded.

Social Welfare Benefits 119. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kildare is on a reduced rate of rent supplement, in view of the fact that they have two children and their means of income is one parent family allowance and maintenance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14874/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive has advised that the person concerned is in receipt of her full entitlement to rent supplement based on her household circumstances.

120. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason carer’s allowance was refused in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14927/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): On 26 November 2009 the person concerned was refused carer’s allowance on the grounds that he had failed to disclose means to an investigative officer as prescribed in the social welfare legislation. He was notified of this decision, the reasons for it and of his right of review or appeal to the Social Welfare Appeal’s Office. The person concerned appealed this decision and the matter was brought before an oral hearing of the Social Welfare Appeal’s Office. The appeal’s officer listened to all the information supplied by both parties before determining that the decision of the deciding officer be upheld and that the appeal was disallowed. On 31 May 2011 the person concerned was notified of the appeal’s officer’s decision.

Social Welfare Appeals 121. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if an oral hearing will be given in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare in view of new evidence; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14928/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): I am advised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that an Appeals Officer, having fully considered all the evidence, disallowed the appeal of the person concerned by way of summary decision. Notification of the Appeals Officers decision was issued on 25 November 2010. Under Social Welfare legislation, the decision of the Appeals Officer is final and conclusive and may only be reviewed by the Appeals Officer in the light of new evidence or new facts. The legislation also provides that an Appeals Officer may decide a case before him/her on the basis of the documentary evidence. This course of action was taken in the case of the person concerned as it was considered that an oral hearing was not warranted.

162 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

I am advised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that no new evidence has been received to date in that Office to warrant a review of the case by the Appeals Officer. The Social 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.

122. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will expedite the appeal for reinstatement of a week of disability allowance in respect of a person (details supplied); the reason it has taken nine months for such a request of appeal to be addressed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14980/11]

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 13th September 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 1st April 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. There was a 46% increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office in 2009 when compared to 2008, which in itself was 27% greater than the numbers received in 2007. There was an increase of a further 25% in the number of appeals received in 2010. These increases have caused delays in the processing of appeals. In order to be fair to all appellants, oral hearings are arranged in strict chronological order. The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protec- tion and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

National Monuments 123. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will designate the entire terrace of buildings on which 14-17 Moore Street is situated, from Henry Place to O’Rahilly Parade, as a national monument. [14826/11]

124. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will give a commitment that he will not allow demolition of any existing section of the national monument on Moore Street, Dublin 1, including any attached structures within the curtilage of the site. [14827/11]

Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 123 and 124 together. I refer to the Deputy to my reply to Question No. 29 of 11 May 2011.

National Lottery Funding 125. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the amount of National Lottery funding included in subhead G1- Grant for An Chomhairle Oidhre- achta, Heritage Council — in the Revised Estimates for Public Services for 2011. [14883/11]

127. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the amount of National Lottery funding included in subhead F1 — Irish Language Support Schemes — in the Revised Estimates for Public Services for 2011. [14888/11]

163 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

128. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the amount of National Lottery funding included in subhead D7 — An Chomhairle Ealaíon, Grant- in-aid — in the Revised Estimates for Public Services for 2011. [14891/11]

Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 125, 127 and 128 together. The published Revised Estimates for the Public Service 2011 show that the subheads referred to by the Deputy, which are now included in the Vote of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, are part-funded by the National Lottery. However, as the Deputy will be aware, the allocation of the proceeds of the National Lottery is a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Elements of voted expenditure across a number of Departments are listed as being part- funded by the National Lottery. This expenditure is detailed in Appendix 1 of the 2011 Revised Estimates for the Public Service, as published. A footnote to this Appendix indicates that in 2011 the National Lottery will finance an estimated €230m, or 66%, of the €349.26m allocated for all of the subheads to be part-funded by the National Lottery, with the remainder to be funded by the Exchequer.

Irish Language 126. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will tackle and begin implementing the 20-year Strategy on the Irish Language 2010-2030, starting with the early publication of the implementation plan being prepared by his Depart- ment, in view of the fact that the Irish language deserves to be maintained and enhanced for this and future generations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14850/11]

Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): The Programme for Government pledges support for the 20-Year Strategy on the Irish Language 2010-2030 and for the delivery of its achievable goals and targets. It must be acknowledged that the implementation of the Strategy can only be achieved within the resources available, given the economic pressures facing the country at present. A number of steps have been taken to progress the implementation of the Strategy:

— The Cabinet Committee on the Irish Language and the Gaeltacht has been re-established under the chairmanship of An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, T.D., to drive forward key priorities under the Strategy and has met twice, in April and in May.

— A Strategy Unit has been established in my Department to facilitate the implementation of the Strategy. An implementation plan for 2011 has been prepared and work is in progress to prepare a three-year implementation plan for the Strategy. These plans will be published on my Department’s website in due course, following their consideration by a senior officials group made up of high-level officials from relevant Departments, which supports the Cabinet Committee.

— In order to ensure effective co-operation with other key stakeholders, a number of high-level working groups have been established as follows:

— between my Department and the Department of Education and Skills regarding education under the Strategy;

— between my Department, Údarás na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge regarding the implementation of the Strategy by those public bodies;

164 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

— between my Department, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation regarding enterprise investment in the Gaeltacht and associated issues.

The Government has also taken a number of key policy decisions regarding the 20-Year Strategy. With regard to the implementation structures for the Strategy, my Department will retain primary responsibility for matters concerning the Irish language, both within and outside of the Gaeltacht. Foras na Gaeilge will continue to fulfil its responsibilities on an all-island basis as an agency of the North South Language Implementation Body. My Department, in partnership with relevant State bodies, will be responsible for the implementation of the Strategy outside the Gaeltacht. The potential for Foras na Gaeilge to deliver certain elements of the Strategy, on an agreed basis, will be explored. Údarás na Gaeltachta will be responsible for the implementation of the Strategy within the Gaeltacht. With regard to the future definition of the Gaeltacht under the 20-Year Strategy, the Govern- ment has decided that the new definition will be based on linguistic criteria rather than on geographical areas, as is currently the case. The Gaeltacht Bill, which is currently being drafted by my Department, will provide for Orders to be approved by Government which will specify areas as Gaeltacht areas, as ‘network Gaeltacht’ areas or as Gaeltacht Service Towns. In addition, the Government has decided that the status quo will be maintained regarding the current functions of Údarás na Gaeltachta, including its enterprise functions, subject to the following:

— statutory provision to enable the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to direct Údarás na Gaeltachta to focus its limited resources towards specific enterprise sectors; and

— the development of a mechanism to facilitate Údarás na Gaeltachta to cooperate with other enterprise agencies, particularly with regard to significant Gaeltacht projects with high potential.

The Government has also decided that provision will be made under the Gaeltacht Bill to significantly reduce the Board of Údarás na Gaeltachta and to end the requirement to hold elections. It is my intention that the Gaeltacht Bill, which will give effect to the Government’s policy decisions on the 20-Year Strategy, will be published as soon as possible, depending on the Government’s legislative schedule. Questions Nos. 127 and 128 answered with Question No. 125.

Arts Funding 129. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will consider a matter (details supplied); if he can identify any source of funding such as grants or bursaries which would facilitate this person in developing their considerable potential; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14933/11]

Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): Funding for the course referred to in this question is a matter for the consideration of the Arts Council. Under the Arts Acts 2003, the Arts Council is statutorily independent of the Minister in its funding decisions and in its processes and Section 24(2) of the Arts Act 2003 precludes interference by the Minister in Arts Council funding decisions. In addition, as a condition of the grant aid for the refurbishment of the Theatre, the Gaiety offers a number of bursaries annually.

165 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Electricity Transmission Network 130. Deputy Michelle Mulherin asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding ownership of the power transmission grid; his views on whether the previous Government missed the EU deadline for unbundling the grid and transferring ownership to EirGrid; if the EU will now impose fines until we comply with the relevant EU directives; if he intends to seek a derogation from the directive; and if he intends to com- pensate the ESB for loss of the asset. [14792/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The EU Energy Third Package, which sets out a complex range of measures relating to the further liberalisation of the Electricity and Gas Markets came into force in September 2009. The range of measures was due to be transposed by 3 March last but very few States have actually fully transposed the Directive. Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC relates to the electricity market. The European Communities (Internal Market in Electricity) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 450 of 2010) were signed into effect on 17 September 2010 and mark the first step in full transposition of this Directive. I will be bringing proposals to Government in due course with a recommendation on the next steps with regard to the future ownership of the electricity transmission assets in the context of options under the Directive. I am mindful of the urgency for an early definitive decision to comply with the legal deadlines in the EU Directive. In that context the European Commission has confirmed to all Energy Ministers that it acknowledges that Member States will take some time longer than the due date of 3 March to fully transpose and comply with the Directives. Member States are required to formally notify the EU Commission of transposition measures. The imposition of fines against a Member State for breaches of EU legislation represents the culmination of a formal process which requires the issue of a judgment by the European Court of Justice against the Member State. The process is initiated by the sending of a formal notification by the EU Commission to the Member State concerned setting out the Commission’s case and providing the Member State with the opportunity to state its case. To date, such a letter has not been issued against Ireland in regard to failure to fully transpose of the Third Package.

Proposed Legislation 131. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 15 of 12 May, 2011, the consultation process for transposing the 2003 EU regulatory framework of the telecommunications market will be extended beyond the telecommunications industry to include relevant consumer groups and the general public; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14860/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): A revised EU regulatory framework for telecommunications was adopted by the European Council and Parliament in December 2009. Following detailed consultations with the national regulatory authorities, the industry and other stakeholders, draft regulations transposing the revised regulatory framework into Irish law are currently being finalised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I expect to sign the regulations and make them effective very shortly.

166 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

The regulatory framework covers a wide range of technical issues to, among other things, provide strong independent regulation of the telecommunications market, promote competition, encourage investment in new and existing infrastructure and protect and strengthen the interests of the consumer. I am satisfied that during the consultation process with the regulatory authorities and with other stakeholders, the interests of the consumer and the general public were adequately represented and reflected in the draft regulations.

Telecommunications Services 132. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the reason a company (details supplied) is unable to obtain a licence for 100 MB broadband in Duleek, County Meath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14904/11]

133. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources when high speed broadband will be available in Stamullen, County Meath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14905/11]

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, regulated by the independent regulator, the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). Broad- band services are provided by a number of private service providers over various platforms including DSL (i.e. over telephone lines), fixed wireless, mobile, cable, fibre and satellite. Details of broadband service providers in County Meath are available on ComReg’s Call Costs website at http://www.callcosts.ie/broadband/Broadband—Calculator.175.LE.aspI. Under the NewERA proposals in the Programme for Government to deliver higher broadband speeds, there is a commitment to co-invest with the private sector and commercial Semi State sector to provide Next Generation Broadband to every home and business in the State. Consideration of how best to advance these proposals is being advanced by my Department with other stakeholders across Government. Additionally, in order to accelerate the development of high speed broadband, my officials have been engaging with industry. The Next Generation Broadband Taskforce (NGBT), which I chair, will consider how best to roll out Next Generation Broadband. The NGBT, which includes representatives of large network owners and smaller telecommunications services providers, will meet shortly to discuss policy and related matters. I expect that the NGBT will be helpful in terms of identifying the optimal policy position to deliver wider customer access to high-speed broadband.

167 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Inland Fisheries 134. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his plans to realise the full potential of the angling sector to generate employment and revenue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14919/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI), which operates under the aegis of my Department, is statutorily responsible for the protection, management and conservation of the inland fisheries resource. Section 7 (3)(k) of the Inland Fisheries Act 2010 specifically provides that IFI “support angling promotion and marketing activities and cooperate with relevant State agencies and such sectoral interests as IFI considers relevant in developing international promotion and marketing strategies and activities in relation to game, coarse and sea tourism angling”. IFI is fully alert to the benefits of angling tourism to the national and regional economy and promotes angling to develop the tourist potential of the resource throughout the country and as a leisure pursuit. IFI works closely with both Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland to develop and promote angling for overseas visitors. An Angling Tourism Marketing Strategy was jointly developed by Fáilte Ireland and IFI’s predecessor, the former Central and Regional Fisheries Boards, in 2007. This identified that angling in Ireland has considerable potential for growth and development that can contribute to the achievement of broader public policy objectives in terms of national and regional development. Currently IFI provides, inter alia, advice and assistance with regard to the Irish angling product to both national and overseas tour operators and agents. They endeavour to optimise coverage of the Irish angling product with local, national and international media. They maintain an up to date databank of angling information, and assist at national angling events. IFI will continue to develop, market and promote, within available resources, all aspects of angling.

Telecommunications Services 135. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding the provision of broadband to a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14947/11]

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, regulated by the independent regulator, the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). Broad- band services are provided by a number of private service providers over various platforms including DSL (i.e. over telephone lines), fixed wireless, mobile, cable, fibre and satellite. The area of Kiltegan is in the National Broadband Scheme (NBS) coverage area. Broadband is now available in all NBS areas, including Kiltegan, County Wicklow. 3, the NBS service provider, is obliged to provide broadband to anyone in a NBS area who requires a service. 3 can be contacted on freephone 1913 or www.three.ie. Under the NewERA proposals in the Programme for Government to deliver higher broadband speeds, there is a commitment to co-invest with the private sector and commercial Semi- State sector to provide Next Generation Broadband to every home and business in the State. Consideration of how best to advance these proposals is being advanced by my Department with other stakeholders across Government.

168 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Additionally, in order to accelerate the development of high speed broadband, my officials have been engaging with industry. The Next Generation Broadband Taskforce (NGBT), which I chair, will consider how best to roll out Next Generation Broadband. The NGBT, which includes representatives of large network owners and smaller telecommunications services providers, will meet shortly to discuss policy and related matters. I expect that the NGBT will be helpful in terms of identifying the optimal policy position to deliver wider customer access to high-speed broadband.

136. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if the consultation process for transposing the 2003 EU regulatory framework of the telecommunications market involves an analysis of the health impacts of telecommunications equipment and devices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14974/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The revised EU regulatory framework for telecommunications does not contain any provisions relating to the health impacts of telecommunications equipment and devices. The framework is primarily concerned, among other things, with providing strong independent regulation of the telecommunications market, promoting competition, encouraging investment in new and existing infrastructure and protecting and strengthening the interests of the consumer. Accord- ingly, no analysis of such impacts was carried out during the consultation process. Issues relating to the potential health effects of from non-ionising radiation and electro- magnetic fields are a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Missing Persons 137. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if the 116000 missing child hotline, due under Directive 2009/136/EC, will be set up; if funding will be provided for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14992/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The allocation of specific numbers in the 116 number range, which is reserved for services of social value, is managed in Ireland by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). 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. While the number 116000 has been specifically reserved for a hotline for missing children, it will not become operational until it is assigned to an appropriate service provider. ComReg has published an information notice on its website which makes all relevant information available to potential applicants who may wish to provide the 116000 service. It also issued corresponding national press advertisements inviting applications for the number in question. Unfortunately, to date, no applications have been received in respect of the 116000 service. Neither ComReg nor my Department has any function in providing such a service or the remit to require any organisation to provide the service. The Department of Justice, Equality and Defence and the Department of Health and Chil- dren, have policy functions in the area of missing children and child protection respectively and the question of providing a missing children’s hotline has been raised with them. I have written to both Ministers recently in the matter and officials from my Department are continuing to engage with those Departments on this issue.

169 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Local Authority Charges 138. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he has considered the introduction of a waiver scheme, or deferred payment scheme, in relation to council rates for start up businesses employing fewer than ten persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14973/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to levy rates on any property used for commercial purposes in accordance with the details entered in the valuation lists prepared by the independent Commissioner of Valuation under the Valuation Act 2001. The levying and collection of rates are matters for each individual local authority. Under the provisions of the Local Government (Rates) Act 1970, a rating authority may make and carry out a scheme providing for the waiver by the authority of all or a portion of commercial rates due by ratepayers in respect of a specified class or classes of property. The making of such a scheme is subject to my consent as Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. There is currently no legal provision to introduce a national waiver scheme for rates. While matters relating to rates are kept under regular consideration in my Department, I have no immediate plans to bring forward legislative amendment in this area.

Local Government Reform 139. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if the report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group published in July 2010 has been circulated to the chair or meeting administrator of each local authority to allow for the contents to be considered by the elected councils; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14776/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group was circulated to the Cathaoir- leach and Manager/Town Clerk of each local authority in July 2010.

Local Authority Staff 140. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the travel and subsistence charges that were refunded by the Local Government Management Services Board in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010; the sum claimed by staff and members of the board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14778/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The information requested is provided in the table below.

LGMSB Travel and Staff Board Members Total Subsistence Total Total

2007 €65,105.34 €15,665.01 €80,770.35 2008 €68,435.74 €18,422.53 €86,858.27 2009 €52,083.09 €12,592.01 €64,675.10 2010 €47,857.52 €17,042.26 €64,899.78

170 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Local Government Reform 141. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if the submissions made to the local government efficiency review group are available for inspection; the way a citizen can access them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14784/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The submissions made to the Local Government Efficiency Review Group are available from my Department by contacting the Secretary, Local Government Efficiency Review Group, Custom House, Dublin 1 (Phone (01) 8882409), (Fax (01) 8882643).

Litter Pollution 142. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if there is existing legislation that would compel those who fix poster ties to lamp posts to remove them. [14785/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): While existing legislation does not specifically refer to poster ties, Section 19 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997 makes it an offence to exhibit articles or advertisements on property in or visible from a public place without the prior written authority of the relevant owner, occupier or person in charge. In the case of an advertisement, the person on whose behalf the advertisement is exhibited will also be guilty of an offence. There is an exemption for any advertisement which is exempted development under the Planning Acts. There is also an exemption for those advertisements which advertise a public meeting, other than an auction, and for those relating to elections or referenda. However, these cannot be displayed for any period greater than 30 days preceding the event and must be taken down within seven days of the event.

Local Authority Charges 143. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if the envisaged imposition of charges on property will take into account the existing €200 charge on owners of non-residential houses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14786/11]

171 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Grant Payments 144. Deputy Simon Harris asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his plans to provide grants to households or manufacturers of water conservation and water recycling products in private homes in an effort to reduce household water consumption levels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14791/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): There is potential for the use of harvested rainwater as an alternative source of water for various business and commercial operations and for supplying toilet cisterns, washing machines etc. in domestic situations. Environmental and economic benefits can accrue from this type of approach through reducing the demand for water abstraction at source and the subsequent and expensive treatment of raw water for human consumption. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently introduced a scheme of grant aid for the installation of rainwater harvesting equipment on farms. Details of the scheme are available on that Department’s website at www.agriculture.gov.ie. However, the introduction of a grants scheme for any purpose must be managed within current budgetary constraints and, in so far as the funds administered by my Department are concerned, there are currently no plans to introduce a scheme of grant aid for households or manufacturers for water conservation products or rainwater harvesting equipment.

Water and Sewerage Schemes 145. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the position regarding the funding situation with Kerry County Council, in relation to the proposed waste water treatment plant in Waterville, in view of the fact that raw sewage is flowing onto the shoreline; and when work will commence on this scheme. [14824/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I refer to the reply to Question No. 267 of 10 May 2011. The position is unchanged.

Departmental Agencies 146. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if there has been any recent review of the Environmental Protection Agency; if so, if it has been published; if not, his plans to conduct such a review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14831/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The report of the Environmental Protection Agency Review Group was recently presented to me and was published on 30 May 2011. It contains 58 recommendations across a number of themes, such as governance and resources, licensing, assessment and monitoring, research and information and stakeholder relationships. My Department will now consider the findings and recommendations, and I have asked the EPA to let me have its views also in these regards by July. The report is available on www.environ.ie.

Local Authority Funding 147. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the position regarding capital funding to Fermoy Town Council for schemes (details supplied) in County Cork. [14869/11]

172 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): This year my Department has allocated €140 million and €34 million to support local authority capital investment in social housing supply and remedial works programmes respectively. In the case of the Remedial Works Scheme at St. Mary’s Terrace, Fermoy which involves the refurbishment of eleven houses and the construction of one new unit, my Department issued approval in principle for this project to proceed through planning and design stages in early 2009. The tender documents and other details are currently being examined with a view to issuing approval to proceed to tender stage very shortly. All new construction proposals, including the infill housing at Oliver Plunkett Hill, are currently being considered in the context of existing commitments and the available capital funding. At present, Cork County Council has a significant level of construction commitments as well as substantial commitments in respect of properties coming on stream through the Part V process. Against that background, Fermoy Town Council has been advised that it is not possible to progress this project to construction at this time. However, the Town Council has been invited to submit a recoupment claim in respect of the planning and design costs incurred to date.

Community Development 148. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if there is grant assistance available for a community group (details supplied) in County Limerick to carry out refurbishment work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14873/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Funding of €427m is available under the Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2007-2013 for allocation to qualifying projects up to the end of 2013. One of the objectives of the RDP is to identify and provide appropriate amenity and leisure facilities to local communities not otherwise available to them. Funding for this type of activity may include updates/refurbishments to current structures as well as the construction of new facilities and in this context it may be possible to obtain funding for a project of the nature referred to in the question under the RDP. There are 36 Local Action Groups contracted, on my Department’s behalf, to deliver the RDP throughout the country and these groups are the principal decision-makers in relation to the allocation of project funding. Such decisions are made in the context of the local development strategy of the individual groups and in line with Departmental operating rules and EU regulations. Contact details for these groups can be found on the website of the National Rural Network at www.nrn.ie.

National Lottery Funding 149. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead B.1.11, communal facilities in voluntary and co-operative housing scheme, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14881/11]

150. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead B.3.1, private housing grants, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14882/11]

151. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead B.1, supports for community and voluntary sector, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14886/11]

173 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

152. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead B.3, local and community development programmes, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14887/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 149 to 152, inclusive, together. Details of expenditure part-funded by the National Lottery are set out in Appendix 1 to the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011 , published by the Department of Finance in February 2011. The following expenditure subheads in my Department’s Vote are part funded by the National Lottery: communal Facilities in Housing Projects, private Housing Grants, supports for Community and Voluntary Sector, local and Community Development Prog- rammes. Issues related to the allocation of National Lottery funding to meet relevant expenditure are a matter for the Department of Finance.

Local Authority Charges 153. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will clarify his proposals, if any, in terms of water charges, household charges and-or utility charges. [14902/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland under its fiscal consolidation measures commits to the introduction of a property tax for 2012 and to an increase in the property tax for 2013. The Programme reflects the need, in the context of the State’s overall financial position, to put the funding of locally delivered services on a sound financial footing, improve accountability and better align the cost of providing services with the demand for such services. In light of the complex issues involved, a property tax, requiring a comprehensive property valuation system, would take time to introduce and accordingly, to meet the revenue measure in the EU/IMF Programme, I have already indicated my intention to introduce a household charge in 2012. This will be introduced on a flat rate basis. I will be bringing proposals to Government in the near future on the legislative and administrative requirements necessary to implement the household charge. It is my intention that the revenues from the charge will support the provision of locally based services and will in turn reduce local government’s requirement for Exchequer support for the funding of such services. The Programme for Government also proposes the installation of water meters in individual households and the introduction of water charges based on usage above a free allowance. My Department is developing proposals to implement the metering programme. Further details will be made available following Government consideration of the proposals.

National Spatial Strategy 154. Deputy Gerald Nash asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he plans to carry out a comprehensive review of the national spatial strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14906/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): The 2002 National Spatial Strategy (NSS) is a twenty-year planning framework designed to achieve a better balance of social, economic and physical development and population growth between regions, and it provides the spatial vision and principles for

174 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers statutory regional planning guidelines across the eight regions and for development plans at a local level. A comprehensive review of implementation of the NSS was undertaken during 2010, culmin- ating in the publication in October 2010 of the NSS Update and Outlook Report (available at www.environ.ie). This report reaffirms commitment to implementing long-term planning frameworks such as the NSS and identifies new priorities and objectives to deliver more consistent implementation at all levels, taking account of experience since 2002 and the new environmental, budgetary and economic challenges that we are currently facing. In particular, the 2010 Report identifies a series of actions in respect of: better alignment and prioritisation of sectoral infrastructure investment, improved governance at national, regional and local levels, and the promotion of more sustainable patterns of development, both in rural and urban contexts, through more effective, evidence-based planning policies, with the aim of maximising the role of NSS implementation in supporting overall economic recovery. In addition, the adoption of updated Regional Planning Guidelines in 2010 for the twelve- year period to 2022 and the new legislative provisions to include core strategies in development plans, taking account of regional policies, targets and priorities, are further embedding the NSS principles into the forward-planning process, and should help to deliver more co-ordinated, coherent and sustainable planning outcomes.

Local Authority Charges 155. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if any proposed water charges, household charge or site valuation tax will be applied to residents living in apartments; if such charges will apply to those individual householders or to their management companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14941/11]

156. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his plans to levy additional household charges on apartment dwellers in view of existing management company charges for householders and if such charges will be levied on those companies themselves; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14942/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 155 and 156 together. The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland under its fiscal consolidation measures commits to the introduction of a property tax for 2012 and to an increase in the property tax for 2013. The Programme reflects the need, in the context of the State’s overall financial position, to put the funding of locally delivered services on a sound financial footing, improve accountability and better align the cost of providing services with the demand for such services. In light of the complex issues involved, a property tax, requiring a comprehensive property valuation system, would take time to introduce and accordingly, to meet the revenue measure in the EU/IMF Programme, I have already indicated my intention to introduce a household charge in 2012. This will be introduced on a flat rate basis, and will apply to all residential property on a point-in-time basis. I will be bringing proposals to Government in the near future on the legislative and administrative requirements necessary to implement the household charge.

175 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Phil Hogan.]

The Programme for Government also proposes the installation of water meters in individual households and the introduction of water charges based on usage above a free allowance. My Department is developing proposals to implement the metering programme, and further details will be made available following Government consideration of the proposals.

Departmental Bodies 157. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Office for Local Authority Management is the headquarters of the County and City Managers’ Association and provides management support services including administrative and secretarial services to the CCMA; the number of staff employed in the Office for Local Authority Management and the specific duties they perform; the cost of financing this office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14981/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The Office for Local Authority Management (OLAM), under the remit of the Local Government Management Services Board (LGMSB), provides management support services for city and county managers including administrative and secretarial services to the County and City Man- agers’ Association (CCMA) and its committees. The LGMSB provides meeting room facilities to the CCMA. OLAM has a staff of five and the annual cost of financing the Office is €298,559.00. The main duties of OLAM staff members are as follows: liaison with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and Executive of the CCMA; liaison and support for CCMA committees; liaison with Government Departments and other agencies; management of staff and work priorities in OLAM; provision of advisory services to local authorities relating to management services; oversight of the provision of executive reports and management support to the CCMA and CCMA Executive; participation on the LGMSB Senior Management Team; oversight of the collection and collation of information and statistics; in consultation with the Chairman of the CCMA to act as spokesperson for the CCMA or arrange for suitable spokespersons as required; implementation of an evidence-based research work programme to provide qualitat- ive / quantitative research to local authorities; responsibility for the Annual Service Indicators Report; management of OLAM website/extranet.

Planning Issues 158. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the terms of reference for An Bord Pleanála; when adjudicating on planning appeals, the regulations, guidelines and policies, if any, to which An Bord Pleanála is obliged to adhere; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14983/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2010 provide the legislative framework within which An Bord Pleanála determines planning appeals. Section 143 of the Act, states that the Board shall, in performing its functions, have regard to: policies and objectives of the Government, a State Authority, the Minister, planning authorities and any other public authority whose functions have, or may have, a bearing on the proper planning and sustainable development of cities, towns or other areas, whether urban or rural; the national interest and any effect the performance of the Board’s functions may have on issues of strategic economic or social importance to the State, and; the National Spatial Strategy and any regional planning guidelines for the time being in force.

176 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Under Section 37(1)(b) of the 2000 Act, as amended, in the determination of an appeal by the Board, subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section 34 relating to permission for development apply. Under subsection (1) the application must be made in accordance with the permission regulations and all requirements of the regulations must be complied with. Under subsection (2), a decision is made regard being had to: the provisions of the development plan; the provisions of any Special Amenity Area Order relating to the area; any European site or other area prescribed for the purposes of S10 (2)(c); where relevant, the policy of the Government, the Minister or any other Minister of Government; conditions which may be imposed; any other relevant provision or requirement of the Act, and any regulations made under the Act. Under subsection (3) the Board must consider the information relating to the application and submissions and observations made. The Board is required, where applicable, to have regard to any guidelines issued to planning authorities by the Minister under Section 28 in the performance of its functions, and to comply with any policy directives issued by the Minister under Section 29 to planning authorities in the performance of its functions. Copies of the policy guidance issued by the Minister under Section 28 of the Planning Acts are available on the Department’s website at www.environ.ie.

Garda Deployment 159. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of members of An Garda Síochána that were scheduled to police each individual game of the Carling Nations Cup recently played at the Aviva Stadium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14807/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I have requested the information sought by the Deputy from An Garda Síochána. When this information is to hand I will contact the Deputy directly.

Garda Remuneration 160. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the cost to the Exchequer for one hour of standard employment for each rank of An Garda Síochána; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14808/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda Auth- orities that the cost to the Exchequer for one hour of standard pay (Basic Pay and Employers PRSI) for each rank of An Garda Síochána is outlined in the table below. The table outlines the hourly standard rates for members on the “A” rate of PRSI and on the Modified PRSI rates.

Rank Average Hourly Standard Rate Average Hourly Standard Rate (Basic Pay and Employer’s PRSI) (Basic Pay and Employer’s PRSI)

A Rate Employers PRSI Modified Employers PRSI Garda €21.83 €19.45 Sergeant €26.44 €23.56 Inspector €29.78 €26.53 Superintendent €40.18 €35.82 Chief Superintendent €49.54 €44.16

An attribution of additional ancillary costs, e.g accommodation, transport etc, in respect of each rank of An Garda Síochána is not readily available and the gathering and compilation 177 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] of such information, as requested, would require a disproportionate amount of Garda time and resources.

Missing Persons 161. Deputy Patrick O’Donovan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he intends to make the EU hotline number for missing children available within this jurisdiction. [14814/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed that the telephone number to which the Deputy refers has been reserved by the European Commission as a common missing children telephone hotline for the entire EU. It is made available by national telecoms regulators to organisations capable of providing such a service. The allocation of the number in Ireland is therefore a matter in the first instance for the Commission for Communi- cations Regulation (ComReg) and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I am informed that ComReg has published an information note on its website which makes all relevant information available to potential applicants who may wish to provide the 116000 service. It also issued corresponding national press advertisements inviting applications. To date no applications have been received.

Garda Complaints Procedures 162. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of cases the Garda Ombudsman processed in 2010; if he will provide a table of the results of these appeals; the highest rank of Garda that had a finding against them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14821/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The 2010 Annual Report of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) has been submitted to my Department in accordance with section 80 (1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The Annual Report will be launched officially by the Ombudsman Commission today, Thursday 9 June 2011. Copies of the report will be available in the Oireachtas Library and on GSOC’s website, www.gardaom- budsman.ie. In accordance with the details set out in GSOC’s Annual Report for 2010, I have been informed that the following details illustrate the complaints processed during the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010, inclusive.

Complaint Throughput Number

On hands 31/12/2009 1,220 Received in 2010 2,258 Closed in 2010 2,412 On hands 31/12/2010 1,066

I have also been informed by GSOC that of the cases closed by the Commission during 2010, there were 106 findings where complaints against members of An Garda Síochána were sub- stantiated as a result of investigation. With regard to the information in relation to the highest rank of Garda that had a finding against them I have requested the information sought from GSOC and I will be in contact with the Deputy when this information is to hand. 178 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Garda Equipment 163. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he plans to extend the length of the Garda baton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14840/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The provision of Garda equipment, including Garda batons, is a matter for the Garda Commissioner in the context of his identified operational requirements. I am advised by the Garda authorities that there are no proposals to change the batons currently in use.

Garda Car Pounds 164. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the locations of the Garda car pounds; and the capacity of each pound. [14841/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I have asked the Garda Com- missioner for the information sought in the Deputy’s Question. I will revert to the Deputy as soon as the information becomes available.

Garda Equipment 165. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of marked and unmarked Garda vehicles that have the automatic number plate recognition system fitted; and his plans to increase the number. [14842/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that currently there are 134 Garda vehicles fitted with the Automatic Number Plate Recognition computer system (ANPR), 85 of which are marked patrol vehicles. The remaining 49 vehicles are unmarked. I also understand from the Garda authorities that there are no plans at this stage to increase the number of vehicles fitted with ANPR. However, the situation is being closely monitored and it will be kept under ongoing review.

Garda Contracts 166. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when the contract for the recovery of vehicles seized by gardaí was last put out for tender; the name of the company that was awarded the contract; and the duration of the contract. [14843/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am advised by the Garda authorities that no national towing contract has been entered into for the recovery of vehicles seized by An Garda Síochána. They have also indicated that a number of such contracts are in place on a Divisional basis which extend over varying timeframes.

Garda Deployment 167. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of garda immigration officers by rank who are currently based outside Ireland; and the location of these officers. [14844/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that there are no Garda Immigration Officers based outside the Country.

179 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Crime Levels 168. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of persons arrested and charged with theft on the Luas, on the Dart or on Dublin Bus for each of the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011; the number of convictions secured to date; and the additional steps that gardaí will take to deal with these issues. [14845/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that liaison mechanisms are in place between An Garda Síochána and service providers, including Luas, Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann, in the Dublin Metropolitan Region (DMR) at both senior management and local levels. Inspectors from the DMR Traffic Corps have been nominated to liaise with each of the service providers to address any policing issues which arise. Policing measures, including high-visibility patrols and covert operations, are in place in Garda Districts and Divisions along the Luas and Iarnród Éireann lines and on Dublin buses to support security measures put in place by Luas, Iarnród Éireann and Dublin Bus management. These include dedicated initiatives, particularly at night, during festivities and other occasions when there is a high volume of traffic. Crime trends relating to thefts, public disorder and other anti-social behaviour associated with public transportation are closely monitored by senior Garda management within the DMR, and appropriate action is undertaken as necessary. Following the submission in 2004 of a report and recommendations by an expert group on crime statistics, it was decided that the compilation and publication of crime statistics should be taken over by the Central Statistics Office, as the national statistical agency, from An Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 consequently makes provision for this and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose. Following the setting up of the necessary technical systems and auditing of the data from which the statistics are compiled, the CSO is now compiling, publishing and responding to queries regarding recorded crime statistics. I have requested the CSO to provide statistics directly to the Deputy.

Garda Transport 169. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he plans to provide additional Garda mountain bikes; if so the number of additional bikes that will be purchased; if the contract has been signed to supply the bikes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14851/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The detailed allocation of Garda resources, including mountain bikes, is a matter for the Garda Commissioner in the context of his identified operational requirements and priorities. I am advised by the Garda authorities that they are satisfied that the current mountain bike stock is sufficient and that optimum use is being made of the Garda Mountain Bike Unit. The situation will be kept under ongoing review.

Garda Operations 170. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will report on Garda Operation Safari; the number of persons arrested under this operation to date; the number of convictions secured to date; if this operation is still active; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14852/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that Operation Safari is an intelligence-led inter-regional operation targeting an organ-

180 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers ised crime gang operating across the Southern, Eastern and Western Garda Regions. The Operation was established in October, 2010 following analysis of crime trends, which identified this crime gang as being responsible for a series of criminal activities across these Regions. The initiative is ongoing. To date, twelve persons have been arrested, ten of whom were detained for offences contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 2006, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. To date, two persons have been charged and convicted for offences contrary to the Road Traffic Acts and the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Act 2001. Others remain before the courts on similar charges. Following completion of the investigation, which remains ongoing, a comprehensive investigation file will be prepared and submitted to the Law Officers for directions.

171. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will report on Garda Operation High Viz; the number of persons arrested under this operation to date; the number of convictions secured to date; if this operation is still active; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14853/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I have made inquiries with the Garda authorities and will contact the Deputy in relation to the matters he has raised.

172. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will report on Garda Operation Anvil; the number of persons arrested under this operation to date; the number of convictions secured to date; if this operation is still active; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14854/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that Operation Anvil commenced in the Dublin Metropolitan Region in May, 2005 to target serious and organised criminal activity. The Operation was extended nationwide during 2006, and a series of special operations, proposed by each Regional Assistant Commissioner and designed to focus on areas of high crime, has been initiated. These have, generally, a short time focus, with particular targets identified. A number of operations have been completed, while further operations are ongoing and will continue this year. Crime trends nationally are monitored closely, and senior Garda management put in place appropriate initiatives in conjunction with resources made available under Operation Anvil. There is a particular emphasis on serious and large volume crime, with special, intelligence- led, operations to tackle serious and organised criminal activity. Indications at present are that these initiatives are proving effective. Up to May 2011, there have been 90,548 arrests made in connection with Operation Anvil. Statistics on the number of convictions resulting from arrests under Operation Anvil are not readily available and would require the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of Garda time and resources to compile.

Naturalisation Certificates 173. Deputy John Lyons asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 114 of 2 June 2011, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the English version of a naturalisation certificate has no legal standing in view of the fact that it is not a certified translation of the document and this can lead to difficulties for new Irish citizens in their dealings with various organisations. [14899/11]

181 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I refer the Deputy to my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 114 of 2 June 2011. The Irish language is the first official language of the State and it is the long-standing practice of the Citizenship Division of my Department to issue certificates of naturalisation in Irish. This certificate of naturalisation as provided is the only official certificate provided to an applicant should they be granted naturalisation. An English version of the certificate of naturalisation is not available. However, as previously stated a translation of the certificate of naturalisation is available on request. This is a general translation of the contents of a certificate of naturalisation and has no legal standing.

Registration of Title 174. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when a land transfer for a person (details supplied) in County Wexford will be approved by the Land Registry. [14915/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I can inform the Deputy that under the Registration of Deeds and Title Act 2006, the Property Registration Authority (PRA) was established as and from 4 November 2006. The PRA replaces the Registrar of Deeds and Titles as the registering authority in relation to property registration in Ireland and, subject to the above Act, is independent in the performance of its functions. The Deputy will be aware of the service to T.D.s and Senators which provides information on the current status of applications, such as the subject of this question, which was introduced in May 2006. The service provides a speedier, more efficient and more cost-effective alternative to submitting Parliamentary Questions. It is operated by the PRA and is available all year round. I can further inform the Deputy that his query has been forwarded to the PRA for attention and direct reply via the above mentioned service.

Visa Applications 175. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when the business visa scheme came into force; the number who have availed of this scheme to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14966/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I presume the Deputy is referring to the administrative scheme operated by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) of my Department known as Business Permission. Non-EEA nationals who wish to pursue a business activity (in a capacity other than as an employed person for whom an employer would have to obtain a work permit) must first obtain Business Permission. Information outlining the requirements of the Business Permission scheme which are very specific can be obtained from the INIS website “www.inis.gov.ie” listed under Business Permission. The Business Permission scheme has been in existence for well in excess of 10 years. From the statistics readily available, I can inform the Deputy that in the period of 2008 to 30 April 2011, some 411 applications for Business Permission were received by INIS. In the same period, 218 applications were approved, 172 refused and 80 deemed abandoned. The Deputy may also be interested in my recent reply to Parliamentary Question No. 107 (Ref. 1443/11) of 2 June 2011 confirming that my Department is presently working on a new immigration scheme in the area of entrepreneurship and investment.

182 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Garda Remuneration 176. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding payment in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Carlow who is on sick leave; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14984/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The management of sick leave in An Garda Síochána, including payments to members, is a matter for the Garda Commissioner and I have no role in this regard.

Ministerial Transport 177. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the number of times each Government Minister has requested usage of the ministerial air transport service for each of the years 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011; the location of each trip; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14856/11]

Minister for Defence (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Ministerial Air Transport Service is primarily provided by the Gulfstream IV and Learjet 45 aircraft, which were specifically acquired for that purpose. The CASA maritime patrol aircraft have been used infrequently for Ministerial Air Trans- port missions where no MATS aircraft has been available for operational or technical reasons. The Beechcraft was also used as a backup aircraft for short and medium haul flights until the aircraft was taken out of service in early 2009. Helicopters have been used on occasion for ministerial air transport in situations where, for operational reasons, fixed wing aircraft may not have been available or suitable for a particular mission. Details of usage of the Ministerial Air Transport Service for 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011 are set out in the tabular statement below, and include details of the requesting Minister(s), dates of travel and mission route.

GULFSTREAM IV 2009

Date Route Minister

14/01/2009 Baldonnel — Helsinki — Baldonnel Health & Children 19/01/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 22/01/2009 Baldonnel — Derry — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 23/01/2009 Baldonnel — Derry — Baldonnel — Cork — An Taoiseach/Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Baldonnel Employment) /Foreign Affairs/Education & Science/Transport/Finance/Health & Children/Social & Family Affairs/Agriculture, Fisheries & Food/Arts, Sports & Tourism 29/01/2009 Baldonnel — Zurich — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 01/02/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Damascus — Beirut — Foreign Affairs Abu Dhabi — Dubai — Brussels — Cork — Baldonnel 09/02/2009 Dublin — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 15/02/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Washington — Mexico Foreign Affairs City — Havana (Cuba) — St Johns Newfoundland (Canada) — Cork — Baldonnel 24/02/2009 Baldonnel — Shannon — N’Djamena — Defence

183 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] Date Route Minister Abeche — N’Djamena — Shannon — Baldonnel 01/03/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 14/03/2009 Baldonnel — Teterboro — White Plains — An Taoiseach/Foreign Affairs Teterboro — Washington — Shannon 19/03/2009 Shannon — Brussels — Baldonnel — Cork — An Taoiseach/Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 22/03/2009 Baldonnel — Prague — Baldonnel Education & Science 21/03/2009 Baldonnel — Cardiff — Baldonnel President/An Taoiseach 05/04/2009 Baldonnel — Prague — Baldonnel An Taoiseach/Foreign Affairs 26/04/2009 Baldonnel — Knock — Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) Tanaiste(Enterprise, Trade & Employment) — Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) — Doha (Qatar) — Knock — Baldonnel 07/05/2009 Baldonnel — Prague — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 11/05/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Baldonnel Education & Science 14/05/2009 Baldonnel — Paris (Le Bourget) — Northolt Finance — Baldonnel 18/05/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 18/05/2009 Baldonnel — Frankfurt — Milan — Finance Amsterdam — Baldonnel 27/05/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Knock — Baldonnel Tanaiste(Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 08/06/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Finance/Health & Children 09/06/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Health & Children 13/09/2009 Baldonnel — Vaxjo(Sweden) — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 21/09/2009 Baldonnel — Teterboro — White Plains — An Taoiseach Teterboro — Baldonnel 17/09/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 21/09/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Justice, Equality & Law Reform 30/09/2009 Baldonnel — Landvetter (Sweden) — Finance Baldonnel 29/10/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach/Foreign Affairs 19/11/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 30/11/2009 Baldonnel — Athens (Greece) — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 30/11/2009 Baldonnel — Northolt — Baldonnel An Taoiseach/Foreign Affairs 10/12/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach/MOS Taoiseach 07/12/2009 Baldonnel — Shannon — Brussels — Shannon MOS Agriculture, Fisheries & Food — Baldonnel 14/12/2009 Baldonnel — Derry — Baldonnel An Taoiseach/ Transport & Marine/Social & Family Affairs/ Finance/ Foreign Affairs/ Education & Science / Tánaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment)/ Agriculture, Fisheries & Food. 17/12/2009 Baldonnel — Copenhagen — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 18/12/2009 Baldonnel — Copenhagen — Baldonnel An Taoiseach

LEARJET 2009

Date Route Minister

14/01/2009 Baldonnel — Prague — Baldonnel Justice Equality & Law Reform 22/01/2009 Baldonnel — Shannon — Baldonnel Health

184 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Date Route Minister

18/01/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 20/01/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 25/01/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 21/01/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 29/01/2009 Baldonnel — Northolt — Knock — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 19/02/2009 Baldonnel — Cardiff — Baldonnel Community Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs 20/02/2009 Baldonnel — Cardiff — Baldonnel An Taoiseach/Community Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs 23/02/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Cork — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 26/02/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Justice Equality & Law Reform 27/02/2009 Baldonnel — Shannon — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 01/03/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Bari — Sharm El Foreign Affairs Sheikh — Rome — Baldonnel 04/03/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Knock — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 09/03/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 11/03/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 03/03/2009 Baldonnel — Belfast (Aldergrove) — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 10/03/2009 Baldonnel — Belfast (Aldergrove) — Foreign Affairs/Justice, Equality & Law Baldonnel Reform 23/03/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 19/03/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance/MOS Taoiseach 27/03/2009 Baldonnel — Prague — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 30/03/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Transport 26/03/2009 Baldonnel — Belfast (Aldergrove) — An Taoiseach Baldonnel 02/04/2009 Baldonnel — Prague — Baldonnel Finance 09/04/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Knock — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 05/04/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 22/04/2209 Baldonnel — Northolt — Heathrow — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 23/04/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 27/04/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Luxembourg — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 30/04/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Health & Children 04/05/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 12/05/2009 Baldonnel — Madrid — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 05/05/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 13/05/2009 Baldonnel — Prague — Shannon — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 15/05/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Knock — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 25/05/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 12/06/2009 Baldonnel — Bydgoszcz (Poland) — Cork — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 11/06/2009 Baldonnel — Heathrow — Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) Belfast(Aldergrove) — Baldonnel 08/06/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Northolt — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 14/06/2009 Baldonnel – Cork – Luxembourg — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 24/06/2009 Baldonnel – Knock — Paris(Le Bourget) — Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) Derry — Baldonnel

185 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] Date Route Minister

18/06/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel — Cork An Taoiseach/Foreign Affairs — Baldonnel 21/06/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 26/06/2009 Baldonnel – Corfu – Thessaloniki – Corfu — MOS Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 05/07/2009 Baldonnel — Jonkoping(Sweden) — Health & Children Baldonnel 06/07/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 07/07/2009 Baldonnel — Jonkoping (Sweden) — Social & Family Affairs/Health & Baldonnel Children/MOS Enterprise Trade & Employment 08/07/2009 Baldonnel — Paris (Le Bourget) — Baldonnel Education & Science 10/07/2009 Baldonnel — Farranfore — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 15/07/2009 Baldonnel — Stockholm — Cork — Baldonnel Justice Equality & Law Reform 23/07/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Basel Mulhouse Transport — Baldonnel 27/07/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 27/08/2009 Baldonnel — London (Heathrow) — An Taoiseach Baldonnel 01/09/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 04/09/2009 Baldonnel — Stockholm — Sofia — Cairo — Foreign Affairs Khartoum — Cairo — Rome — Baldonnel 14/09/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 05/10/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 07/10/2009 Baldonnel — Northolt — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 19/10/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Finance/Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 26/10/2009 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs/MOS Foreign Affairs 02/11/2009 Baldonnel — Derry — Cork — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 09/11/2009 Baldonnel — Berlin — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 05/11/2009 Baldonnel — Northolt — Heathrow — Cork Foreign Affairs — Baldonnel 12/11/2009 Baldonnel — Jersey — Baldonnel An Taoiseach/ Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs 16/11/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 25/11/2009 Baldonnel — Belfast City — Baldonnel Health & Children 30/11/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Justice, Equality & Law Reform 30/11/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Health & Children/Justice, Equality & Law Reform 01/12/2009 Dublin — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance / Health & Children 02/12/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 07/12/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs / MOS Foreign Affairs 15/12/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 14/12/2009 Baldonnel — Cork — Baldonnel Health & Children 17/12/2009 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Transport

BEECHCRAFT 2009

Date Route Minister

29/01/2009 Baldonnel — Belfast City — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs

186 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

CASA 2009

Date Route Minister

12/11/2009 Baldonnel — Shannon — Baldonnel Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment)

HELI’S 2009

Date Route Minister

30/01/2009 Baldonnel — Dundalk Barracks — Clanree Justice, Equality & Law Reform Hotel (Letterkenny) — Dundalk Barracks — Baldonnel 29/01/2009 Belfast City — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 06/02/2009 Knightsbrook Hotel, Trim — Shannon — Transport Knightsbrook Hotel, Trim 02/03/2009 Baldonnel — Waterford Airport — Arts, Sports & Tourism Racecourse, Killarney — Farranfore Airport — Baldonnel 23/3/2009 Shannon Airport – Trim GAA Pitch Transport 30/03/2009 Donegal GAA Pitch — Phoenix Park Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 13/04/2009 Cork Airport — Raphoe(Co Donegal) Education & Science 14/04/2009 Raphoe (Co Donegal) — Farranfore Education & Science 20/04/2009 Phoenix Park — GAA Pitch Rathkeale — Finance Phoenix Park 17/07/2009 Baldonnel — Ballingeary — Bere Island — Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs Cape Clear Island — Corkaguiny — Baldonnel 16/07/2009 Phoenix Park — Cork Airport — Phoenix Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Park 23/09/2009 Phoenix Park — Cork Airport — Phoenix Tanaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) Park 20/11/2009 Baldonnel — Cork Airport Environment, Heritage & Local Government 21/11/2009 Cork Airport — Ennis — Ballinasloe — Environment, Heritage & Local Government Baldonnel 23/11/2009 Baldonnel — Tullamore (Harriers) — Collins An Taoiseach Barracks — Cork Airport — Collins Barracks — Ennis — Galway Airport 26/11/2009 Baldonnel — Gort — Sarsfield Barracks — Environment, Heritage & Local Government Phoenix Park

GULFSTREAM IV 2010

Date Route Minister

18/01/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food / MOS Agriculture, Fisheries & Food / MOS Foreign Affairs 14/01/2010 Baldonnel — Northolt — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / Foreign Affairs 20/01/2010 Baldonnel — Madrid — Baldonnel Justice, Equality & Law Reform /Social & Family Affairs 25/01/2010 Baldonnel — Northolt — Belfast City — An Taoiseach / Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 27/01/2010 Baldonnel — Belfast City — Baldonnel An Taoiseach

187 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] Date Route Minister

11/02/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 05/02/2010 Baldonnel — Belfast City — Cork — An Taoiseach/ Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 23/02/2010 Baldonnel — Cairo — El Arish — Cairo — El Foreign Affairs Arish — Cork — Baldonnel 22/02/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs/Agriculture, Fisheries & Food/MOS Foreign Affairs 05/03/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Madrid — Seville — Foreign Affairs Cork — Baldonnel 12/03/2010 Baldonnel — Chicago — Moffett Field An Taoiseach / Foreign Affairs (California) — Washington — Baldonnel 07/05/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 09/05/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 17/05/2010 Baldonnel — Madrid — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 21/05/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 28/05/2010 Baldonnel — Paris — Cork — Baldonnel Enterprise, Trade & Innovation 14/06/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Luxembourg — Foreign Affairs/ MOS Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 17/06/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / MOS Taoiseach 23/06/2010 Baldonnel — Northolt — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 21/06/2010 Baldonnel — Northolt — Baldonnel Justice & Law Reform 27/06/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Valletta — Kampala — Foreign Affairs Addis Ababa — Valletta — Cork — Baldonnel 06/07/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Health & Children 11/07/2010 Baldonnel — Teteboro — White Plains — An Taoiseach Teteboro — Atlanta — Baldonnel 16/07/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Justice & Law Reform 19/07/2010 Baldonnel — Derry — Gatwick — Baldonnel Transport 27/07/2010 Baldonnel — Warsaw — Budapest — Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Baldonnel 16/09/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / Foreign Affairs / MOS Foreign Affairs 27/09/2010 Baldonnel — Knock — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Finance 04/10/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 07/10/2010 Baldonnel — Washington — Teteboro — Finance White Plains — Teteboro — Baldonnel 28/10/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Shannon — An Taoiseach / MOS Taoiseach Baldonnel 25/10/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 16/11/2010 Baldonnel — Ronneby — Stockholm — Defence Baldonnel 14/11/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Officials Only (Mission requested by Dept of Finance) 22/11/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs / MOS Foreign Affairs

LEARJET 2010

Date Route Minister

25/01/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Shannon — MOS Foreign Affairs Baldonnel

188 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Date Route Minister

06/02/2010 Baldonnel — Bilbao — Baldonnel Tánaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 01/02/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Belfast City — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 12/02/2010 Baldonnel — Coruna — Baldonnel Transport 03/02/2010 Baldonnel — Belfast City — Heathrow — Foreign Affairs Belfast Aldergrove — Baldonnel 18/02/2010 Baldonnel — Bern — Baldonnel MOS Foreign Affairs 14/02/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 21/02/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 28/02/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Tánaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 02/03/2010 Baldonnel — Geneva — Northolt — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 13/03/2010 Baldonnel — Derry — Munich — Baldonnel Tánaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) 15/03/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 16/03/2010 Baldonnel — Dusseldorf — Derry — Tánaiste (Enterprise, Trade & Employment) Baldonnel 25/03/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / MOS Taoiseach 22/03/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs / MOS Foreign Affairs 29/03/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 23/03/2010 Baldonnel — Heathrow — Baldonnel MOS Enterprise, Trade & Employment 25/04/2010 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Defence / MOS Foreign Affairs 28/04/2010 Baldonnel — Berlin — Munich — Cork — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 10/05/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Strasbourg — MOS Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 27/05/2010 Baldonnel — Leipzig — Baldonnel Transport 17/05/2010 Baldonnel — Knock — Brussels — Baldonnel MOS Finance 24/05/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Baldonnel Enterprise, Trade & Innovation 30/05/2010 Baldonnel — Badajoz (Spain) — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 04/06/2010 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Justice & Law Reform 07/06/2010 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Finance 24/06/2010 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Transport 25/06/2010 Baldonnel — Guernsey — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / Communications, Energy & Natural Resources 22/06/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Transport 21/06/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 06/09/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance / Communications, Energy & Natural Resources 07/09/2010 Baldonnel — Vienna — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 10/09/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Brussels — Cork — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 23/09/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Defence 26/09/2010 Baldonnel — Pristina — Sarajevo — Defence Baldonnel 22/09/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 29/09/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Knock — Baldonnel MOS Finance 06/10/2010 Baldonnel — Sofia — Bucharest — Cork — Foreign Affairs Baldonnel 11/10/2010 Baldonnel — Cork — Luxembourg — Enterprise, Trade & Innovation Baldonnel 08/11/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Justice & Law Reform

189 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] Date Route Minister

16/11/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 28/11/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 13/12/2010 Baldonnel — Douglas (Isle of Man) — An Taoiseach / Communications, Energy & Baldonnel Natural resources 14/12/2010 Baldonnel — Heathrow — Baldonnel Foreign Affairs 16/12/2010 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / MOS Taosieach

HELI’S 2010

Date Route Minister

16/04/2010 Phoenix Park — Cork Airport — Curragh Taoiseach/ Foreign Affairs 01/09/2010 Phoenix Park — Galway Airport Enterprise, Trade & Innovation

GULFSTREAM IV 2011

Date Route Minister

04/02/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / MOS Foreign Affairs 10/03/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Knock — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 15/03/2011 Baldonnel — Washington — Baldonnel An Taoiseach / Tánaiste Foreign Affairs 24/03/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 12/04/2011 Baldonnel — Luxembourg — Baldonnel Tánaiste Foreign Affairs / Justice & Equality / MOS Foreign Affairs 17/04/2011 Baldonnel — Northolt — Baldonnel An Taoiseach 04/05/2011 Baldonnel — Teteboro — White Plains — An Taoiseach Teteboro — Knock — Baldonnel 16/05/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance / MOS Taoiseach 20/05/2011 Baldonnel — Cork — Baldonnel An Taoiseach

LEARJET 2011

Date Route Minister

17/01/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 14/02/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance 01/03/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 13/03/2011 Baldonnel — Shannon — Brussels — Finance / Environment, Heritage & Local Baldonnel Government 21/03/2011 Baldonnel — Brussels — Baldonnel Finance / MOS Foreign Affairs 07/04/2011 Baldonnel — Budapest — Baldonnel Finance

HELI’S 2011

Date Route Minister

10/02/2011 Baldonnel — Tullamore — Cork Airport — An Taoiseach Baldonnel

190 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Grant Payments 178. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason the additional sheep payment of €10 euro per ewe was not paid to a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14783/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): As processing of the application under the Grassland Sheep Scheme received from the person named on the 7 May 2010, has now been finalised, the payment due will issue shortly.

Departmental Bodies 179. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take over the running of the ice plant in Dingle, County Kerry, from Bord Iascaigh Mhara, which is due to close on 30 June 2011. [14822/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): BIM is an independent statutory body with operational responsibility for the ice plant network. In 2009 Bord Iascaigh Mhara undertook a review of the ice plant network operated by the Bord. The review concluded that due to the continued decline in sales and the fact that the network was operating at a significant loss there was no realistic alternative to closure of the plants. This decision reflects the recommendation of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes (Volume II: Detailed Papers- Programme A — Agriculture Food & Fisheries policy trade and development), where as part of a range of cost cutting measures, the Report proposed that the ice plant network, which includes the Dingle ice plant, should be closed in favour of a more market based approach. I am informed that, in the interim, Bord Iascaigh Mhara has been working on an orderly withdrawal from ice manufacture to help both minimize disruption to the seafood industry and allow the industry to prepare for the change.

Agricultural Colleges 180. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his plans to increase the number of places available in agricultural colleges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14921/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Under the Agri- culture, (Research, Training and Advice) Act, 1988, Teagasc has statutory responsibility for the provision of education, research and advisory services to the Agriculture sector. It is a matter for Teagasc and its Board to prioritise activities in the delivery of these services and to allocate its resources in accordance with these priorities. Accordingly, delivery of the Teagasc education and training programme is an operational matter for Teagasc and its Board. Minis- terial responsibility is confined to matters of policy in accordance with the Act establishing Teagasc and is not concerned with the day-to-day operations of Teagasc. I understand the Teagasc education programme is delivered through a network of 8 agricultural colleges, 10 Regional education centres and 80 local centres. The provision of additional student places in the agricultural colleges is a matter for Teagasc management.

Departmental Advertising 181. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his

191 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[ Deputy John Paul Phelan.] plans to hold a media campaign, as was done previously, highlighting the dangers to the national sheep flock of dog attacks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14926/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): Sheep, particularly around lambing time can be vulnerable to attack by dogs that are allowed to run free. It is my intention to alert dog owners to the importance of ensuring that their dogs are kept on a lead and under control at all times when near farm animals. I will be issuing press notices to this effect early next Spring.

Grant Payments 182. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Kerry will receive their REP scheme payment. [14977/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 4 in June 2009 and has received full payment in respect year 1. Following an inspection, my officials wrote to the person named requesting an amended plan to rectify deficiencies discovered during the course of this inspection. An amended plan was submitted on 25 May 2011. My officials are reviewing this plan and will be in touch with the person named shortly.

183. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding area aid in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry. [14978/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): An application was received on 9 January 2009 requesting the transfer of one Single Payment entitlement to the person named from another farmer by way of lease. As the other farmer had not established any entitlements, it was not possible to process a transfer and consequently the application was rejected on 24 August 2009. A 2010 Single Farm Payment Application was received from the above named person on 16 April 2010. The application was subject to a Remote Sensing eligibility inspection, which revealed an over-declaration in excess of 50% on the land declared by the applicant. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme, cases where the over-declaration is found to be greater than 20% are not payable in the relevant scheme year. However, I am arranging for a field officer to review the results of the Remote Sensing inspection. The person named will be informed in writing of the outcome.

Child Care Services 184. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if he has considered any potential benefit to small businesses in the child care industry of an increase in ratios per child care staff (details supplied). [14972/11]

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): Pre-School services are regulated under the Child Care (Pre-School Services) (No. 2) Regulations 2006. Regulation 12, together with the Explanatory Guide thereto, provides for the maximum adult to child ratios which are recommended depending on the age range and type of pre-school service in question. The Child Care Regulations 2006 were introduced following wide-ranging consultations with the pre-school sector. The adult to child ratios were last examined as part of this process and,

192 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers as a result, the adult to child ratio for children aged 1 to 2 years was reduced from that of 1 adult to 6 children to 1 adult to 5 children. My Department will continue to keep the regulatory environment for pre-school services under review with a view to ensuring the safety and well- being of children as well as practical considerations for service providers. I am aware that, along with other areas of the economy, early childhood care and education services have experienced a reduced demand from parents. I believe it is important to support the sector through these times for a number of reasons. Clearly, the State has made a very significant capital investment in the sector which should be protected into the future. More importantly, quality early childhood care and education services are of vital importance to ensuring young children’s well-being during this key developmental stage of their lives. For this reason, I am committed to maintaining my Department’s work in funding some 4,500 pre-school services across the country, in effect almost every pre-school in the State, through the three major early childhood care and education programmes which I am responsible for. These programmes, which include the free Pre-School Year, support some 100,000 children and the jobs of up to 20,000 personnel, at a cost of €240 million per annum.

National Lottery Funding 185. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead G, Grant-in-aid for General Expenses of Youth Organisations and other expenditure in relation to youth activities, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14895/11]

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): The Youth Affairs Unit of my Department supports the delivery of a range of youth work programmes and services for all young people including those from disadvantaged communities through grants in aid. Funding is made available to national youth organisations under the Youth Service Grant Scheme and to projects/organisations under the Special Projects for Youth Scheme, Local Youth Clubs Grant Scheme, Youth Information Centres, collaborative programmes on Youth Health and Youth Arts, Gaisce — The President’s Award and Léargas, the body established to administer international exchange programmes. Funding of €35.8m has been allocated in 2011 through resources made available under Sub- head G of Vote 41, which is part funded by the National Lottery. The overall funding provision does not differentiate between the Exchequer and National lottery element of the allocation.

Departmental Funding 186. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the full amounts of State funding for a centre (details supplied) in County Kilkenny in each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 under the different relevant headings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14920/11]

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Rural Transport Scheme 187. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Health if he will review the introduction of charges of €3 daily return and changeover to rural transport scheme to those who relied on free transport to day centres, day hospitals and other services. [14864/11]

193 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Hospital Services 188. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Health the reason a person (details supplied) has not been called for treatment to Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9; the reason they were removed from the admissions list; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14772/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Medical Cards 189. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Health the position regarding a medical card application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [14773/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

190. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health the position regarding the renewal of a medical card in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14781/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Cancer Screening Programme 191. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Health when the BreastCheck programme will be extended to 65-69 year old women as promised in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14788/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): The Programme for Government provides for the extension of the BreastCheck programme to women aged 65-69 years. In addition, the extension of the BreastCheck programme has been listed as a priority in the HSE’s 3 year Corporate Plan. At present BreastCheck is available nationwide to women in the 50-64 age group. The HSE’s National Cancer Control Programme is examining how it can extend the programme to 65-69 year olds. Women of any age who have concerns about breast cancer should seek the advice of their GP who will, if appropriate, refer them to the symptomatic breast services in one of the eight designated specialist cancer centres.

Medical Cards 192. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Health if he will expedite the applications for medical cards in respect of persons (details supplied) in County Limerick. [14790/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

193. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Health the position regarding an application for a medical card in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [14794/11]

194 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Health Services 194. Deputy Áine Collins asked the Minister for Health when persons (details supplied) will receive appointments for dental treatment. [14799/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply to the Deputy.

Medical Cards 195. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Health if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the over 70s medical card section is not informing over 70s medical card holders that their card is due for renewal but yet issues a warning letter that the card will be withdrawn if forms are not returned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14806/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): I have asked the Health Service Executive for a report on the issue raised by the Deputy. I will revert to the Deputy on the matter as soon as possible.

Hospital Services 196. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Health the position regarding a hospital appointment in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14809/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Health Services 197. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Health when a person (details supplied) in County Laois will receive treatment in respect of a medical condition; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14815/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Official Engagements 198. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Health the number of times he has visited Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9 and each of the major Dublin hospitals since he was appointed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14857/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): Since my appointment as Minister for Health I have visited the Mater Hospital and I have also accepted an invitation to visit Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. I have received invitations to visit a number of other Dublin hospitals and these invitations are being examined and will be responded to in due course.

Health Service Allowances 199. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Health the position regarding an application for domiciliary care allowance from a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14859/11]

195 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I understand that the Health Service Executive responded to the Deputy’s previous question in a reply dated 30th May 2011.

Health Services 200. Deputy Michael McNamara asked the Minister for Health if he will outline in detail the diabetes paediatric services that are available for children in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14876/11]

213. Deputy Michael McNamara asked the Minister for Health the diabetes paediatric services that are available for children in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14960/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 200 and 213 together. As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

201. Deputy Áine Collins asked the Minister for Health the new cost of providing transport for dialysis patients on routes (details supplied); and the way this compares to the cost being paid for many years up to the end of April 2011. [14878/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

National Lottery Funding 202. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Health the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead B.2, grants to health agencies and other similar organisations, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14892/11]

203. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Health the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead B.7, grants to health agencies and other similar organisations, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14893/11]

204. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Health the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead C.2, building, equipping and furnishing of health facilities, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14894/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 202 to 204, inclusive, together. As published in the Revised Estimates Volume 2011, Subhead B2 in Vote 39 and Subheads B7 and C2 in Vote 40 are part funded by the National Lottery. The relevant subhead provisions are as follows: Vote 39 — Subhead B2 — Grants to Health Agencies and other similar organisations. €3.786m Vote 40 — Subhead B7 — Grants to Health Agencies and other similar organisations. €7.513m Vote 40 — Subhead C2 — Building, equipping and furnishing of health facilities. €2.539m

196 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

The breakdown between National Lottery funding and Exchequer funding is not available on a subhead, or even a Vote basis. As set out in Appendix 1 to the REV, the estimated total expenditure of €349.260m across all Votes in receipt of National Lottery funding, will be financed by €230m from the National Lottery with the balance being financed by the Exchequer.

Nursing Home Services 205. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Health if he will facilitate a person (details supplied) in County Longford with nursing home accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14896/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Hospital Services 206. Deputy Derek Nolan asked the Minister for Health if he will as a matter of urgency restore the mammography services to Sligo General Hospital in order to alleviate the stress on patients travelling to University Hospital Galway and to alleviate the stress on services at UHG; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14900/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): Women in the Sligo area with breast cancer currently access diagnostic and surgical services, including mammography, in Galway. Some 96% of women who attend the Galway breast unit do not have cancer, and only one visit is normally necessary. For the small number diagnosed with breast cancer, some 85% will require radiotherapy as well as surgery, which would involve treatment in Galway in any event. The Minister intends to keep the current arrangements for cancer treatment at Sligo General under review, particularly in relation to follow-up mammography services which are currently provided at Galway.

Health Services 207. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Health if he will consider the issues raised in correspondence (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14907/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Medicinal Products 208. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Health if he will make available a drug (details supplied). [14908/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): The medication mentioned by the Deputy is a cannabis-based medicinal product. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, the manufacture, production, preparation, sale, supply, distribution and possession of cannabis-based medicinal products is unlawful except for the purposes of research. I am aware that claims have been made in respect of the possible health benefits of cannabis- based medicinal products for patients suffering from certain conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis. I am also aware that cannabis-based medicinal products may be legally prescribed in other countries. However, as the law currently stands, it is not possible for cannabis-based

197 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Róisín Shortall.] medicinal products to be prescribed by a medical practitioner in Ireland. However, my Depart- ment is examining the issues associated with applying controls, similar to those that apply to other controlled drugs that can be misused, such as morphine and methadone, to cannabis- based medicinal products to permit them to be prescribed and dispensed in Ireland.

Health Service Staff 209. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Health if he will ask the Health Service Executive to provide additional physiotherapy staff in the south-east region in view of the fact that currently orthopaedic and joint replacement patients have no services as the physiothera- pist is out on sick leave; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14918/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Health Services 210. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Health if the Health Service Executive is now looking to a pilot project for dealing with addiction issues for adolescents and teenagers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14922/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): The HSE allocated additional funding of €2.46m late in 2010 for the ongoing development of additional front-line addiction services for under 18 year olds in partnership with the voluntary sector. The additional services include psychology, counselling and family therapy services.

211. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Health his plans for diabetes sufferers and their current difficult care circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14944/11]

212. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Health his plans for diabetes sufferers and their current difficult care circumstances (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14945/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 211 and 212 together. The HSE established a National Clinical Programme for Diabetes within the Clinical Strategy and Programmes Directorate. A clinical lead is in charge of the programme and a multidisciplinary working group, representing a number of nursing and allied health professionals, podiatrists and GPs, as well as the Diabetes Federation of Ireland are working through a number of key projects. The key deliverables for the 2011 programme are the implementation of projects such as Diabetes Retinopathy Screening and a multidisciplinary footcare package for patients with Diabetes. The HSE has also established a National Clinical Programme for Paediatrics, which will examine in detail the whole area of improved services for children and adolescents and develop solutions to address the issues identified. As the remainder of the Deputy’s latter question relates to services — particularly in the HSE West, I have asked the HSE to reply directly to the Deputy.

Question No. 213 answered with Question No. 200.

198 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Human Rights Issues 214. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Health if he has had, or will have, discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland regarding any influence it might have regarding the detention of Irish-trained doctors in Bahrain, following recent human rights protests there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14985/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade made clear the position of the Government in relation to recent events in Bahrain in his reply to questions 17, 23 and 33 on 2 June 2011. We condemn all repressive actions by the Bahrain authorities during and after the recent protests, including those taken against medical staff following their professional obligations. We wish to see all reported serious violations of human rights credibly investigated, the immediate release, unless charged, of detained peaceful protestors and medical professionals who assisted the injured, access for independent observers to the ongoing legal proceedings, and a process of inclusive dialogue aimed at agreeing necessary political and economic reforms. In relation to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, its provision of overseas educational services on a commercial basis, including in Bahrain, is primarily an operational issue for the RCSI. In this regard, the relationship between the RCSI and the Government of Bahrain is a matter for those parties themselves and it would not be appropriate that I, as Minister for Health, should become involved.

Parking Regulations 215. Deputy Nicky McFadden asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will consider a provision to make it unlawful in built-up areas to park against the traffic; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14996/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The issue of contra-flow parking on public roads was examined as part of the last review of the road traffic legislation dealing with traffic and parking in 2005. I am advised by my department that it is believed that the introduction of a restriction on such parking would not address the matter of vehicles crossing the roadway to use a parking space and may further disrupt the flow of traffic due to three point turns being executed by drivers. The current obligation on drivers to cross a roadway only when it is safe to do so addresses any road safety concerns that may arise as a result of the existing policy on parking.

Departmental Estimates 216. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide a full breakdown of the transport budget under current and capital spending categories for the year 2011; if he has begun discussions on the Estimates for 2012; his plans to present the broad Estimates to the Dáil select committee on transport before the summer recess; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14789/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The Revised Estimate Volume, which is currently being prepared by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, will incorporate the changes arising from the transfer of functions for Tourism and Sport into my Department’s Vote. It is a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to publish the Revised Estimates Volume, after which my Department will be advised of the date that its Vote is to be presented by me before the Dail Select Committee.

199 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

Departmental Staff 217. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the number of persons employed by his Department by grade; and the pay scale of each grade. [14846/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The number of staff employed in my Department was 518.29 Whole Time Equivalents (WTE) at 31st May 2011. This includes the transfer of tourism and sport functions into the Department, which increased staff numbers. The number per grade is set out in Table 1 attached. The salary scale applicable to civil servants serving at 1st January 2010 are set out in Department of Finance Circular 28/2009, available at www.finance.gov.ie. The pay rates outlined have been reduced further by 10% for new entrants with effect from 1 January 2011. The salary scales for staff appointed to Ministerial offices are also in accordance with rates sanctioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Staff Numbers by Grade

General Service Grade Number (Full time equivalent)

Secretary General 1 Assistant Secretary 6 Principal Officers 17.9 Assistant Principal Higher Duties Allowance 1 Assistant Principal Officers 42.23 Higher Executive Officer Higher Duties Allowance 1 Administrative Officers 7 Higher Executive Officers 76.76 Executive Officers 79.81 Staff Officers 17.1 Clerical Officers 135.16 Head Services Officer 1 Services Officers / Attendants / Storekeeper 12.3 Telephonists 2.03 Ministerial Staff Civilian Drivers 6 Personal Secretaries 3 Personal Assistants 3 Special Advisors 2 Professional/Technical Grade Chief Aeronautical Officer 1 Aeronautical Officer Grade I 4 Aeronautical Officer Grade II 1 Principal Adviser — Engineer 1 Senior Adviser 1 Inspector 1 Accountant Grade 2 1 Legal Advisor 1 Statistician 1 Sustainability Adviser 1 Transport Planner 1 Staff Engineer 1

200 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

General Service Grade Number (Full time equivalent)

Director Irish Coast Guard 1 Assistant Director ICG 1 Chief Engineer 1 Regional Controller ICG 3 Divisional Controller 2 Deputy Divisional Controller 2 Electronics Officer 3 Engineering & Operations Officer 1 Radio Officer Grade III 24 Station Officer 16 Training & Operations Officer 3 Coastal Unit Sector Manager 3 Chief Surveyor 1 Deputy Chief Surveyor 1 Marine Radio Surveyor 1 Surveyor (Officer in Charge) 1 Surveyor 25

TOTAL STAFF NUMBER 518.29

Taxi Regulations 218. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the measures being taken to strictly enforce the prominent display of photo identification cards and details by taxi drivers. [14847/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Alan Kelly): The enforcement of driver identification regulations is a matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA) in cooperation with An Garda Síochána. However the future of the rules governing this area is something the review of the taxi industry (the terms of which I announced yesterday) will examine further. I have referred the Deputy’s Question to the NTA for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a reply within ten working days.

Sporting Events 219. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he plans to meet the Irish Amateur Boxing Association to discuss attracting the World Amateur Boxing Championship in Dublin in either 2013 or 2015 [14848/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Michael Ring): I have had no such approach from the IABA but will be available to meet them if so requested.

Sports Funding 220. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead C1, grants for sporting bodies and the provision of sports and recreational facilities, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services in 2011. [14889/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As the Deputy will be aware, the distribution of the proceeds of the National Lottery is the responsibility of the 201 Questions— 9 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] Minister for Finance. Grants for sporting bodies and the provision of sports facilities and recreational facilities are part funded by the National Lottery, but the annual Estimates do not include a breakdown of the source of funding between National Lottery and Exchequer funding.

221. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the amount of national lottery funding included in subhead C3, Irish Sports Council grant-in-aid, in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2011. [14890/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Michael Ring): As the Deputy will be aware, the distribution of the proceeds of the National Lottery is solely the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. The Irish Sports Council grant-in-aid is part funded by the National Lottery, but the annual Estimates do not include a breakdown of the source of funding between National Lottery and Exchequer funding.

Rail Network 222. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the nature of the work which is being carried out on the railway line at Jones’s Road, Dublin 1; when the work started and when it will finish; if the noise from the generator can be reduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14994/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority (NTA) on December 2009, the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) come 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”. Noting this I have referred the Deputy’s question to the NTA for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a reply within 10 working days.

202