Dáil Éireann

Vol. 724 Thursday, No. 3 9 December 2010

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Thursday, 9 December 2010.

Order of Business ……………………………… 587 Estimates for Public Services 2010 ………………………… 605 Vote 25 — Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Supplementary) ………… 605 National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010: Motion … … … 605 Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008: From the Seanad …………… 605 Social Welfare Bill 2010: Second Stage (resumed) …………………………… 606 Committee and Remaining Stages ……………………… 635 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Order for Second Stage … … 669 Business of Dáil: Motion …………………………… 671 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage … … … 671 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 703 DÁIL ÉIREANN

————

Déardaoin, 9 Nollaig 2010. Thursday, 9 December 2010.

————

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

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Order of Business The Tánaiste: It is proposed to take No. 35a, Supplementary Estimate [Vote 25], back from committee; No. 8, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010; No. 1, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 — amendments from the Seanad; No. a4, Social Welfare Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages; and No. b4, Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. today and business shall be interrupted not later than 8 p.m.; Nos. 35a and 8 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 35a shall be taken forthwith; the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. a4: the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 2 p.m. today and the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. today 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 Social Protection; the Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 1 p.m., there shall be no Order of Business within the meaning of Standing Order 26 and, accordingly, the following business shall be transacted: No. b4, Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages, the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 11 a.m. and the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. agreed to?

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Before we deal with any of the business today, we need to get clarity from the Government with regard to its own future. On 22 November the Green Party announced that it intended to withdraw from Government after the budget and the associated financial legislation was passed, and that there would be a general election at the end of January. 587 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy Seymour Crawford: They are already gone.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The Taoiseach subsequently said it was his intention to dissolve the Dáil when the budgetary measures had been enacted and that therefore there would be an election, presumably, in February. From news reports this morning it would appear that the Green Party Members have changed their minds again and have now found a new basis on which to prolong the life of the Fianna Fáil-led Government.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Ne’er a green around.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Putting the green bottles back up on the wall again, all six of them.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: What is the exact position here? When will the Government be brought to a conclusion? When will the general election——

A Deputy: Here is Deputy Gogarty.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: He is listening to Spin FM.

A Deputy: He is talking to the Minister, Deputy Gormley.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: He is ready to be electrocuted.

A Deputy: He is on life support in the ears.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputies, please.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Can the Tánaiste tell us to what planet the Green Party Members are wired today?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I was listening to the Deputy on the phone.

An Ceann Comhairle: We will not have a full-scale debate on this matter. We are dealing with the Order of Business. I call the Tánaiste to give a brief response.

The Tánaiste: I thought we were to refer to the Supplementary Estimate, which I wish to move. As the Taoiseach has said, the general election will be in 2011. Post-budgetary measures will need to be addressed here in the House and we are working towards a legislative process at which stage the Taoiseach will then decide the date of the general election.

An Ceann Comhairle: Tá go maith. Is the——

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: There is a serious——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is not allowed to come in a second time on the Order of Business on such a matter. There are four items to be dealt with.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: We have a new date for the general election, called 2011. We know from experience——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, please.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: ——that when the Government states 2011, it usually means the end of 2011.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: We are giving the Opposition a chance to—— 588 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

An Ceann Comhairle: We will not have a debate on it at this time. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 35a Supplementary Estimate [Vote 25] and No. 8, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010 without debate agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a4, Social Welfare Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages agreed to?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is not agreed.

Deputy James Reilly: This is not agreed. The Government is again using guillotines to shorten the debate on one of the most appalling Social Welfare Bills to come before the House. It wants to take money away from carers and blind people. We have calculated what would be saved by taking this money from 3,000 blind people.

An Ceann Comhairle: This is a procedural issue to deal with the arrangements.

Deputy James Reilly: I am very much dealing with the arrangements and I want to speak about the rationale behind our opposition to the arrangements. This is a matter that infuriates the country. That for the sake of €1.25 million——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Reilly, please.

Deputy James Reilly: ——blind people will have their pension reduced——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy or his party’s spokesperson on this area will have an opportunity to have an input into the debate.

Deputy James Reilly: ——which may reduce their ability to be independent.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan: Good man, James.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Ceann Comhairle does not talk over Deputy Gilmore the way he consistently talks over Members sitting on these benches.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Shatter, please.

Deputy Alan Shatter: He does it every single day on the Order of Business.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Shatter, please.

Deputy Alan Shatter: He should contain himself occasionally.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Shatter, it is in the interests of maintaining proper order in the House.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Ceann Comhairle creates the disorder.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputy allow his party’s deputy leader to continue?

Deputy James Reilly: I will proceed if the Ceann Comhairle would allow me. The bottom line is that this is being done for the sake of a miserly €90 million; out of €6,000 million, it is unbelievable that this €90 million could not be found somewhere else——

Deputy Noel J. Coonan: That is small change for the Minister. 589 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy James Reilly: ——such as through drug reference pricing.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan: It is small change.

Deputy James Reilly: The Minister for Health and Children, who is across the floor of the Chamber, scoffed in July at the thought of hundreds of millions of euro being made available through drugs savings but she issued a press release yesterday or the day before stating that this is what she intends to do.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: Why does she have wait until the IMF was not only at the door but sitting in the parlour before she acts? It is same with everything with this Government; it always too little and far too late.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: There is much anger in the country about this. Only five Opposition Deputies have had a chance to speak on this Bill.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Hear. hear.

Deputy James Reilly: We want more time to discuss it. We want more time for members of the Government to explain their rationale and perhaps examine their conscience on why they are going to go after carers who save this State hundreds of millions of euro by looking after their loved ones at home. Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: They want to guillotine the debate on this Bill and they want this done before the weekend before backbenches go back to face their constituents——

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: ——and have to hear the people. They will not listen but they will have to hear them. The Tánaiste and the Ceann Comhairle should listen; we oppose this utterly. We want more time to discuss this Bill. We want every Member of this House to have an opportunity to exercise his or democratic right and express the views of his or her constituents here.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The Labour Party is opposed to guillotining the debate on the Social Welfare Bill at 2 p.m. today. It is bad enough that this Government is cutting the payments and allowances that are being made to people who are blind, widows, people who are out of work, people with disabilities and people who are caring for members of their families. It is bad enough that those cuts are being brought in under this budget but it adds insult to injury to do it in the way the Government is doing it by saying that it will close discussion on the Bill at 2 p.m. today without giving an opportunity to every Member of the Dáil who wants to contribute to it to do so and, more particularly, without giving us an opportunity to tease out some of the hidden cuts contained in the budget.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Hear, hear. 590 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: For example, the one Deputy Shortall highlighted yesterday whereby working widows and widowers are being hit three times in three different ways by three different measures in this——

An Ceann Comhairle: We will have a debate on that——

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy is explaining why we are not having that debate.

An Ceann Comhairle: ——and all these points can be made at that stage.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: No, they cannot if we do not have enough time to do so.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: No, that is the reason. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for drawing attention to this because it is the reason I am opposing this measure. We will not have an opportunity, as he said, to debate all these matters because the proposal from the Government is to guillotine the debate on it. On top of the insult that is being added to injury, this morning we learned that the senior executives in Allied Irish Bank will be paid a bonus, which is more than a carer will get for a full year, something the Government failed to legislate for when the bank guarantee was brought in.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Gilmore, we need to move on.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: It was difficult to listen to the Minister for Social Protection, God help us, this morning, on the one hand trying to explain to people why their allowances and payments under social welfare were being cut——

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot promote a debate on this; only brief statements can be made now. We are well beyond the point of brief statements having been made.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: ——and then offering post-hoc justification as to why these bonuses will be paid. What did they get the bonuses for?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, please. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Michael Ring: You might have to go to America to visit the people who took the money from them.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ring, allow the Deputy in possession to proceed.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Today the Government is asking us to agree to the ordering of business that will allow for the ramming through of the Social Welfare Bill that seeks to savagely strike out again at the most vulnerable in our society. Against all of that, as has just been referred to, the executives in Allied Irish Bank, a bank that is now virtually State-owned, will be paid bonuses up to a sum of some €40 million, we are told, and the cheques will be in the post by 17 December in time for Christmas.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are on the arrangements for the Social Welfare Bill.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We have to get real. The Government is taking its eye off the ball in that regard for sure. Shamelessly, the Government is seeking to place the most vulnerable in the worst possible situation facing into Christmas and the New Year. There is no way we can agree to the passage of this Bill, or the ordering of what is here — let there be no mistake about it. One can look at budgets in isolation but it is total madness to do that. During 591 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.] the past 12 months, from budget 2010 to budget 2011, the Government will have taken €16.50 out of the pockets of carers across this State. That is an absolutely outrageous situation——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has gone well beyond making a brief statement.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——and shame on the Fianna Fáil and Green Party Members for doing so.

The Tánaiste: These are difficult times and difficulties are faced by many people.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: The Government is making it more difficult for them.

The Tánaiste: It is appropriate to reiterate that the Government had trebled the amount of expenditure on social welfare. It has moved from a level of expenditure of €6.7 billion in 2000 to €20.9 billion. It is a bit precious of the deputy leader of Fine Gael to come forward with his new found empathy for those who are less well off.

A Deputy: He always had empathy.

The Tánaiste: On the basis of his previous existence, he was one of the people who definitely ensured that the GPs in this country——

Deputy Paul Kehoe: That was good negotiation.

The Tánaiste: ——had the best rip-off of the Irish taxpayer that ever took place and the Minister for Health and Children had to go back and review it.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: I call that good negotiation.

Deputy Tom Hayes: That was a good note for Mary to slip to the Tánaiste

The Tánaiste: It is appropriate to say that the Minister for Health and Children was in a position to get a €200 million saving on patented drugs in the last number of months through her negotiation and her skills.

Deputy Michael Ring: The Minister for Health and Children never left Fianna Fáil. Mary never left it.

The Tánaiste: On the issues raised by the Labour Party, the Taoiseach put it well in this House when he spoke about the differences between the parties. With Fine Gael we would not have any tax increases and with the Labour Party we would have no social welfare decreases.

(Interruptions).

The Tánaiste: These measures would be neither credible nor acceptable, and the most pre- posterous of all is what Sinn Féin is saying, where we would not have any money at all over the next number of years to pay any social welfare benefits.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with item No. a4, Second and Remaining Stages of the Social Welfare Bill 2010 agreed to?

Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with a4 be agreed to.” 592 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 68.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie. Kelly, Peter. Ahern, Dermot. Kennedy, Michael. Ahern, Michael. Killeen, Tony. Ahern, Noel. Kitt, Michael P.. Andrews, Barry. Kitt, Tom. Andrews, Chris. Lenihan, Brian. Aylward, Bobby. Lenihan, Conor. Behan, Joe. Lowry, Michael. Blaney, Niall. McEllistrim, Thomas. Brady, Áine. McGrath, Mattie. Brady, Cyprian. McGrath, Michael. Brady, Johnny. McGuinness, John. Browne, John. Mansergh, Martin. Byrne, Thomas. Martin, Micheál. Moloney, John. Calleary, Dara. Moynihan, Michael. Carey, Pat. Nolan, M.J.. Collins, Niall. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Conlon, Margaret. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Connick, Seán. O’Brien, Darragh. Coughlan, Mary. O’Connor, Charlie. Cregan, John. O’Dea, Willie. Curran, John. O’Donoghue, John. Dempsey, Noel. O’Flynn, Noel. Devins, Jimmy. O’Hanlon, Rory. Dooley, Timmy. O’Keeffe, Batt. Fahey, Frank. O’Keeffe, Edward. Finneran, Michael. O’Rourke, Mary. Fitzpatrick, Michael. Power, Peter. Fleming, Seán. Power, Seán. Flynn, Beverley. Roche, Dick. Gogarty, Paul. Ryan, Eamon. Gormley, John. Sargent, Trevor. Hanafin, Mary. Scanlon, Eamon. Harney, Mary. Treacy, Noel. Haughey, Seán. Wallace, Mary. Healy-Rae, Jackie. White, Mary Alexandra. Hoctor, Máire. Woods, Michael. Kelleher, Billy.

Níl

Bannon, James. Flanagan, Charles. Broughan, Thomas P.. Flanagan, Terence. Bruton, Richard. Gilmore, Eamon. Burke, Ulick. Grealish, Noel. Burton, Joan. Hayes, Brian. Byrne, Catherine. Hayes, Tom. Clune, Deirdre. Higgins, Michael D. Connaughton, Paul. Hogan, Phil. Coonan, Noel J.. Howlin, Brendan. Costello, Joe. Kehoe, Paul. Coveney, Simon. Lynch, Ciarán. Crawford, Seymour. Lynch, Kathleen. Creed, Michael. McCormack, Pádraic. Creighton, Lucinda. McGinley, Dinny. D’Arcy, Michael. McGrath, Finian. Deenihan, Jimmy. Mitchell, Olivia. Doherty, Pearse. Naughten, Denis. Doyle, Andrew. Neville, Dan. Durkan, Bernard J.. Noonan, Michael. English, Damien. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Feighan, Frank. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Ferris, Martin. O’Donnell, Kieran. 593 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Níl—continued

O’Dowd, Fergus. Shatter, Alan. O’Keeffe, Jim. Sheahan, Tom. O’Mahony, John. Sheehan, P.J.. O’Shea, Brian. Sherlock, Seán. Shortall, Róisín. O’Sullivan, Jan. Stagg, Emmet. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Stanton, David. Penrose, Willie. Timmins, Billy. Perry, John. Tuffy, Joanna. Quinn, Ruairí. Upton, Mary. Rabbitte, Pat. Varadkar, Leo. Reilly, James. Wall, Jack. Ring, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal that the Dáil sit tomorrow agreed to?

Deputy James Reilly: I will respond to the comments the Tánaiste made after a note was passed to her by the Minister for Health and Children. I am proud of my record as a negotiator.

(Interruptions).

Deputy James Reilly: The current Minister may not have been Minister for Health and Children at the time but I doubt she would have done any better in the negotiations given her propensity for lavish travel and painting her nails. We only need to consider her record, for example, her failure to implement redundancies, which costs the country €200 million per annum, and to address drugs reference pricing, which costs another couple of hundred million each year.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are discussing arrangements for sitting tomorrow.

Deputy James Reilly: The country could have done with a few real negotiators a couple of weeks ago when we were talking to the IMF.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Michael Ring: We were sold out.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: As the Minister, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, stated, they were playing poker.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Reilly is in possession. I ask for silence, please.

Deputy Dick Roche: Let the greedy doctor speak.

Deputy James Reilly: I oppose the taking of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill tomorrow in light of what today’s newspapers reports concerning €40 million of bonuses to bankers. The definition of a bonus is an additional payment for some form of extra achievement. What in the name of God have the banks achieved in recent years? Would AIB have been able to pay bonuses if taxpayers had not bailed out and recapitalised it? Why was 594 Order of 9 December 2010. Business this issue not negotiated and sorted out when the bank bailout was being given and the banks’ loans were being guaranteed?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: We have a place called the High Court.

Deputy James Reilly: The Government could have prevented the outcome of the case.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It is totally insane.

Deputy James Reilly: We still do not have clarity on the universal social charge. Will it apply to pensioners and medical card holders? We need an answer to that question. The Government has lost its moral compass. As I pointed out, blind people will no longer have the independence to go to the shop because they cannot afford to feed their dog, whereas bankers will be given bonuses to go to the Caribbean. What type of Government does that to people? This decision has caused outrage, anger and shock and it is wrong.

Deputy Dick Roche: That sounds a little like the Deputy’s fees.

Deputy James Reilly: The Minister for Finance must stop using the law to protect bankers. He should use it to sort them out. I have a proposal for him. Let him show leadership by taxing at 99% the bankers’ bonuses in the emergency legislation to come before the House tomorrow.

A Deputy: What do Government Deputies have to say to that?

Deputy Noel J. Coonan: They are dumbfounded.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: On the proposal to the deal with the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill, the measure to cut the minimum wage is at the end of the legislation. As Deputy Penrose pointed out yesterday, the arrangements the Government proposes for the taking of the Bill will mean, in practice, that it is unlikely the Dáil will have an 11 o’clock opportunity to specifically address the cut in the minimum wage. Among the matters which will not receive the attention they deserve under the proposed arrangements is the statement by the Minister for Finance on budget day that those on the new reduced minimum wage will not be brought into the tax net. That is not true.

An Ceann Comhairle: While Deputy’s may make a brief comment on the Order of Business, they cannot engage in debate. Deputy Gilmore is provoking debate.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I am pointing out the reason we need more time to debate the Bill. These are the types of issues the House needs to be debate but we will not have an opportunity to do so. The Minister for Finance stated that those on the new national minimum wage will not be brought into the tax net. On page C30 of the budgetary documentation, we are informed that the universal social charge, which will apply to the national minimum wage, is a tax.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot debate the matter on the Order of Business.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: People on the minimum wage will be brought into the tax net. The effect of what the Government is doing is to reduce by €40 per week the earnings of a person working 40 hours per week and to take from these earnings €8.42 on the universal social charge. This will bring the national minimum wage for someone working 40 hours per week to below €300 per week, specifically to €297. 595 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Shame.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Order of Business provides for a brief statement. The Deputy is promoting debate on a Bill which will be discussed later.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Deputy Gilmore should add in the family income supplement.

Deputy Joan Burton: Very few small employers participate in that scheme.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The measures mean that someone working 40 hours per week on the new national minimum wage will receive less than the average bonus being paid to AIB executives, which is being allowed by the Government.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: That was done by a High Court decision.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The arrangements before us have been made because the Govern- ment wants to kill debate on a measure that will take almost €50 per week from people on the national minimum wage.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: On a point of order, it has been brought to the attention of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, that he misled the House in his Budget Statement on Tuesday. I offer him an opportunity to correct the record.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Shortall must resume her seat.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: He must now correct——

An Ceann Comhairle: Resume your seat, please. I call an Teachta Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: A Cheann Comhairle, excuse me——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, I have called an Teachta Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: This is a point of order. The Minister for Finance——

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not a point of order. The Deputy can make all those points during the budget debate.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: ——made a mistake on the Order of Business, misled the House about the budget——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, resume your seat, please, or leave the House.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: ——and must now correct the record.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, I shall ask you to leave the House.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Deputy Shortall is making an absolutely valid point which I support. The Sinn Féin Deputies absolutely object to the guillotining of this Financial Emer- gency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill. What a grand name. If ever there was a misnomer for a compendium piece of legislation, this is it. This is an enabling Bill to reduce the minimum wage. Calling it a €1 reduction, or going from €8.65 to €7.65, does not seem to hit quite the same note, but let us make no mistake about it — this will be at least €40 per week from the pockets of families who are depending on the basic standard of income. It is an 596 Order of 9 December 2010. Business absolutely disgraceful proposition that will cause untold harm to those families who are trying to cope at that level.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot debate the matter on the Order of Business in this manner. I will agree to a reference but not to a debate.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The second reason I object is that the Bill facilitates a cap- ping of the salaries for higher public servants. However, the cap is far too high at €250,000. Let us face reality here. A quarter of a million euro is too much in these circumstances——

An Ceann Comhairle: That point can be made during the debate.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Government has not gone far enough. These are the critical points that are wrong with the entire compendium proposal, the so-called “in the public interest” Bill. I have never heard anything as ludicrously described as this piece of legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, resume your seat. I am putting the question.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We will not support it under any circumstances.

Question put: “That the proposal for the Dáil sitting tomorrow be agreed to.”

The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 69.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie. Hoctor, Máire. Ahern, Dermot. Kelleher, Billy. Ahern, Michael. Kelly, Peter. Ahern, Noel. Kennedy, Michael. Andrews, Barry. Killeen, Tony. Andrews, Chris. Kitt, Michael P. Ardagh, Seán. Kitt, Tom. Aylward, Bobby. Lenihan, Brian. Behan, Joe. Lenihan, Conor. Blaney, Niall. Lowry, Michael. Brady, Áine. McEllistrim, Thomas. Brady, Cyprian. McGrath, Mattie. Brady, Johnny. McGrath, Michael. Browne, John. McGuinness, John. Byrne, Thomas. Mansergh, Martin. Calleary, Dara. Martin, Micheál. Carey, Pat. Moloney, John. Collins, Niall. Moynihan, Michael. Conlon, Margaret. Mulcahy, Michael. Connick, Seán. Nolan, M.J. Coughlan, Mary. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Cregan, John. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Curran, John. O’Brien, Darragh. Dempsey, Noel. O’Connor, Charlie. Devins, Jimmy. O’Dea, Willie. Dooley, Timmy. O’Donoghue, John. Fahey, Frank. O’Flynn, Noel. Finneran, Michael. O’Hanlon, Rory. Fitzpatrick, Michael. O’Keeffe, Batt. Fleming, Seán. O’Keeffe, Edward. Flynn, Beverley. O’Rourke, Mary. Gogarty, Paul. Power, Peter. Gormley, John. Power, Seán. Hanafin, Mary. Roche, Dick. Harney, Mary. Ryan, Eamon. Haughey, Seán. Sargent, Trevor. Healy-Rae, Jackie. Scanlon, Eamon. 597 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Tá—continued

Treacy, Noel. Woods, Michael. Wallace, Mary. White, Mary Alexandra.

Níl

Bannon, James. McEntee, Shane. Broughan, Thomas P. McGinley, Dinny. Bruton, Richard. McGrath, Finian. Burke, Ulick. Mitchell, Olivia. Burton, Joan. Naughten, Denis. Byrne, Catherine. Neville, Dan. Clune, Deirdre. Noonan, Michael. Connaughton, Paul. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Coonan, Noel J. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Costello, Joe. O’Donnell, Kieran. Coveney, Simon. O’Dowd, Fergus. Crawford, Seymour. O’Keeffe, Jim. Creighton, Lucinda. O’Mahony, John. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Shea, Brian. Deasy, John. O’Sullivan, Jan. Deenihan, Jimmy. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Doherty, Pearse. Penrose, Willie. Doyle, Andrew. Perry, John. Durkan, Bernard J. Quinn, Ruairí. English, Damien. Rabbitte, Pat. Feighan, Frank. Reilly, James. Ferris, Martin. Ring, Michael. Flanagan, Charles. Shatter, Alan. Flanagan, Terence. Sheahan, Tom. Gilmore, Eamon. Sheehan, P.J. Grealish, Noel. Sherlock, Seán. Hayes, Brian. Shortall, Róisín. Hayes, Tom. Stagg, Emmet. Higgins, Michael D. Stanton, David. Hogan, Phil. Timmins, Billy. Howlin, Brendan. Tuffy, Joanna. Kehoe, Paul. Upton, Mary. Lynch, Ciarán. Varadkar, Leo. Lynch, Kathleen. Wall, Jack. McCormack, Pádraic.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy James Reilly on the Order of Business.

Deputy James Reilly: I wish to inquire after a number of Bills. First, I wish to refer to the legislation coming before the House tomorrow. Given the savings that will be made from the reduction in the minimum wage amount to a mere €83 million in one year and that €40 million in bonuses are to be paid this year to bankers and €55 million was paid last year, which is an equivalent sum, will the Minister for Finance or the Tánaiste give an undertaking that these bonuses will be taxed at 99%? In the United States, President Obama taxed them at 90% and the Government here should show some leadership and go further. The people want that.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will have to approach the issue from a different angle.

Deputy James Reilly: This is a burning issue for the people of this country. They have realised the trouble we are in and how we got here, despite the Government spin, namely, through lack 598 Order of 9 December 2010. Business of regulation, political ill judgment and bankers being paid bonuses for achieving figures, not for achieving security for their bank or best outcomes for their clients. The Government has an opportunity to show some leadership, late in the day as it might be.

An Ceann Comhairle: This is the Order of Business.

Deputy James Reilly: Second, on the Order of Business, where stands the corporate donations legislation, the legislation on the lord mayor, which is going through the House at present, and the climate change Bill? These are all Bills which the Green Party, which is supporting the Government, is very keen to have passed and it is now making noises about delaying its promise of an election in January lest this legislation not be passed. It is clear the climate change Bill is one the Greens have been very slow to introduce but they could change the political climate by changing the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is supposed to make just a brief intervention.

Deputy James Reilly: Will the Tánaiste tell us the date of the next general election, rather than talking about 2011? As we all know, that would mean 24 December 2011 if she had her way. The people need to know that, and they need to know the Greens will keep their word this time — that they are going to stay green and not turn yellow yet again.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Tánaiste on promised legislation.

The Tánaiste: The heads of the electoral (amendment) Bill have been agreed and approval has been given to draft. The Dublin mayor Bill is on Committee Stage, which will be taken next week. I believe the Minister is bringing the climate change Bill to finality for publication.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I wish to raise two matters. First, Deputy Shortall asked the Mini- ster for Finance to correct the record of the House relating to the statement he made during his Budget Statement that people on the new national minimum wage would not be brought into the tax net. It is clear from the way in which the universal social charge is being applied that it is a tax and that as a result, people on the national minimum wage are being brought into the tax net. I ask the Tánaiste to address this. An opportunity should be given some time today for the Minister for Finance to correct the record of the House. Second, we have been told that once the budget is through, the Green Party would leave Government and there would be a general election. This would mean that, apart from the financial legislation that arises out of the budget, no other legislation would be brought forward by this Government——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Correct.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: ——in the new year. Is that the case? Will the Tánaiste confirm what Deputy Gogarty is telling us, namely, that there will be no other legislation in the new year——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: After the Finance Bill.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: ——and that the Green Party will be withdrawing from Govern- ment, as it had indicated, in January?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The Deputy should ask the Green Party. It is our decision.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the real Tánaiste please stand up? 599 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Greens shoot themselves again.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputies, please.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I am trying to find out what is going on. I do not care who answers. The only thing I care about is that we can rely on the answer this time. We got an answer on 22 November that the Greens were going to pull out of Government and that there would be a general election in January. Is that still the case?

An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Tánaiste on promised legislation and promised business.

The Tánaiste: On the issue of the Minister for Finance, it was clear the Minister was referring to the income tax net in his discussions. With regard to the legislation which Deputy Gilmore inquired about, the Taoiseach indicated that the post-budgetary legislation would be dealt with, at which stage he will decide when the election will take place.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: That is different.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Arising from that, what are the arrangements for dealing with the Finance Bill?

The Tánaiste: The Finance Bill will be taken when we resume after the recess. As the Taoiseach indicated, the proposal is that the House would resume a week earlier than previously expected and that once the Finance Bill is available, we will discuss it.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I want——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Gilmore has had a very good innings.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: To clarify, when will the Finance Bill be published? When we come back at the beginning of January, will the Finance Bill be the first item of business the House will deal with?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: If it is ready.

The Tánaiste: We have to await the publication. I am not in a position to say when that will happen.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: Deputy Gogarty said it would be ready.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: There is some confusion because two answers are being given by the coalition Government. The Minister is saying it is not yet ready. Deputy Gogarty has just told the House it is finished.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I said, “If it is ready”.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: If it is ready, then it is ready.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I said, “If it is ready”.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Deputy said “It is ready”.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let us not get weighed down. The Deputy should direct his inquiries to the Chair. 600 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: These are important points. We have enough confusion when the Government tends to speak una voce but here we have a duo in operation.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Too many loud bangs have affected Deputy Ó Caoláin’s hearing.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Deputy Gogarty should not worry. The only old banger in here is the one he has been driving in the Green Party for years. It is just about clapped out. With regard to the Tánaiste’s reply to the previous questioner, will the Finance Bill be before the Dáil on 12 January? Is that when we will address it? What is reason the Government intends running it forward to the beginning of the first week back? How quickly afterwards do the members of the Government intend to hand in their resignations in the park? What is the programme of legislation which the Government expects? I notice that this morning a lobby has started again in regard to the climate change Bill, which I am happy to support. Is it the case that the Government is in disarray and the Green Party wants to see other legislation being forced through?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is embellishing the inquiry.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: If the Tánaiste was a little more forthcoming in her replies, we would have a better idea what exactly is lying ahead of us so the Opposition could properly prepare, which we are entitled to do.

An Ceann Comhairle: If the Deputy leaves the matter there, we will inquire.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the climate change Bill be taken before this Dáil con- cludes, that is, before the 30th Dáil rises and Members go before the people? Will the debate on the Finance Bill start as of 12 January?

The Tánaiste: I indicated previously that the date of publication of the Finance Bill is something I do not have at present because the Department and the Minister are working on it, which takes a considerable amount of time and deliberation. With regard to the legislation for the next session of the Dáil, the Chief Whip will bring that forward in the normal way.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Tánaiste says it takes all this time but it took her very little time to ram forward the Social Welfare Bill and all that entails——

An Ceann Comhairle: Please, Deputy. An answer has been provided to the Deputy on the inquiry. We need to move on.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——and the so-called Public Interest Bill — God forgive the phrase — that is to be introduced later this evening. It does not wear. Nobody is buying that.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please, Deputy.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is not that inordinate time was required.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will have to find another way to raise this matter.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Government, when it wants to ram something through, has been able to bring forward legislative measures, and this——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is holding up the Order of Business. I want to call Deputy Shatter. 601 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The answer is absolutely unacceptable.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I have two questions. On the issue that has just been raised — promised legislation is an important matter — it was announced earlier this week by the Taoiseach that the Dáil will return a week early, as Fine Gael had been seeking, presumably on 12 January. Does the Tánaiste know why it is returning a week early? It was assumed it was returning a week early to take the finance Bill. If we are returning a week early and not taking the finance Bill, is there anyone in government who can tell us why we are returning a week early? Is Deputy Gogarty the assistant Tánaiste? Can he inform the House? That is the first question.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: We are returning a week early because Fine Gael asked for it. It is just to oblige the Deputy.

Deputy Alan Shatter: My second question relates to a very serious matter. On the night on which the budget was being debated in this House, the Department of Justice and Law Reform published a very extensive and comprehensive report by Judge Michael Reilly, the Inspector of Prisons, into catastrophic failures in every aspect of the justice system for which the Minister is responsible that resulted in the death of a Mr. Noel Keegan on 31 December 2009. That report is a matter of substantial——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue this matter. He cannot do so on the Order of Business.

Deputy Alan Shatter: That report is a matter of substantial public concern. Will Dáil time be made available to debate it? I suggest to the Tánaiste that the Dáil sit from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. tomorrow with the agreement of the Whips to facilitate the Minister making a statement to the House on the report and Members of the House in addressing the issues in that report. The essential issue that arose from the report is that Mr. Keegan lost his life——

An Ceann Comhairle: A brief inquiry.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——due to the failure of the State to ensure someone convicted to four years’ imprisonment was actually required to serve that sentence. It is extraordinary.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is this promised business? This is the Order of Business. The Deputy will have to find another way to inquire about the matter.

Deputy Alan Shatter: We have debated in this House reports on the catastrophic systemic failures within the child care services. This is the equivalent within our justice service. At the very least, the Keegan family, who have been seriously wronged and bereaved, are entitled to have the report considered by Members of this House this week. I ask that the Minister, on behalf of the State, apologise in this House on behalf of the State to the family for the tragedy that has befallen it.

The Tánaiste: To be fair to the Deputy, the issues that have arisen on foot of the report are very serious. When this matter arose, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform advised his Opposition colleagues that he was initiating an investigation arising from a very regrettable incident that took place. I join the Minister in sympathising with the family of the late Mr. Noel Keegan. Perhaps the Whips will be in a position to facilitate a discussion on the report.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: Is there proposed amending legislation dealing with NAMA? As the Tánaiste will be aware, NAMA has opposed a number of high-profile examinerships recently. An example pertains to the Whelans Group, in respect of which NAMA sought to oppose the 602 Order of 9 December 2010. Business examinership as proposed. This has an impact on jobs, which are being lost. Is it possible to review the legislation and look to the broader responsibility NAMA should have for the taxpayer? While its initial remit clearly pertains to the taxpayer in terms of returning funds that are owed, there is a broader consideration in terms of the protection of jobs. Is there potential to review the legislation as part of the current programme of legislative measures?

The Tánaiste: I am not aware of any review that is to take place of NAMA legislation. Perhaps I will advise the Minister for Finance of the issues that have arisen and ask him to revert to the Deputy.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: Yesterday the HSE clarified that 199 children died in care in the ten years up to April 2010. Committee Stage of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill is complete and it is ready to proceed to Report Stage. Its objective is partly to protect children in care and to implement some of the recommendations of the Ryan report. I want clear assurance from the Tánaiste, on behalf of the Government, that this legislation will be prioritised over the vanity projects of the Green Party, including the provision of another layer of bureaucracy in the Dublin area. I want assurance from the party that really leads the Government, not the Green Party. The legislation is about protecting children in care and is extremely important. I want to be absolutely sure that the issue of children in danger of dying in care — there have been 199 deaths in the past ten years — will be prioritised over other issues before the dissolution of this Dáil.

The Tánaiste: The Government will be more than happy to facilitate that legislation as a matter of urgency, perhaps on our return after Christmas. I believe it is on Report Stage.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: It should be taken before anything else.

The Tánaiste: It will be done. It is important.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Some time ago, the Taoiseach promised publicly in The Irish Field that he would introduce legislation regarding the horse and greyhound fund in so far as it relates to online and off-course betting. It was promised that it would be introduced before Christmas and is very urgent. Will the Tánaiste indicate whether it will be published before Christmas? If not, will it be published in January?

The Tánaiste: It will be introduced in the finance Bill, which will be taken after Christmas. I believe there is parallel legislation under the Betting Act to be introduced also.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Will it be included with the finance Bill?

The Tánaiste: Yes.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: In light of the fact that the Green Party is trying to bring forward some of its pet legislation, such as that to establish a Dublin lord mayor, does the Tánaiste’s party not regard it as important to bring forward the legal costs Bill to deal with the anomaly whereby those in the legal field are not being affected by the cutbacks affecting everybody else? In light of all the problems associated with young people misbehaving because of excessive drinking, including in housing estates, for example, can the sale of alcohol Bill be dealt with to control the sale and abuse of alcohol?

The Tánaiste: The legal costs Bill has not yet been drafted. With regard to the sale of alcohol Bill, in normal circumstances that would be taken in the next session. 603 Order of 9 December 2010. Business

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: In view of the fact that the recent international student assessment shows literacy levels in Ireland have dropped catastrophically; that the biggest drop in literacy in any country since 2000 has been in Ireland; and that the same survey shows that one in six of our students has low literacy and that almost one in four males is not functionally literate, does the Tánaiste not agree that there is a need for a radical shake-up in education policy in terms of literacy resources given to primary and lower level secondary schools?

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Deputy an inquiry for the Tánaiste?

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Does the Tánaiste agree that the greatest failure of all is that we will not be able to compete for new jobs in the new economy considering that the people who scored highest in the international assessment of literacy and other educational attainments are from China and the Far East, and that we in Ireland are falling behind very significantly? What is the Tánaiste doing about it? Will she introduce a plan before the dissolution of this Dáil to address this very serious issue? In regard to legislation on the student support grant coming before the House next Thursday, in respect of which legislation we in the Opposition benches will be assisting, will the Tánaiste clarify whether existing students who have the highest grants on the grounds that they live farthest from their educational institutions will lose those grants if they live within the new——

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot allow that inquiry on the Order of Business. It is inappropriate.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: This is very serious. Can I explain the reason the question is appropriate?

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sure it is important.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: It is because 25,000 students——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should submit the matter for the Adjournment and we will consider it.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: ——are estimated to lose up to €2,000 per household as a result of the proposals.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy O’Dowd, this is the Order of Business.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I ask that the Minister clarify that by next Thursday. Her Depart- ment could not provide clarity on that yesterday within one hour, and I appreciate it was one hour. I was trying to get clarity on this matter but I could not get any response from the Minister’s Department during that period of time, which I found unacceptable, having tele- phoned her office and the office of the Secretary General. That is not good enough.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot expect the Tánaiste or anybody else to have that detail on the Order of Business.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: She knows all about it. They are avoiding the issue.

The Tánaiste: On the issue of PISA, I have noted what the Opposition spokespersons had to say on the matter. I introduced new educational measures with regard to our teaching standards, our entry requirements into teaching, an extension of the degree programme, BEd, to a four year programme, greater interventions by the inspectorate, a new probation service 604 Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) 9 December 2010. Bill 2008: From the Seanad and I have instructed that in our curriculum development the emphasis now must be on literacy and numeracy. That education policy was announced by me two weeks ago. We will have an opportunity on Thursday for a considerable amount of discussion on educational matters through the Student Support Bill, and also parliamentary questions, at which stage I will be more than happy to give further information to the Deputy.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Cathain ata sé i gceist an Bille um Údarás na Gaeltachta a fhoilsiú? An mbeidh sé rite roimh deireadh na Dála seo? An mbeimid in ann toghchán Údarás na Gaeltachta a shocrú ar an lá céanna leis an olltoghchán? An bhfuil sé i gceist aon Billí eile a bhaineann leis an Ghaeilge nó leis an straitéis, atá glactha an Rialtas le roinnt seachtainí anuas, a chur chun cinn?

The Tánaiste: Níl an plean á fhoilsiú go hoifigiúil go fóill. Tá sé réidh. Sílim go bhfoilseoidh an Aire é roimh an Nollag. Ag éirí as na moltaí atá sa straitéis 20 bliain, caithfear Bille úra chur os comhair an Tí chun athstruchtúrú adhéanamh ar Údarás na Gaeltachta.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: In recent days we have seen the eventual closing of the trial of Tony Walsh and his conviction on a number of charges of child sexual abuse. Will the Tánaiste confirm that the Minister for Justice and Law Reform is now moving to provide for the publication of that section of the Murphy report which had previously been redacted pending the outcome of the trial? When can we expect to see that report published in full?

The Tánaiste: I have been advised that under the legislation that is entirely a matter for the High Court.

Estimates for Public Services 2010 The Tánaiste: I move the following Supplementary Estimate:

Vote 25 — Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Supplementary) That a supplementary sum not exceeding €1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 2010 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, including grants to local authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, water services, miscellaneous schemes, subsidies and grants.

Question put and agreed to.

National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010: Motion Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010,

copies of which were laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 2 December 2010.

Question put and agreed to.

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008: From the Seanad

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad. An Ceann Comhairle: There are two amendments to be dealt with and as the amendments are related they may be discussed together. 605 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Seanad amendment No. 1:

Section 4: In page 5, line 23, to delete “has been or is being” and substitute “may have been or may be being”.

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): These two amendments were tabled by the Labour Party on Committee Stage in the Seanad and following some discussion I agreed to accept them. We believe the wording is more nuanced and will encourage whistleblowers to report corruption. It is clear from the wording elsewhere in section 4 of the Bill that whistleblowers must avoid knowingly or recklessly making a false, misleading, frivolous or vexatious report. These amendments make it clear that an honest whistleblower acting in good faith can come forward to report their opinion that an offence may have occurred, safe in the knowledge that they are not required to be certain that it has occurred. The corresponding amendment to section 8(a)(3) aligns the wording of the offence of making a false report of suspected corruption to that in subsection (1) which I have just mentioned. The offence of making a false report will refer to a false report “that a person may have committed or may be committing” a corruption offence. I believe the amendments tabled by the Labour Party are acceptable and I recommend them to the House.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: On behalf of Deputy Rabbitte and the Labour Party I thank the Minister for accepting what are reasonable amendments that clarify the position and give some security to people coming forward. We accept there is always the danger of vexatious reporting but people must be secure in the knowledge that if they legitimately suspect corruption they can report it and are secure as a result of these two amendments.

Deputy James Reilly: I support the amendments also. They encourage more transparency, and protection for whistleblowers will be always welcome on this side of the House. Seanad amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment No. 2:

Section 4: In page 5, line 41, to delete “has committed or is” and substitute “may have committed or may be”.

Seanad amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: The question is: “That Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby agreed to and agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House.”

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: A message will be sent to the Seanad advising it in that regard.

Social Welfare Bill 2010: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” Deputy Paul Gogarty: If Deputy John Browne manages to return from the committee he chairs I wish to share my time with him.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is a sharing arrangement.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Yes, but if he does not I will continue speaking. 606 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Before addressing this legislation on Second Stage and given that I did not have the opportunity to speak on the overall budget, I would like to comment first on a number of related matters. The one closest to my heart is education. Since becoming the Green Party spokesperson on education in 2002 I have put education as high on the agenda as possible. My party has tried to prioritise education in any way we could, and in the first year of entering Govern- ment we secured an additional €135 million investment that would not have been invested otherwise. In the rushed budget of September-October 2008 cuts were made and I am on record as stating that I would not stand over them. I fought aggressively to stop them. In the programme for Government last year we had several cuts reversed and no further cuts, at a time when €4 billion was being taken out of the Exchequer.

Deputy Billy Timmins: The Deputy is a great chap.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: We were told then by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, that the worst was over. Hindsight is great but as we know now we are facing a €6 billion deficit. In that context it was always going to be difficult to prevent certain cuts in the education sector but I welcome that key initiatives we pushed for and which we promised we would remain in Government for have been achieved. The staffing schedules in primary and second level schools have remained the same. The proposal to cut 500 special needs assistant places did not take place. Cuts in capitation, when measured against the real drop in the consumer price index, still show an increase at a time when tender prices for school buildings are falling. We were not able to stop the drop in school building investment but it matched tender prices. I regret many things about the education budget where cuts had to come in but a rational analysis of the overall education budget will show that it stands head and shoulders above other Departments. I make no apologies for my own part in that because I believe education is the way out of the mire we are in. We need to maintain our high levels of education and, in that context, I support the stand up for education campaign to invest 7% of GDP in education. We need to keep investing in the right direction. In that respect also, my party has always opposed third level tuition fees. In 2009, despite efforts, and reports in the media that they would be reintroduced, we prevented this move. There was no increase in registration fees last year even though it was earmarked. This year, again in the context of €6 billion worth of cuts and increased taxes, pressure was always going to come on student charges. Once again, what was touted in the media as a €3,000 to €3,500 cost ended up being €2,000, and for second and subsequent children it remained at €1,500. I do not like the fact that students and their parents will have to pay an extra €500 on registration fees, but I hope people will recognise that we have done our best to minimise the impact when they will be hit in so many other ways. Other aspects of the budget will have been hit more because of investment in education. As I stated, I cannot apologise for that, but there are areas where further tweaking can be done. One question that has always been asked, which also relates to the social welfare budget, is about pay for Deputies and Ministers. In 2002, when pensions increased by 6%, Deputies’ salaries increased by 13%. I described it as a urination on the less well-off. A couple of Members of the Seanad criticised the Green Party in very disparaging terms, and one person referred to “this gentleman”—I use that in the most expansive way possible or the broadest sense of the word. It shows how much has changed that there is now at least a recognition across all sides of the House that politicians need to show leadership and set an example. We have seen changes in salaries, such as in 2008 when Ministers first took their pay cut and last year when a new, long-overdue vouched system was introduced. Some might say it is still not 607 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Paul Gogarty.] good enough that the Taoiseach is among the highest paid in the world, and I would concur with that. All I would say is that I hope it is a step in the right direction and it continues over the next couple of years on an incremental basis so that we come more into line with countries whose standard of living we share, for example, Spain, where the cost of living and wages are much lower. We aspire to be Germans but the only reason we do so is because we have borrowed money from them and we are maxing out our credit cards on German savings. We cannot be Germany. I recognise, although concerns have been expressed — I will be speaking in the debate later on — that we cannot have the second or third highest minimum wage when we are not the second or third wealthiest country. To repeat the argument on comparisons with Germany, the Germans do not even have a minimum wage. However, that is another debate and I hope to speak on that later this evening. Regarding Deputies pay, the percentage change in 2010 was a reduction of 17.3%. This year, there will be a 9.3% decrease, which I very much welcome in the context of what is going to happen. The new special PRSI contribution for officeholders coming in this year has not been advertised and it is just as well to put it on the record because the media have reported that Deputies will not be taking a pay cut. My understanding is that as well as Ministers, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Deputies and Senators, it will also affect members of local authorities. There will be a 4% cut for Deputies on top of the other taxes and levies that are coming in. In my view, it is still not enough, but it at least shows some level of movement given the situation we are in. Hopefully, over the next couple of years, Deputies salaries will come down, although I do not share the view of some out there that Members should be getting the average industrial wage because the hours of a Deputy are far longer that those of someone working on the average industrial wage. In addition, what got us into the mess partially was corruption, where people topped up their income by making dodgy decisions, particularly at local government level when Deputies were also councillors. This was one of the arguments put forward for raising Deputies’ pay so that they would not be forced into getting a little unofficial dig-out. At least now the dig-outs all are supposed to be legitimate and referred to the Standards in Public Office Commission. I hope the finance Bill is introduced as quickly as possible, although, obviously, it will not be ready on 12 January in terms of the amount of work to be done. I also hope there is time to bring in, or at least publish, the corporate donations legislation so that we get rid of the link between politicians and money once and for all. Regarding the Social Welfare Bill, yesterday evening Deputy Michael Ring made an impassioned plea to Members on the Government benches to support Fine Gael amendments. He stated that the cuts that would affect carers, the blind, widows and the most vulnerable recipients of social welfare were unfair, heartless and cruel. I must say I agree, but in saying so I want to clarify, first and foremost, that this budget must be passed and I will vote for it and for the Social Welfare Bill. One cannot have a free for all whereby each Government Deputy votes on each individual amendment because one would not get a Bill passed within the timeframe. All I can do is make a plea to the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, that action can still be taken through last minute amendments. There is a rational argument for asking, for example, whether some of the long-term unemployed should take an extra cut because of the more vulnerable or whether old age pensioners take a little bit of a cut. There have been cynical arguments that the reason senior citizens have not been hit directly in this budget is because Fianna Fáil is trying to protect the remnants of its vote, that the over 65s are Fianna Fáil voters. My deputy leader, the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Alexandra White, stated some time ago that the Green Party does not support 608 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) putting an extra burden on those over the age of 65 who paid taxes at the higher rate over the years and who raised families to the height of the Celtic tiger boom, and who are most vulnerable. We supported the measures whereby additional pension income would be a source of additional revenue. That has been criticised by some, but it is fair that a pensioner who is on a very high income or who has a reasonable second income should contribute a little. Deputy Ring asked people to vote on individual items. I do not think we can, but were Deputy Ring — I make this pledge before the House — to suggest that old age contributory pensions be cut by €2 and such an amendment was tabled, I would vote for it. However, I have a funny feeling that, no more than Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael will not support putting 12 o’clock extra tax on pensioners and there lies the nub of the issue. There is a valid argument to be put forward that one cannot hit pensioners. There is also a valid argument to be put forward that one cannot hit the long-term unemployed. Therefore, the question is how one assists the carers and the blind from within that budget. Somewhere has to suffer and a judgment call has been made by the Minister, who I commend for his efforts. However, I urge the Minister to think again to see whether a little more of a shaving can come off certain areas or if there is a way of analysing the means of a household, including family members, so that those who are in a position to pay a little bit more can do so. Perhaps a commitment could be given here today, either through amendments from the Minister or that the issue will be analysed to see what the impact of these measures would be. It is uninten- tionally callous, once again, for the most vulnerable to be hit the most. They have to be hit in a €6 billion budget but in terms of equality, the most vulnerable in our society should be protected the most. Given the relatively small amounts of money involved perhaps more juggling could be done. We cannot imagine that social welfare cuts will make people happy. In a related context, today I received an anecdotal report, which I did not receive first-hand, of an individual who was in the queue in a social welfare office and went out to stay warm in his car. He returned to where his place was in the queue and was told to go back to the back. When he stated he would not do so because he had a place in the queue, he was set upon and beaten up. The social welfare office was forced to close. I believe there was also an element of racial motivation. If this is reported in the media and turns out to be true I want to condemn any attacks of this nature. Complaints have been made about social welfare offices not opening early enough in the mornings to let people queue in the warmth. Some response has been made, but it does not cost much to have a little ticketing machine and a portable monitor so people know where they are in a queue; they can go to the shops and get themselves a cup of tea and return and know where their place is. It is very degrading to queue in the freezing cold to collect a relatively meagre income and to feel like one is being treated like dirt. This might help. It will not sort out the anger at the mess caused by decisions of people in the Government and elsewhere and the collapse of the banking system, but at least it may make life a tiny bit more comfortable. People speak about treason in this House, and it has been mentioned by a number of Deputies that to vote for this budget would be treasonous. Treachery has a number of defini- tions but it is obvious that the intent is to evoke the spirit of 1916 and the idea that if one commits a treachery one will be shot in the head. I have received correspondence from Presen- tation sisters throughout the country and I have a letter which I think is worth reading. A letter from a convent in the west of Ireland urged Members of Dáil Éireann to put aside party politics at this critical time and unite to ensure the budget is passed when put before the Dáil. The signatories stated they believed that genuine patriots would put the interests of the country before personal gain to ensure a secure future for our country and its people. It was signed 609 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Paul Gogarty.] sincerely by Sisters Theresa, Goretti, Patricia, Mary, Maria, Bridie, Clement and Rita. They were not the only Presentation sisters——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Card carrying members.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: They may be, but they are members of a religious order which is well respected and which has educated many of the children of this country quite well. To have a relatively unprecedented approach by the religious in this country to urge people to vote for a budget——

Deputy Michael Creed: Before they saw it.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: They recognise the imperative——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Divine intervention.

Deputy Michael Creed: Cheaper than the IMF.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: How much time do I have remaining?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Three and a half minutes.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: That might give me time to speak about the context. One of the reasons the Green Party announced we were leaving Government was partially to do with the issue of the bailout and the lack of clarity and communication and the timing——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Deputy Gogarty is a novice.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: ——and also the huge public anger.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Gogarty.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: We told people who were angry that they would get their chance to have an election.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: It is very hard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Gogarty to conclude.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Given the fact that we were bullied by our European partners into a bailout — that is a hard and fast fact at this stage — and negotiated a 5.8% deal which the Opposition claims it might have been able to reduce by a few notches, the reality is that one way or another if we did not get this bailout we would have been crucified on the bond markets. What the Presentation sisters are saying in essence is that if Ireland defaults and we have to go into an Argentinian-type situation then wages will fall by 60% or 70% overnight. That will be when the ATMs will start operating again. It took Argentina six or seven years to get back on its feet and Argentina is a larger country than we are. If we were to default outside of a European-wide context we would be totally knackered as a country. In that space we must look at why it is important to have the four-year plan——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: And we are not?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: ——and why it is important to pass this budget. Otherwise, as a country, those who are the most vulnerable will have absolutely nothing. While overall I do 610 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) not like some elements of the budget and I hope the Minister takes what I said on board, I believe we must pass all of the pieces of vital legislation relating to the budget this year to ensure we are able to continue to borrow money and reduce our deficit by €15 billion over the next four or five years and so that people can continue to have social welfare, wages, job opportunities and social protection. Under the terms of the bailout we have three years to get our act in order; in a default situation we would have three days to get food stocked up. I do not want to be in a situation where people are rioting in the streets and worried about where their next drop of water will come from, let alone the fact that their social welfare has been cut or taxes have been increased. This is the situation we face and it is why I and my party members decided rather than go to the country to put our own interests first we put the interests of the country first in supporting this budget before we leave government. It is about the people. As I stated previously, it is not about the next general election it is about the next generation.

Deputy Billy Timmins: I wish to share time with Deputies Naughten and Creed.

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

Deputy Billy Timmins: I listened with interest to Deputy Gogarty’s speech and there is much in it with which I agree. However, if I had not seen the announcement made a couple of weeks ago that the Green Party was pulling out of Government I would not believe that he is pulling out. I know that deep down the Green Party probably regrets the decision made at the time.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: No.

Deputy Billy Timmins: It always prided itself on having wideranging discussions with all party members but I do not recall the party membership arriving by balloon and parachute to Dublin to make the decision that weekend.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The leader has that autonomy.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: He is suffering from sleep deprivation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This cross-party discussion is very interesting but Deputy Timmins has the floor.

Deputy Billy Timmins: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Green Party has certainly evolved from when it did not even have a leader a few years ago; now, its leader has almost the same autonomy as a leader of Fianna Fáil. It is growing in likeness to its master. Deputy Gogarty mentioned education and he prided himself on the lack of cuts. However, as my party leader stated, there are many timebombs in the budget, as there are in the Social Welfare Bill 2010, of which people will not be aware until they run into difficulties further down the road. I do not have the statistics on third level grants in front of me but the threshold with regard to distance to the third level institution was 24 km and it has been extended to 48 km. Many people who received grant funding for third level education will not receive it now. The east coast of Wicklow will lose out and the grant amounts received by people there will be decreased. I thought the budget was very disingenuous in that none of this information was articulated in its text; it was all in the schedules, supplements and measures which followed afterwards. With regard to the universal service charge, I do not know why we do not have the courage in this country to have tax rates, tax bands and tax credits. We have a health levy, an insurance levy and an income levy. We are now abolishing some of these and introducing a universal 611 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Billy Timmins.] service charge. Why did we just not increase the tax rate so that if somebody earned more than, for instance, €16,000 the tax rate would be increased by 7%, 5% or another amount? Why do we try to fool the public? We do not succeed. Why do we speak in such riddles? It only makes life more difficult and adds to administration. I agree with Deputy Gogarty on funding for education. The tourism, culture, agricultural and food industries and education and innovation are the ways to get us out of this difficulty. There is no such thing as free education because somebody pays for it and it is very important to realise this. My philosophy in life is that those who can afford to do so should pay. One should pay less than those financially above one and more than those financially below one. If this philosophy is operated in life and politics people will be satisfied because it gives a sense of fairness. Whether the budget was trying to rebalance the books or the theory, lower income people have been very badly hit. The Deputy also mentioned politicians’ pay. I was not always of the view that corporate donations should be banned, but I have come round to that view. There is much misinformation in the public arena about politicians’ pay, but it is difficult for politicians to articulate the ins and outs of the situation because the public, for very understandable reasons, hold politicians and the political system in such low esteem currently.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: If we worked for nothing, we would still be criticised.

Deputy Billy Timmins: That is true.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: In 19th century Britain only the elite could afford to be bountiful. The Deputy should be very careful of what he proposes.

Deputy Billy Timmins: I could be cynical and make the argument that if we were paid on productivity, the Government would have to pay the public. I would like to suggest, and perhaps the Green Party will take up this cudgel before it leaves Government in 2011 or 2012 or whenever it stretches its term out to, that we consider the concept of limiting politicians’ expenditure between elections, because this spending places huge demands on the political system. For example, people may try to buy the electorate by spending money. If we cut the expenditure of politicians between elections, we would dramatically cut expenses. We should stop politicians from dropping leaflets, making numerous phone calls and from driving endlessly around the country. If the Government introduced legislation to limit what can be spent on electioneering or donations, that would cut expenses dramatically. There is a correlation between spending and expenses, whether it should exist or not. I welcome the mention the Deputy made of some of the cuts made in the British system, for example, where some of the new British Cabinet take the tube to work. However, I understand the Ministers’ papers are taken to the office in the State car and that when the Minister hops off the tube outside Westminster he collects his papers and the car goes off. I am not into the populist concept of car-pooling. I agree that seeing several Mercedes drive through the gates of Farmleigh does not send out a good message, although the Minister told me that they only had tea and sandwiches there that day and not caviar and fillet steak. We could look at the issue of the model of car used.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Minister stated clearly in the Budget Statement that from now on State cars will be two litre models or less from now on. They will be ordinary saloon cars, which is progress. The budget also proposes a 33% saving on the number of drivers. 612 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Billy Timmins: That is a good and welcome idea. However, the populist idea that a bus should start out in Cahirciveen at 6 a.m. and collect the various Ministers and Ministers of State and bring them to Dublin is not practical and will not work. I believe the public realises that. I would like to get to the Bill and the reductions in social welfare allowances. I am aware that thanks to the policies of our Government we are in a difficult situation and must have cutbacks. People will accept reductions if they see these reductions being made across the board. However, the more vulnerable have been hit while the professions have not seen a fall in income. The Government must put policies in place that will encourage competition in these and the utility areas that will reduce prices. If this happens people will accept cuts more readily. The Minister has acknowledged this, but it must happen. I welcome the scheme with regard to partial capacity, but would like more detail on it. The Minister has said it will not be completed in the time left to Government, but I have grave ——

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The partial capacity scheme will be ready next week, but the much wider approach to disability will not be done ——

Deputy Billy Timmins: The scheme is a good development and welcome it. I have spoken about the rent supplement on previous occasions and about how it is abused. I welcome the announcement by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Finneran, of an increase in the tenant purchase scheme from 30% to 45%, as this is something for which I have been calling for some years. I would like to see the Minister ensure a loan system is put in place with local authorities, because it is very difficult for people who have agreed a purchase price with local authorities to get a loan from the banks. Every Minister and Department has had to reduce its administration budget by €100 million or €50 million or whatever. How will that be done in the Minister’s Department? On the issue of fraud, I understand the Minister had a target saving from fraud detection of approximately €500 million and that he made a saving of over €400 million. I believe there is still huge scope to catch up on welfare fraud. Some members of Fine Gael have discussed the idea of an amnesty for welfare fraud, but that is not desirable in the current climate because it would be seen as giving a green light to theft. However, we must consider measures to cut down on fraud. We can cut out fraud if the penalty is severe enough, whatever the fraud and whether white, blue, red or green collar fraud. There is tremendous capacity within the welfare budget of €20.5 billion to cut back on fraud.

Deputy Denis Naughten: The new trend of Government is to cut the supports of those who cannot work, take away the opportunity for those who want to work and force those on low pay out of employment. The excuse we were given today by the Minister for the cuts made by this Social Welfare Bill is that we do not have an alternative. Cuts to disability allowances and pensions for the blind will be devastating for people with disabilities who already find it difficult to make ends meet on a daily basis. This group of people already suffers from much higher poverty levels than other population groups. They face higher costs of living, particularly for heating, housing and transport. It is completely unfair that the Government has turned a blind eye to those who are literally robbing the State through social welfare fraud, while at the same time it has attacked the payments of the most vulnerable social welfare recipients. Since 2008, the control division of the Department in Carrick-on-Shannon, which does tremendous work with limited resources, has seen the number of fraud reports from the public increase by 1,100%. While social welfare fraud is estimated at €4,000 per minute, the Govern- ment has decided to scale back on its anti-fraud operations in 2011. The original fraud detection 613 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Denis Naughten.] target for 2010 was €374 million. The target for 2011 is €207 million less, more than twice what would be saved by robbing payments from carers, people with disability and the blind. We could reinstate the payments to what they were in November of 2009 if we got our act together on the fraud detection targets and replicated the target for 2010. The soft approach to fraud leaves those who cannot work to rely on the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. This is the case even before the crazy anomalies within the system are addressed. For example, a foreign national does not have to show habitual residence or proven link to Ireland to be eligible for the qualified adult allowance payment of €124.80 per week. We have, for example, Margaret, a full-time carer of her profoundly disabled son who has been told that her respite support is being withdrawn due to the cuts and she is now facing Christmas and social welfare cuts of €2,120.80 in just over a year. At the same time, Armando, who arrived in Ireland after the budget was announced on Tuesday evening, bumped into Mary in the chip shop that night, Mary immediately fell for him and he will be granted his qualified allowance, based on Mary’s jobseeker payment, within the next couple of weeks. Yet, we are told by the Minister and the Government that there is no alternative. On Tuesday evening the Minister circulated a handout in the House explaining the social welfare changes. I would like to acknowledge one section that was highlighted, namely, that supports for people who have been bereaved which would remain unchanged were the widowed parent grant and the bereavement grant. As public representatives, every one of us meets genuine cases of hardship throughout the country every year, where small children are left behind when a mother or father passes away. Someone known to us here in the House is in those circumstances. We would love to do everything we can for that family. Next year, 800 parents who have lost their spouses will face a 10% cut in the widowed tax credits in order to make a saving of €320,000 to the taxpayer. Ministerial pensions are being cut by 7.7% but these people are taking a 10% cut on their tax reliefs. The Minister claims he has no choice but he could instead punish those who fraudulently take money from the taxpayer. He could have protected the vulnerable by tackling inefficiencies but he decided instead to punish those who cannot speak up for themselves. There is social protection for Ministers’ pensions and those who exploit the system but none for carers, people with disabilities, widows or the blind.

Deputy Michael Creed: As it is not possible for me to deal with the complexities of the Social Welfare Bill 2010 in the limited time available to me, I will instead address what I consider to be the most important points. We have a significant problem with truancy and it is high time that the child benefit is linked to school attendance. A universal payment could apply until children reach school age but the most effective way to arrest the problem of school drop-outs would be to link entitlement to child benefit with school attendance records. We could have a win-win situation with a bit of creative thinking between the Departments of Social Protection and Education and Skills. Most people accept that payments should be targeted at those who are most in need. Child benefit is paid universally regardless of recipients’ income levels. There is considerable anger that we pay approximately €15 million to people who are outside the State. I accept that cuts both ways and that Irish citizens are entitled to payments in other countries but by linking child benefit to school attendance we could address two problems at once. We need to start thinking outside the box. People who leave the country continue to receive payments which are often greater than the average weekly wage in the new accession states to the EU. I acknowledge the Minister has set substantial targets in regard to fraud. The problem of fraud needs to be tackled aggressively because it betrays those who are in receipt of meagre 614 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) payments as well as the taxpayer generally. We could afford to be more generous if we elimin- ated fraud. One of my constituents continues to runs a bone fide construction company employing three or four workers despite being hammered by large companies for which the only obligation in respect of contracts is a tax clearance certificate. He tendered for a small job worth €11,000 but was undercut by two people on social welfare who offered a price of €5,000. Why do we not oblige the sponsors of construction projects valued at more than €3,000 to notify the Revenue Commissioners? As tenders will thereby know Revenue is in the loop, they would be encouraged to operate within the law. Such a measure would be simple to introduce. Given that we own the banks, we should also direct them not to issue payments where people cannot produce tax clearance certificates. Fair play to the pensioners. There is a consensus in this House that they should not be touched but this comes at a cost. A married couple with two dependent children currently receive €385.70 per week in social welfare benefits. It is not easy to live on that amount of money. These people are the real poor in today’s Ireland and this budget continues to hammer them. Many of them have lost their homes or are paying mortgages on negative equity. They are worse off than any pensioner. A married couple will receive a pension of approximately €440 in addition the household benefits package. Where is the justice for people who are trying to raise their children? Deputy Gogarty made some solid points about the education system but children are going to school without a good coat or proper shoes for the current inclem- ent weather. The Minister’s intentions in revising the entitlements for disability payments has caused fear among my constituents. I have tabled a parliamentary question on the issue because I an anxious to have it addressed in more detail. I urge him to make haste slowly in this area because we should not dismantle the current system without certainty that its replacement will work.

Deputy John O’Mahony: I am sharing time with Deputies Kehoe, O’Donnell, Catherine Byrne, Crawford and Tom Hayes, by agreement.

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

Deputy John O’Mahony: I totally object to the shameful way in which the most vulnerable people in our society are being treated in this budget. I refer in particular to the blind pension, the carer’s allowance, the disability allowance and the widow’s pension. This the second budget to hit these vulnerable people. The reason given is that everyone has to take the pain but I agree with Deputy Noonan that it should have been possible to protect these people by cutting €90 million elsewhere. They are already falling through the cracks of our society. We have been told that the cuts are minimal and unavoidable. The reports in today’s newspapers that AIB executives are to receive bonuses worth €40 billion before Christmas are confirmation that the Government has sunk to new depths in running the affairs of the country. The Christmas bonus paid to pensioners and social welfare recipients until two years ago allowed them to purchase presents and put food on the table. This year, however, the Christmas bonus is being paid to banking executives. That demonstrates how the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer. We have seen the small print in the budget. On Tuesday, the Minister for Finance announced with great fanfare that the salaries of executives in semi-State bodies would be capped at €250,000. Within 12 hours we learned this cut would not affect bonuses. I am sure some accounting system will be installed to ensure that there will be no cut at all. A couple of years ago, the same Minister reduced the income levy for top civil servants with the stroke of a pen, 615 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy John O’Mahony.] because the civil servants in question has lost their bonuses. There is one rule for the rich and another for the poor. It has been claimed that the cuts are minimal. However, I had a call from a parent last night. Her husband has lost his job and they are in receipt of farm assist and child benefit. They could not wait for orthodontic treatment for their children from the HSE and are paying for treatment privately, using their child benefit. Child benefit has now been cut. She said they cannot take the braces off the children’s teeth.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: It is with astonishment that I stand to speak about the drastic cuts announced by the Minister for Finance in Tuesday’s budget. Before the Budget Statement, Fianna Fáil backbenchers promised to protect vulnerable people. They spoke on local radio stations and, we were told, at parliamentary party meetings about what they could and would do. The cuts have now been introduced. Government backbenchers can go to their constituencies and say how sorry they are, but they cannot come to the Dáil to speak about these cuts or to put on the record of the House how sorry they are. They have given up their speaking time. The reduction in carer’s allowance is a scandal. We will all experience our parents, grand- parents and relatives growing old, and we will have an onus to care for them. Keeping elderly people out of long-term residential care will save the country thousands of euro. We will all grow old ourselves. Does the Minister for Social Protection have his feet on the ground? Has he visited families who look after someone in their home, to see what they are going through? Like the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I know the excellent carer’s association in Count Wexford. I met some of its members prior to the budget and on numerous previous occasions. They tell us of the heartache they go though because they want to care for their family member. They do not want to put them into long-term care. I plead with the Minister to reverse the draconian cut in carer’s allowance. Fine Gael also want to protect the blind pension, widow’s pension and disability pension. We all have stories to tell of how these cuts will affect families. I feel most sorry for widowers whose children are going to school or college. Before this cut, they were put to the pins of their collars trying to make ends meet and put food on the table. Deputy Michael Creed spoke about old age pensioners. I have no doubt the Minister would have tried to cut the old age pension were it not for the lesson the Government got a number of years ago, when it tried to take the medical card from them. The Government has introduced drastic measures. It is wrong that Government backbenchers and Ministers will vote for these cuts later today.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Apart from the Minister, not a single Fianna Fáil Deputy is in the Chamber. They promised the Carer’s Association and disability groups that there would not be a cut in their payments. In my own constituency of Limerick East, I know the work carers do. The Government is taking €8 per week from their allowance. This is the equivalent of €35 per month or more than €400 per year. This is a huge amount to someone on carer’s allowance. This will save the State €2.8 billion. It is short sighted. Many people who receive disability allowance are trying to live independently. They are the most vulnerable section of society. The Minister has not thought this through. Backbenchers told carer and disability groups there would be no cuts. Shame on them. They should be here today, but they have gone into hiding. Will they troop through the lobby and vote for these cuts? We needed to see leadership. It was reported today that €40 million is to be paid in bonuses to AIB staff. How was that allowed to happen? These bonuses relate to 2008, when the crash 616 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) occurred and a blanket bank guarantee of €440 billion was put in place by the Government on behalf of Irish taxpayers. At the same time, for the sake of €90 million, the carer’s allowance, blind pension, widow’s pension and disability payments are being cut. These cuts need to be reversed today. I want to see Government backbenchers speaking in the House today. They have given up their speaking time. They were elected to represent their people and they should be here. This goes to the heart of Government. Did the Minister think this through? There is no shame in standing up and saying, “I got this wrong”. How can the Minister condone the payment of €40 million in bonuses to 2,000 people in AIB — when €3.5 billion of taxpayers’ money has gone into the same bank — and at the same time cut payments to carers, the disabled, the blind and the widowed? These cuts represent a huge amount of money to those who receive it. These cuts will also be a cost to the State, because people will be obliged to go into nursing homes and hospitals. I ask the Minister to reverse these measures. I have no doubt Fianna Fáil backbenchers will rush to the Chamber to take credit for that reversal. This is a bigger issue and the Minister is a bigger man than that. We need to see him reversing these measures today. In my constituency of Limerick East, they will cause enormous hardship to the most vulnerable sections of society.

Deputy Catherine Byrne: Anyone who switched on the television this morning and saw what was going on in this Chamber would have described it as a circus. It is no wonder the people have no time for politics or no faith in politicians. The Green Party has had a change of heart. They want to stay in Government to bring in the climate change Bill. It is a bit late to bring in that Bill when the climate has already changed and is on our doorsteps. Four elderly people had untimely deaths because of the cold weather and the lack of proper facilities to look after footpaths and entrances to estates. Last night, the Taoiseach said he was very sorry we are in this situation. Sorry is not good enough. It is not good enough now and it will not be good enough for the people of this country. I refer to the man who gave up his job to look after his wife, to stay at home and become her carer. He made that decision out of love and respect for his wife. He now faces a further reduction in his carer’s pay. He works 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The few bob he receives goes towards extra heating and clothing, in the preparation of special meals for his wife and providing transport. This man is saving the State €1,800 a week which would be the cost of caring for his wife in a nursing home. The Government poured more salt on the wounds of the people in its really mean decision to cut the blind pension. The total pay-out on the blind pension is a small figure because only 1,472 are in receipt of this pension, making a total of €600,000. This figure is a lot less than expenditure on Ministers’ pay. The Green Party and the Government in general should be hanging their heads in shame. The most vulnerable people in the country are crying out. The people are crying out. I am told at every door that they want this Government out. The longer the Green Party stays in Govern- ment, the longer the Government will remain. I hope when the day of the general election comes, that the Green Party, in particular, will be paid its dues on the doors.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I cannot say I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill because it is not a welcome piece of legislation. I refer to the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Alexandra White of the Green Party. Yesterday she literally claimed everything that was good or what she regarded as good. She said that only for the Green Party education would be in a much worse state. She claimed the Green Party was getting a mayor for Dublin. This is a big issue in the country. She even claimed that it was as a result of the 617 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Seymour Crawford.] work of the Green Party that 7,000 hectares of forestry was planted this year. When Fine Gael was last in Government in 1996, a total of 25,000 hectares was planted and there was no word of the Green Party then. The sooner there is no word of the Green Party now, the better for this country. Where does the Green Party stand today? Fine Gael agrees on the necessity to make cuts of €6 billion but there are better ways of making those cuts than cutting payments to widows, to the blind, to carers and to the disabled. I will be leaving this House when the next general election is called. I understand the arithmetic of the situation. The cut in the old-age pension in 1924 has been hung around Fine Gael’s neck — Cumann na nGaedheal at that time — ever since. I question the logic of cutting payments to the weakest in society when a small cut across the board would have had the same effect and would be less harmful. For instance, is an elderly couple on €460 a week deemed to need more than a widow with three children and a mortgage and many other expenses?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: That is a very good point.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: The widow’s benefit has been cut by €16 a week.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I remember earlier this year talking about pensioners who had significant extra income but Deputies opposite were very silent at that time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister should allow the Deputy continue as he has less than a minute.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I thank the Minister for taking up my time to try to justify his existence. My own mother spent the last years of her life as a blind person and I know what it is like to have a blind person in the house. To cut such a person’s benefit by €16 a week over two years is very unfair. A total of €40 billion was found to pay off the Ulster Bank people yet the blind pension, the carer’s benefit and the disabled person’s pension was cut. The Minister should be ashamed. I understand that cuts had to be made but why did the weakest in society have to bear them? The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Deputy Mary Hanafin, in her contribution last night said that she was handing out leaflets at the DART station and informing people about the good things in the budget. She said she was giving people the facts and that they understood and accepted them. I can tell the Minister that when the Government goes to the country — the sooner the better — Ministers will know what the facts are because people are extremely angry. I am also angry on behalf of the weakest in society. I make no apologies for saying that I have always stood up for them and I demand anyone to prove otherwise.

Deputy Tom Hayes: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I thank my Fianna Fáil colleagues for giving us time to contribute as we would not have had this time if they had the guts to come into the House and say what they told the Carers Association some months ago when the association lobbied Members. There is not one of those Members in the House today and it is a shame on them. This is not how democracy should be. These Members have an opportunity to help the carers of Ireland. We all accept that change must happen, that we are living in difficult times and that adjustments must be made. It is not fair to say the only option is to cut everything. There is an option to take the carers out of it, at least. I live in the real world just like many people in this House but it should be noted that carers do a very special job for a lot of people. They have an impact on the lives of very vulnerable people. It is unfair and harsh and vindictive, in my opinion, to cut the carer’s allowance. The allowance is a small amount of money on a day when we are 618 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) talking about €90 million. Reference was made to the €40 million in bonuses for bank staff. There must surely be some way to curtail these payments and make a once-off gesture to spare the carers. The Minister is a member of the Cabinet that took over Allied Irish Banks and that agreed to bail out the banks. There must be some way open to the Minister to reverse the cut in the carer’s allowance. He would be doing a service to the community if he would take this action before the House votes on the Bill this evening. We would all support him in such a gesture and support the Bill if he made that change. I implore him to see if this can be done.

Deputy Joe Costello: I wish to share time with Deputies Seán Sherlock and Aengus Ó Snodaigh. The budget introduced on 7 December, is the meanest, harshest budget since Ernest Blythe took the shilling off the old-age pension. Social insurance benefit and social assistance rates, jobseeker’s benefit and jobseeker’s allowance are all reduced by €8 and supplementary welfare allowance is reduced by €10. The reduction in child benefit by €10 and the double whammy of a €20 hit for the unfortunate third child is a disgrace and an attack on children’s rights. A generation of third children will be forever stigmatised by the budget of 2011. The greatest con job of all is the abolition of the health and income levies and their consolidation into the universal social charge. The present health levy does not apply to people earning less than €26,000. The universal social charge initiative was promised by the Minister for Finance in last year’s budget and described as a revenue-neutral measure. Instead, it has been deviously designed to extract an entirely new stream of tax from the poor. It is a new tax which is described in this budget as such, despite the Minister for Finance’s assertion to the contrary and his denial in the House today. Never before in the history of the State have workers, who earn as little as €4,004 or less than €80 per week, had to pay such a tax on their earnings. The minimum wage-earners will now pay at least 2% on their entire earnings, rising to 4% for the final portion. The budget will reduce the income of the minimum wage earners by a minimum of 14%, rising to 16%, meaning that the lowest paid in our society are being savaged. On the other hand high earners will not be adversely affected by the new charge, as there is no further increase in the universal social charge after €16,016 or the 7% maximum irrespective of earnings. For them the 7% charge is replacing a combined 11% health contribution and income levy and therefore the highest earners are actually benefiting substantially from this measure by a very nice 4%. When the universal social charge is combined with the 10% reduction in tax bands and tax credits, working widows, working lone parents and people with a medical card will be hard hit with the cumulative cuts. This is the second year in succession that the average individual weekly basic social welfare rate has dropped by €8 for the carer, the disabled, the blind, the widow, the single parent and the unemployed. The meanness of this budget knows no bounds in its ability to target the most vulnerable in our society. At the same time the Minister for Finance who promised to tax the 7,000 tax exiles last year has still not taken a cent in tax from that well heeled international jet set who fly in and out of Ireland at will. The budget proposes to abolish property-based tax reliefs by 2014 but like St. Augustine, not quite yet. The stated intention is good but Fianna Fáil cannot tear itself away from its propertied friends around whom so much of Government tax incentive policies were based over the past 13 years. Even when the game is up and the IMF and EU are running the country Fianna Fáil is still seeking to protect its influential friends and keep the taxation burden on them as low as possible. The lunacy of what the Government is doing is summarised in the remarks of the Minister for Social Protection yesterday when he stated: “My Department currently accounts for 619 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Joe Costello.] approximately 38% of the total gross Government expenditure and therefore it is not possible to stabilise and reduce public spending without impacting on the Department’s budget.” The expenditure of the Department of Social Protection will actually increase despite these vicious cuts. The Government has missed the obvious, which is that it is unemployment that needs to be cut. Unfortunately it has no plans for making this happen. Finally, Fianna Fáil without our consent foisted the debt of the banks on the people of Ireland. With its blanket guarantee of the bank debts it put a millstone around our collective necks. This budget is part of that millstone. We must reject it and put it back where it belongs, around the necks of those who created it. It is time to reject Fianna Fáil policies and politics. The first step is to reject the Social Welfare Bill and the budget in the Dáil today.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: I wish to nail the lie that the universal social charge is a charge. It is in fact a tax and let us call it what it is. Financial Resolution No. 13 on which we voted on Tuesday stated:

THAT, with effect from 1 January 2011, there shall be charged, levied and paid, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, a tax to be known as “universal social charge” in respect of the income specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Table to this paragraph.

So it is a tax and that tax is a time bomb that will seriously affect low-income earners with serious medical conditions who have medical cards and are exempted from the other levies. The grouping together of the health and income levies under this universal social charge — that is universal social tax — will mean that such people will now not be exempted from these levies, will be subjected to this tax and will have their already meagre and marginal incomes reduced further by the imposition of this tax. It is completely and utterly regressive. I find myself saying the same thing this year as I did in the debate on last year’s budget; any principle of taxation must be such that it is meted out fairly and in an equitable fashion. This runs contrary to the canons of taxation because it will affect those people on marginal incomes who also have serious underlying medical conditions in an adverse way by virtue of its imposition. It is completely unfair and should be opposed. I stand proud that our party will oppose the imposition of this tax because it is not what we are about in this Republic and any country with proper republican ideals would not impose such a tax in such a way as to affect those people who are on such marginal incomes. The Union of Students of Ireland provided a very good critique of Tuesday’s budget and highlighted that the budget seeks to double the distance required to qualify for the non-adjacent rate of third level grant from 24 km to 45 km for all existing and new applicants from September 2011. The net effect is that it will exclude working-class families from the potential to gain a grant. It will exclude people living in rural areas from being able to get a third level grant and will act as a disincentive for people who want to upskill and come back into the educational sphere if they happen to be living such distances away from the third level institution they want to attend, which is also ludicrous. If we are seeking to get people back to work, arbitrary bands such as this discriminate against those who will not qualify on the basis of distance. If carers are protecting vulnerable people and allowing them to live independently within the family home but subject to help from those who are caring for them. Why has the Govern- ment created a further disincentive for anybody to take up a carer’s allowance when the net impact could be to force more people into nursing homes? There is a social economy and we need to take a more lateral view by regarding care givers as people who are making an active contribution and who should get a due reward for that contribution to avoid forcing people into nursing homes because of the disincentive. 620 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Tá mé buíoch go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an mBille seo. Is trua é go bhfuilimid ag déileáil leis in aon chor. Tá teip iomlán ar an Rialtas cosaint a thabhairt dóibh siúdatá ag brath ar íocaíochtaí leasa shóisialaigh sa Stát seo. Tá sé ait nach bhfuil aon Teachta ar thaobh an Rialtais sásta seasamh suas agus tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bhille seo. Léiríonn sé sin an náire atá orthu go huile is go hiomlán. Tá siad sásta caint faoi gach sórt truflais eile, nó dul i bhfolach mar thoradh ar a gcuid náire. Feicimid cad a tharlóidh nuair a thagann an t-am chun vótaí a chaitheamh. Is é seo an Bille Leasa Shóisialaigh is measa a chonaic mé riamh. The budget is grossly unfair and is a hostile act committed against families on low income and the most vulnerable. The Department’s title was changed earlier in the year to the Depart- ment of Social Protection, but it is the exact opposite; there is absolutely no protection involved in the Bill. Deputy Gogarty was the only Member from the Government benches whom I saw speak. I do not know if he knows whether he is in government or out of government; he has not a clue at the moment. He stood up in the House and spoke about how great the Green Party was for standing up for education. We might have an opportunity at another stage to properly debate the consequences of this budget for our education system. Those who are most vulnerable in our society are being taken out and kicked around the place by Deputy Gogarty and this Govern- ment. It is the people who are dependent on public education who will be affected. Their schools will be affected by the capitation cuts and the additional charges in terms of bus services. I have a good deal to say on this Bill but only a short time in which to do so. It is regrettable there is a limited time to speak on the Bill, albeit that I am not totally opposed to it. As I have stated time and again in recent years, this Government, including its backbenchers, have no understanding of what it is like to be dependent on social welfare. The majority of social welfare recipients are genuine people; they are not involved in fraud in terms of being in receipt of double payments and the like. They are totally dependent on social 1o’clock welfare. If anybody on the backbenches or the ministerial benches had been unemployed for any length of time or had been dependent on disability or any other social welfare benefit, he or she would have an understanding of what it is like to go hungry once or twice a week and not to be able to afford to heat his or her home or pay normal household bills. Time and again the Government has not done its homework. When I asked the Minister earlier this year whether he had done an impact study on how the non-payment of the Christmas bonus payment would affect those in receipt of social welfare, he admitted he had not. The first thing one is supposed to do when introducing legislation is to carry out an impact assessment on its likely impact. The Government said it would do so but it will not because it is afraid it will be told the legislation is scandalous. This is especially the case when there were alternatives, and alternatives were suggested to the Government not only by my party but by trade unionists and economists. The money is there. Ireland is still a wealthy country but in this budget the wealthy have got off scot free in comparison with those who are low paid or depending on social welfare. These are not only the provisions contained in this Bill but the provisions in regard to public services and the effect the budget will have on public servicees. Who are the people who most depend on public services, who cannot afford luxurious cars or holidays and the likes? It is those who depend on the social welfare code. Public services will be decimated because of the cuts in the grant to local government, in the subvention to Bus Éireann and Bus Atha Cliath and in capitation grants. There also will be cuts in training grants under CE programmes, which 621 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.] is illogical in that we are trying to train people to take up work but their training grants will be cut. There will be huge cuts in funding for drugs task forces. These services are based in the most disadvantaged areas. There will be a massive cut in the money available for CDPs. Thank God, I do not have Deputy Gogarty or the Minister for Social Protection protecting my back because they are doing a useless job of protecting the most vulnerable in our society. That is what the Government said it would do in its election programme in 2007, but that has been scrapped and thrown in the bin. It is high time this Government did the same — that it scrapped itself, got into the bin and stayed there. However, the only problem is its members will not be unemployed in the same way as those who are depending on social welfare. Everyone on the backbenches will have a pension or probably a job to which to return. I am not denying they should be able to do that but they will not feel the effects of cuts and they will not depend on social welfare. The Government, in preparing this Bill, failed to examine the cumulative effects of cuts not only in this budget but in the previous three budgets. This budget means individuals in receipt of disability allowance will be down €847.60 a year since 2008, €16.30 a week. The same applies to those in receipt of the carer’s allowance. There has been a huge cut in these benefits. This was justified by the Minister when he pointed to low inflation as a justification for cutting by 4% the basic social welfare rates of jobseekers, carers, lone parents and people with disabilities and the income of an unemployed family with three children by almost 5% but, according to the consumer price index, inflation rose by 2% this year. Therefore, in real terms, those families are taking a hit of nearly 7% because many of the essential goods — this is the key point — such as health, education, transport, energy costs have increased sharply in the past two years and particularly in recent months. Some of the most notable increases in 2010, according to the consumer price index in October, were education costs up by 9.5%, housing, electricity, gas and other fuels up by 8.5%, transport costs up by 1.25%, health costs up by 0.5%, mortgage interest up by 25.1% and communications costs such as telephone systems up by 2.5%. That clearly shows prices have increased. Any cuts affect the money people have in their pockets and people do not have money in their pockets for long if they are dependent on social welfare. They spend it. Any cut in social welfare payments impacts hugely not only on families who are already living in poverty — that is the key point, they are living in poverty — but on the local shops and businesses. Such cuts have a cumulative effect. I urge the Minister and those backbenchers who do not have the backbone to come in here and debate the Bill, praise it or stand up for it, to vote against it. It is a disgrace. It will lead to increased poverty and possibly deaths because people will not have the money to heat their homes this winter.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy: I wish to share my time with Deputies Sheahan, McGinley and Perry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is agreed.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy: It is not much pleasure to be here debating these reductions — these cuts. I have a concern about the creation of a poverty trap and while that trap was created previously, this budget will copperfasten it. We must examine the cumulative effect of the reduction in the minimum wage from €8.65 to €7.65 together with the introduction of the universal social charge, which is a penal tax. The Government should stop calling these measures charges or levies — they are taxes. In addition, there has been a widening of the bands and a reduction in the tax credits. The poverty trap will be exposed badly because this budget will shove people onto social welfare payments.

622 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

If one multiplies the minimum wage of €7.65 by 40 hours a day, it comes to a little more than €300 a week, and if one multiplies that figure by 52, in terms of the number of weeks in a year, it works out at a little under €16,000. The reality is that the universal social charge kicks in at the higher rate of 7% on an income of €16,016. The 40-hour a week minimum wage payment calculates at a little over or under €100. If a person on the minimum wage works 40 hours a week, he or she will pay the charge at the rate of 4%. Those are the numbers. If that person works 40 hours and 15 minutes a week, that will bring the person into the 7% bracket in terms of the charge in respect of all of his or her moneys. This is a poverty trap. A family with two children — according to the social welfare documents we received yesterday — taking account of child benefits payments, will receive €24,000, which is €500 a week. People on lower wages will have a choice of whether to stay at home or go to work. The reality is they will stay at home and claim social welfare payments because they will get more money. That is a poverty trap which cannot be allowed to continue. Considering the numbers, we see that people paying taxes may not continue to do so as a result. If we keep expanding tax bands and reducing credits, more people will fall into the poverty trap. There are two choices for the future; the decision to reduce the minimum wage can be reversed so the minimum wage remains higher or social welfare payments can be cut. Given these choices, this was not a smart decision. Before the budget I pursued some officials in the Department of Finance and the Secretary General of one of the Departments, asking if they had analysed the long-term effects of these reductions in their budgets. They had not. I put the matter to the Minister for Finance and he stated that his Department had done so, but it has not. We are finding that the analysis has not been done. They have put together an exercise in addition, multiplication and division, calculating how savings are made. They have stored significant problems for the future as cuts in programmes will have far greater costs down the line for children who will not get attention in education or children who fall through the cracks and end up in the justice system. The reductions are being made here and they seem the obvious places but the analysis has not been done so as to ensure we make reductions in the right areas rather than areas which amount to cheap options. These reductions will cost much more in the future and anybody paying taxes in ten or 20 years will see this regressive budget as a disaster.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: I will be specific in my comments. Accessibility to one’s entitlements for social protection is becoming more difficult and I have one specific case in mind, on which I have been working for nearly two years. A mother of two children died tragically, leaving an 18-month-old child and three-year-old child behind. Six weeks after, the father of these children had a stroke and he is now incapacitated on one side. The aunt of those children took them in on the night their mother died and to this day she has not got one cent from the State for looking after those two children. The woman applied for guardianship but was not awarded it because the children did not go into care. If they had gone into care for one night she would have qualified for it but she did not leave them into care because we know what has happened with children in care. She did not want that, yet she was not assured that they would be left to her although she wanted to look after them. She applied for the fostering grant but was refused. I have worked on this for two years and have been hopped around to different Ministers while this poor woman has not been helped in any way by the State. The main appeals office on D’Olier Street is very poorly run in my experience. With regard to other aspects of social protection, a self-employed man with ten staff working for him may have his business go to the wall. He would collect PRSI and PAYE for the State from the staff, paying it on their behalf. His staff can receive payments from social welfare on contributions for nine months the week after they have been let go. The man whose business has gone to the wall has no entitlements and he would have to wait 18 months before he can 623 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Tom Sheahan.] get any payment. This man may have a wife and family as well. Such a man can be sent to the community welfare officer but invariably such people are unsuccessful when they take that approach. Employees who lose their jobs get nine months payments from stamps and then one is means-tested. How are non-nationals who have sent every bob they earned in this country out of State means-tested for the jobseeker’s payment? I am not being racist but I am looking for equity and equal access to benefits. Somebody may be able to answer how the Department of Social Protection carries out a means test for non-nationals who have been working here when all their money has been sent home. There should be a charter of rights for the self-employed because their entitlements are archaic. Many of these people who have lost their businesses are the new poor. They may have invested heavily in business, staff and recruitment, as well as education and other improvements for staff, before finding their business gone. I hope something can be done for those who I see as the new poor; they are the self-employed whose businesses have gone to the wall. I welcome any comments on this from the Minister.

Deputy Dinny McGinley: What strikes me about these proposed cuts in social welfare is the unfairness and inequity of it all. These cuts will have a negative impact on those who are bottom of the income league in this country and who can least afford it. We can talk about widows, people in receipt of blind pensions, carers’ allowance or benefits for the disabled, invalids or even jobseekers but they are all means tested. These people may have no other kinds of private wealth and little property. Unfortunately, these people will pay for the economic sins of the recent past. I bought a copy of a national newspaper this morning and saw on the front page that the taxpayer will pay bonuses to personnel in AIB, with the average payment at €16,000 or €17,000 to be made before Christmas. This money is coming from the same Exchequer that pays for social welfare. It is unfair and surely there should be some way of diverting the €40 million and making it available to those suffering because of these cuts. The most cruel cut is to be made on the benefits of blind people. Those of us with the gift of sight can consider ourselves very lucky compared to blind people and the disability they suffer. It is cruel for them to be asked to suffer and make a sacrifice. Social welfare is governed by a very strict code. I know people violate that code and we know what happens to anybody getting money they may not be entitled to. They can even end up in prison. At the same time, the captains of the Celtic tiger — bankers and developers — seem to have the freedom of the country and the world. This is a further indication of the unfairness and inequality of our society. The Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, may remember an election held either at the end of the 1980s or in the early 1990s during which hoardings were erected with the slogan that health cuts hurt the old, sick and poor. These are the very people who will again be affected. It is difficult to explain the economic benefit of reducing the basic minimum wage by €1 per hour. We are informed time and again that there are 1.8 million or 1.9 million workers in the State, of whom only 2% or 3% are in receipt of the minimum wage. What is the economic advantage of depriving this small group of a significant percentage of their income? The percentage of income others will lose through tax increases and so forth pales into insignificance compared to the loss to those on the minimum wage. Deputy Costello referred to Earnán de Blaghd, a man who has been much sinned against for many years. He was Minister for Finance at a time when the country was in dire straits following a vicious civil war which left barely a bridge or road that had not been blown up. 624 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

While his decision to reduce the old age pension has gone down in the political annals of the State, it should be noted that de Blaghd restored the former rate in the subsequent budget.

Deputy John Perry: I am pleased to speak to the Bill. The vulnerable are paying a heavy price for the massive bailout provided for the banks. As Deputy McGinley noted, it is ironic that on the same day we learned that bonuses will be paid to individuals in the banks who failed abysmally, resulting in a costs of billions of euro to the State, we are debating the price to be paid by people who did not cause the economic crisis. I refer to those who have worked hard and are now in retirement, those in receipt of blind person’s pension and invalidity, disability or carer’s allowance. Carers do an outstanding job and save the State huge sums by caring for parents and relatives in the home. The savings made through these cuts could have been collected or raised by other means. For example, the Minister announced a dramatic reduction in stamp duty rates. If someone is in a position to pay almost €1 million for a property, he or she should be able to pay stamp duty of 2%. Stamp duty is not preventing people from acquiring property. The problem is that the banks are not making money available.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The problem is negative equity.

Deputy John Perry: People are finding it difficult to borrow money. Stamp duty has not been the catalyst that prevented sales of property from proceeding. If one is able to borrow close to €1 million, one should be able to pay an additional 2% in stamp duty. The €90 million in savings could have been secured by other means. The measures proposed will have a detrimental effect on local businesses. A reduction in income of €48 for those on the minimum wage will reduce what is spent locally on services and in retail outlets. It will result in a decline in VAT, the largest source of tax receipts to the State. Modifications to the VAT rate could have generated additional income for the State. It is regrettable that people who are hard pressed to meet the costs of maintaining a home will have their wage cut to €7.65 per hour. As someone who owns a business, I know that the biggest investment companies make is in their personnel. Staff retention is difficult and the measure sends out the wrong signal. The proposal by the Fine Gael Party’s spokesperson on finance, Deputy Noonan, to abolish the employer PRSI contribution for employees, up to the level of the minimum wage, makes sense as it would reduce employer costs and allow staff to continue to earn €8.65 per hour. Given the difficulty in finding staff willing to work for €8.65 per hour, the cut in the minimum wage will act as a further disincentive to work. Jobs will not be retained by reducing the minimum wage. The best initiative available to achieve job retention would be if the banks made money available. Having been bailed out by the State, one would assume they would support business by providing working capital for job retention and creation. Bonuses are being paid to bankers while viable businesses close. The Taoiseach indicated that Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks have €12 billion available for small companies. This money is not getting through to its destination, despite the work of Mr. John Trethowan of the Credit Review Office and notwithstanding various commitments that have been given. The best stimulus to the economy would be to ensure banks provide funding to businesses. The Social Welfare Bill is grossly unfair to those it penalises and detrimental to the economy. It is a case of back to the future. As Deputy McGinley noted, we have returned to the 1980s with the vulnerable being required to pay the price. It is very disappointing that they are the casualties again. 625 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Mattie McGrath: I am pleased to speak to the Bill. I welcome the Minister and thank him for his forbearance and engagement with me and many other stakeholders in recent weeks and months. I am pleased to note that older people are fully protected and will continue to receive, at current levels, the State pension and other allowances, including free telephone, television licence and home care packages. In addition, payments such as the living alone allowance, the age allowance for those aged more than 80 years and the fuel allowance will be maintained. I also welcome the payment of a once-off fuel allowance of €40. The scheme to provide 15,000 new places to help people return to work cannot be introduced soon enough. People may ask — where are the jobs? Places could be found in community organisations as they would benefit from the valuable skills of many of those who are unfortunately languishing in unemployment. The unemployed want to support and engage with organisations such as Muintir na Tíre and other groups which share the self-help ethos of the late, great Canon John Hayes. A further 10,000 additional positions and internships will be provided in the public and private sector under the Department of Education and Skills. This is a welcome initiative. Waterford County Council is using the scheme successfully with the co-operation of all staff and trade unions. It assists our brightest and best people, those who have new ideas and have spent considerable periods in education or upskilling. They are ready and able and have the tools of the trade and expertise to give leadership, vision and creative support to private companies and private bodies such as county councils. While child benefit rates will be reduced, other supports for children will not change. Although I accept the need to address child benefit, I am disappointed that it does not seem to be possible to means test it for those on incomes of more than €100,000. The qualified child allowance paid to those in receipt of weekly social welfare payments will not change and the family income supplement, which is a vital scheme, will also be maintained. To return to my comments on work schemes, work must be profitable. As to my prior comments about the work schemes, these must be profitable. I do not mean that in the sense of being greedy. However, if a man or woman does a 40 hour week, or more or less, such work must be viable for the individual. There is a great deal of expense involved in getting to and being at work and an incentive must be offered in the difference between what a person would earn at work when such is available and what he or she would get when not working.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Does the Deputy call €298 a wage?

Deputy Mattie McGrath: That balance must be readdressed. I did not interrupt the Deputy who will know my views on this from our committee work. The balance must be fair and there must be incentives for people to go to work. We must first create an environment where people can work. The half-rate carer’s allowance will continue to be paid to those who are full-time carers. The House can see that I wear the badge of the Carers Association, as I always do. It is a wonderful organisation. I know we are not meant to wear anything of the kind in the House and I apologise for pointing out my badge but I wear it because I believe carers do a very significant job on a national basis. The carer of the year happens to come from my county. God bless them all in these circumstances for the work they do on a 24-7 basis. Carers will also get the annual respite care grant of €1,700 per care recipient, which is badly needed. It may give carers a break from their 24-7 chores. The carer’s allowance rate for carers aged 66 and over will not change. That is a very important aspect of the budget and I am delighted that in the very challenging and stringent times we face those rates have been maintained. 626 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

I mentioned family income supplement. People in lower-paid employment must be supported and it is important that they be remunerated in a reasonable way for their work. Other child measures will not change either. The qualified child increase for families who depend on a weekly social welfare will remain unchanged. There are many benefits such as allowances for clothing and footwear and the back to school allowance which will remain unchanged. It is not all doom and gloom I accept in full the background behind the budget. I appreciate the forbearance of the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who engaged with me on these issues in spite of my position outside the parliamentary party. I put a comprehensive suite of measures to the Minister for Finance regarding the budget proposals. These were not all without reference to the national situation. I am disappointed that a cut was not made to the number of Deputies or to our wages, both of which measures I had requested. We are taking a tax cut but the public must see that we are sharing the same cutbacks as they have. In some cases we are but this is not seen. I asked for a cap on wages of €200,000 because €250,000 does not go far enough. This cannot be a token gesture and must be addressed. I do not want Ministers telling me it cannot be done because of contractual arrangements. This is not a normal situation, it is an emergency and we should have emergency legislation to challenge these individuals. If they want to take us on in the courts, let them do so and let them be judged by the public just as we are. I looked for many work stimulant measures. The 15,000 work opportunity placements are an additional boost. There have been upgrades in the area of energy in the shape of tax credits so that people can spend money in the real economy rather than the black economy. They can make necessary improvements to their homes, employ C2-registered contractors and kick-start the economy in that way. I also welcome the changes to the C2 rates, with 35% withholding tax reduced to 20%. I very much welcome several Bills that will be brought before the House before the general election, including the student support Bill which I have championed and which has been on the books for a long time. The construction industry must be sorted out in regard to sub- contractors. I raised the situation of the Pierse company in the House two weeks ago, with the Ceann Comhairle’s permission. There are smaller “Pierse” situations around the country; they have been around for the past two years and will be there in 2011. I refer to companies that go to the wall and leave their sub-contractors without money. Human tragedies follow for the employees of the sub-contractors and their families who have a very good relationship with the sub-contractors. This is not good enough especially in cases where companies have traded recklessly. It is not the fault of the sub-contractors who supplied goods and services and are entitled to fair remuneration. We must protect them and a Bill to that effect must be introduced in the House. I compliment Senator Feargal Quinn on his work on this matter. We protected the old age pension, but we must also be fair to other vulnerable groups. Perhaps we took our eye off the ball regarding certain groups of vulnerable people, especially blind people, widows and people with disabilities. This was unwise. I appeal to the Minister. I discussed this matter with him both last night and this morning to learn if there was any hope of arresting this cut. These people are not able to work. It is said that pensioners are not allowed to work because of their age but in many cases nor are the people I mentioned able to work. I totally agree with the Minister that there are different levels of disability. Goodness knows, this is a difficult area for able-bodied people to discuss because we do not understand the feelings involved and the challenges such people face. A person on disability benefit because of, for example, a hurt finger is surely not entitled to the same rate as a person who is wheelchair bound, blind or otherwise incapacitated.

627 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Mattie McGrath.]

It is difficult and what makes it all the more galling is to learn what is going on in the banks. They brought us to our knees and now we learn of an unacceptable situation in AIB. That cannot be allowed. I met with the Minister for Finance regarding the matter. He told me that some of the individuals in question went to the courts about these bonuses. They have a brass neck. Obviously, we must accept the conclusion of the courts and cannot pass emergency legislation to prohibit the bonuses. The taxpayers are majority shareholders in AIB. I always understood that a bonus must be earned. I would love to know what bonuses were earned in 2008 or since. What about the “negative” bonus, the cost to the taxpayer? I do not refer to the front line staff to whom such bonuses do not apply but to managers who often made the hairier decisions. I compliment the managers, perhaps of senior years, who did not make those decisions and held the line against enormous opposition, namely, the drive to be whizz kids, make more bonuses and get more money for themselves. I compliment the front line staff at the counter who take the wrath of the frustrated and frightened public. If we cannot introduce emergency legislation in regard to these bonuses or cannot cap wages at €200,000, why are we here? We are able to change legislation to cut the minimum wage because we know the people concerned will not take us on in court. They cannot afford to do so. That is morally wrong. If the bonuses cannot be stopped, I ask the Minister, and have done so, to bring in a new tax of 99% on such bonuses because they are fraudulent, wrong and were not earned. It is morally corrupt that any person could be paid such a bonus. We saw what happened with the IMF-EU investigators. I cannot believe the IMF can have done a thorough investigation if it has not been made aware of this situation, is not aware of the practices in banks or the fact that no person has been brought before the courts in regard to these issues. I do not intend to convict anybody — people must get due process — but nobody has been charged. I am aghast at the IMF. I hope to meet some of its delegates who must be made aware of what has gone on, is still going on and is expected to continue. The Minister for Finance has a majority shareholding on behalf of taxpayers and we cannot allow this situation to continue while, in the same breath, we allow the budget cuts for vulnerable people. We expect everybody to take a share of the pain and people are willing, ready and able to do so. The Irish are a very resourceful and inspiring people. They have been downtrodden but since the Famine we have proved we can come up again and rise above all these matters. My priority is to get the IMF and the EU out of this country. We call the EU our friend but it is not our friend after all, given the punitive interest it is charging us, which is much more than the IMF is charging. There was no vote for that package in this House which disappointed me very much. I hope ultimately there will be such a vote, perhaps in a month or six weeks’ time. The people will have their say as they are entitled. We have ended up as we are; there is no point engaging in the blame game. We should have accepted more responsibility and some humility would not have done us any harm. The fact is we are where we are and the IMF is in the country in the guise of helping us out. However, it is not helping us out but is out to protect the euro for the Europeans. We are all interested in that. I hope I will never be proved right but I can envisage a two-tier euro. We are being punished severely and are paying much more in interest than we would pay to the ECB or to our EU partners. This country voted for the Maastricht treaty which was intended to protect banking and stop bad banking practice. I totally accept we were 50% to blame for the crash in the Irish banking sector but our European banking partners must take the other 50% of blame. They were culpable too but we have ended up taking 100% of the blame and are being punished. Our piggybank money is being raided to pay for the sins of the banks while the banks talk about paying bonuses. This is crazy. If the situation is that bad, and it is, I do not know why we cannot act, in the name of God, the Irish people and the Irish Republic, to bring some 628 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) sense of responsibility to bear. I can see the banks’ point of view. They have been untouched and we have pumped billions into them. Now they want more and the IMF-EU is coercing us to give them our €17.5 billion and include that as part of a €85 billion loan. With my secondary school maths, I work that out at €67 million so why it is classified as €85 million, I do not know. It is a trick of the loop approach, as far as I am concerned. The people have had enough of this and they want action. I want changes in regard to vulnerable groups such as carers and others, not across the board but selectively. Vulnerable people who cannot earn extra finance or go out in the community to work would be the first to volunteer and to help. I spoke earlier today to the members of two viable businesses in my constituency. They cannot get the lifeblood of their business, capital, to keep themselves afloat. Their overdrafts are being withdrawn by the very same bankers who are getting €40 million in bonuses. I estimate that making a change to the cuts in regard to these groups would cost approximately €100 million but €40 million of that money is going to the banks. We could save this money in an hour if we had the will to do it. We must get the will to do it. We must stand up and say this is wrong and we will not accept it. I appeal to the Minister, whom I have spoken to privately and will speak to later, as well as to his Cabinet colleagues, to try to address this terrible injustice.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Stanton. He has three minutes as I must call the Minister at 1.45 p.m.

Deputy David Stanton: I make the point I have only a few short minutes to speak. I was spokesperson on social and family affairs some years ago when the late Deputy Seámus Brennan was Minister. At that time, we discussed the Social Welfare Bill after Christmas and had time to debate, reflect on and analyse it. It is being rushed through on this occasion. As Deputy Mattie McGrath has just pointed out, carers and people with disabilities are being affected. I received a call yesterday from a person who is a full-time carer for her husband, who is confined to a wheelchair. The couple’s income will be cut by €62 a month. The woman told me she knows where every euro she has is going, that she needs every euro and that this will cause real hardship for her. Deputy Mattie McGrath has just said he does not agree with this cut. I challenge him that there is no point talking about it inside or outside the House. If he does not agree with it, he should vote against it — that is what one does if one does not agree with it. If he wants to protect the most vulnerable in society, that is what he should do. He should come into the House and vote that way. The Deputy is correct. Carers are being hit in the Bill. We all know the work carers do, 24- 7, and they need all the support and help they can get. If any group should have been exempted, it should have been carers. Think of the amount of work, stress and hardship involved in caring for a bed-bound person. For years, the Disability Federation of Ireland and other groups have been calling for a cost-of-disability allowance. They recognise there is an extra cost involved in looking after a person with a disability. For example, a person with a disability probably has to have the heat on all the time in a house because if he or she is not mobile, the person cannot warm up by going for a walk. Such people need special food, extra medication and so on. There are hidden costs to having a disability. Instead of recognising this and making other adjustments, the Government and the Minister decided to make a cut across the board, when there was no need to do so. This will cause terrible hardship. I am very concerned about these people. I have discovered that other changes are taking place. It is more difficult to get many of the allowances because the criteria are being changed. 629 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Jack Wall: The Minister can shake his head but it is the truth.

Deputy David Stanton: With regard to domiciliary care allowance, we must consider the number of appeals to the social welfare appeals office given the waiting list is enormous at this stage. Quite often, the social welfare appeals office overturns the decision of the Department. The Minister might provide the figure later but it was a high percentage in the past. People should be given a fair crack of the whip at the earlier stage and not have to go through the heavy pressure of making an appeal. One man in my constituency had a major operation and is in receipt of a disability allowance. As he is now applying for a disability pension, he must go for another medical. I ask the Minister to poverty proof the measures.

An Ceann Comhairle: I must call on the Deputy to conclude.

Deputy David Stanton: This is very important legislation and we cannot even discuss it. Democracy, how are you.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): I thank all the Deputies for their contribution. Many valid points were made and I will try to deal with as many as I can. Deputy Ring asked about the universal social charge. The charge is not payable on any social welfare payment. We must start from the premise that €6 billion had to be taken out. Fine Gael agrees with that premise and the Labour Party does not. My belief is that if we had taken out €4.5 billion this year, the finances of the State would have become unsustainable, we would not have been able to borrow money and the consequence would have been that the cutbacks that occurred in social welfare would have been much more extreme than what we have had to do here. Therefore, my judgment, as someone who cares, is that we had to make the €6 billion adjustment. The figure involved in this regard is €104 million, although Fine Gael claims it is €90 million and I will not argue with that — let us call it a cool €100 million. If we decide not to take the €100 million, by not reducing a wide range of payments, we must say where we will get that money — it is as simple as that. When all the figures are stacked up, they must come to €6 billion. There was a challenge and a debate in this regard during the spring. When I said in May I had not made up my mind about anything to do with the social welfare budget, I remember much talk and, I might say, outrage that I was not willing there and then to exempt huge swathes of people from at least consideration. At that time, the debate centred on the old age pension, which involves almost 500,000 people. What I was putting around in my mind at that time, and am still putting around in my mind now, although we have made a decision — which was probably the right decision, on balance, although one could look at it in two ways, and some Deputies today have done so — was the idea that as one eliminates groups from consideration, inevitably, to reach the target figure, whatever that figure is, a deeper cut would have to be made on the balance. That is the problem. My Department will have 39% of current spend next year, which is an increase of 1%. In practice, this means that to make savings in regard to health, education and social welfare, which Fine Gael accepts, one cannot ignore those three Departments. We have heard Deputies on all sides, obviously, make pleas for the health, education and social welfare Departments. Having had much discussion and negotiation in this regard, it was decided one could not take a pro rata cut out of social welfare, so the cut, including administrative savings and so on, was €875 million. Through various further savings, including in regard to fraud, which I will discuss 630 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) shortly, we managed to reduce this to a figure for rate cuts of approximately €533 million. To take that as a percentage of current expenditure, which is approximately €55 billion, it is close to 1%. People then suggested we should exclude various groups. I am fully aware of the work of carers, and I would like to address this issue. The Government since 2000 has multiplied by six the expenditure on carers.

Deputy David Stanton: Rightly so.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Rightly so. It was less than €100 million in 2000 and it is now more than €600 million. A great many fundamental reforms took place. For example, we introduced the half-rate carer’s allowance.

Deputy David Stanton: Under pressure.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: This allowed one, for the first time, to obtain the half-rate carer’s allowance in addition to an underlying social welfare payment. We introduced the respite care grant, amounting to €1,700 per year, which is more than €30 per week. There is an arrangement whereby a carer caring for somebody down the street or a quarter of a mile away can get the free benefits, worth €20 per week, even if her or his partner is working. We have the most generous income disregards relating to the carer’s allowance. There is a disregard of more than €300 for an individual and more than €600 for a couple. That architecture is fundamental. Approximately one third of carers under 66, or 28% to be precise, are in receipt of the half- rate carer’s allowance. There is no change in the arrangements for carers over 66. The carer’s allowance represents the best social welfare rate. After the adjustment, it is €240 per week.

Deputy David Stanton: Rightly so.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: This should be compared to the new basic rate for one in receipt of the jobseeker’s allowance, €188 per week. I felt it was important to retain the architecture put in place. I refer to the universal respite grant paid to all carers. Many carers are not entitled to the carer’s allowance but they do receive the respite grant in recognition of the work they do. I felt it was very important to protect this. We have protected the right to the half-rate carer’s allowance and the allowance received by those caring for more than one person. Therefore, we have protected the basic structure of the scheme, which the McCarthy report recommended should be subject to a cut. Cutting it would have been cruel and wrong. We are still keeping the basic carer’s allowance rates way ahead of the other basic rates. Consider the challenge I would have faced had I said we would not cut the carer’s allowance. If the blind pension were a stand-alone payment, there would be no difficulty in exempting it from the cut. For very obvious reasons, I am very understanding of those who are partially sighted or blind.

Deputy Jack Wall: There is not a significant number.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Exactly. The Deputy is right. With my background, it would have been tempting to pick out the blind and treat them separately.

Deputy Jack Wall: The Minister should have. 631 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am interested in hearing the Deputy’s views on this. The difficulty with his proposal is that somebody would approach one with a very valid case——

Deputy Jack Wall: They have a valid case. All that occurred in regard to the old non- contributory pension payment was a change in title. The Minister excluded all the other pension entitlements. Why did he not exclude the one in question?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The blind pension for those over 66 is now paid as a State pension; it is not affected.

Deputy Jack Wall: What about those under 66?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am coming to those. Had I picked out the 1,400 blind people, which would not have had any significant effect on the arithmetic, the Deputy would have argued that there are many on the disability allowance whose multiple disabilities are far worse than partial sight. The Deputy would have made this case to me very cogently. I know people whose disabilities are far worse than that of partial sight.

Deputy David Stanton: The Minister is cutting them all.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: That is exactly what I am coming to. If one decided not to cut them all, including the allowance for the blind, it would lead one to the disability allowance and then to the invalidity pension. One might say the invalidity pension could be supplemented by other means, but one might not have other means. In such circumstances, one must consider the criteria associated with the disability allowance. The problem is that when one adds the three categories together, one arrives at a figure of 150,000 people. If one added in the carers and widows, there would be an exemption required for another 300,000 people.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: What has the Minister against widows? Widows have been always treated badly in this country.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Now they are being treated even more badly.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: According to the 2009 figures, there were 113,000 widows and widowers in receipt of a contributory widow’s or widower’s pension. They comprise a very hetero- geneous group because one has a legitimate right to work if one is in receipt of a widow’s contributory pension. It is not means tested. Therefore, widows’ incomes are very varied. Owing to the contributory nature of the benefit, recipients do not comprise a uniform group any more. There are more widows and widowers working than was the case in the past.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: I do not know where they get work.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Widows with children are paid the one-parent family payment. If I decided to create a new category comprising widows with children, separated and divorced people would ask why I was treating them separately and giving them a different fundamental rate in spite of both groups having the same cost of living.

Deputy Jack Wall: The Minister is giving excuses instead of taking action.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am explaining what I considered.

Deputy Jack Wall: I know. 632 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The problem is that if one were to remove all the one-parent family payments, one would have to take another €3or€4 off those on the jobseeker’s allowance and jobseeker’s benefit. That is where the difficulty lies. Valid issues have been raised by the Opposition. I do not want anybody to create a world like that in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland on the basis of what I said. Nobody should receive less than the basic rate. When I made reference yesterday to having a measure of disability, I was suggesting it would allow one make an extra payment to those with more severe disabilities. This would be easier to do because the numbers would not be so great and not as many issues would arise at the margin. If one were really serious about tackling this issue, it would be the way to go. We are achieving this and we will do so in the first step next week by trying to help people to find employment and retain benefits through the partial capacity Bill. With regard to child benefit, I was asked what I have against the third child in a family. I favour the third child very much because the actual rates after the budget will be €140 for the first child and €140 for the second child. The third child will still attract a higher rate, namely €167, and the fourth child will attract a rate of €177, and so on.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Why pay a third child more?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: That is a good question. I have narrowed that differential by €10. It has been a tradition to pay more to larger families.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: What is the good answer?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am running out of time to address the question. I could have saved a lot of money by bringing the third and fourth children——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I agree with the Minister’s reasoning. I just wanted to hear it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am just explaining. Larger families have expenses and child benefit does not meet the full cost of rearing a child, or anything like it, as all of us know. One might ask why I did not take €5, which cut would have been applied in respect of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth child. The problem with that approach is that a 2o’clock family with four, five or six children would have lost €20. However, under the arrangement I propose, the extra cost would be restricted to €10, irrespective of the size of the family. There was much debate on fraud. One of the Deputies said we were taking only €200 million in savings from fraud detection and that the savings from fraud detection last year were €533 million. I would like to go into that in more detail but I would say that the Deputy is not comparing like with like because the calculation of savings from fraud detection takes into account an imputed saving into the future whereas what we calculated was the cash saving——

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: How much of that figure from fraud detection is from fraud detection? The Minister has never clarified that. Some of it is from overpayments.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We have. If the Deputy had attended the full committee meetings——

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I attend as many as I can.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: ——he would be well aware that I have given all of those details time and again in the committee. 633 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Róisín Shortall: No. The Minister has not.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Minister has never calculated that——

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: He tends to breeze in——

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Minister’s Department has never been able to distinguish between the two.

An Ceann Comhairle: We must conclude Second Stage at 2 p.m.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Minister should conclude because we did not get extra time to debate this issue. He should conclude at 2 o’clock like the rest of us.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister is on countdown to conclude.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: It is a good countdown. It is past 2 o’clock.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: We are out of time.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: He may as well sit down.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Deputies do not appear to want the rest of the answers. I like to be thorough in responding to points made by Deputies but my time has concluded.

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 72.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie. Hanafin, Mary. Ahern, Dermot. Harney, Mary. Ahern, Michael. Haughey, Seán. Ahern, Noel. Healy-Rae, Jackie. Andrews, Barry. Hoctor, Máire. Andrews, Chris. Kelleher, Billy. Ardagh, Seán. Kelly, Peter. Aylward, Bobby. Kenneally, Brendan. Behan, Joe. Kennedy, Michael. Blaney, Niall. Killeen, Tony. Brady, Áine. Kitt, Michael P. Brady, Cyprian. Kitt, Tom. Brady, Johnny. Lenihan, Brian. Browne, John. Lenihan, Conor. Calleary, Dara. Lowry, Michael. Carey, Pat. McEllistrim, Thomas. Collins, Niall. McGrath, Mattie. Conlon, Margaret. McGrath, Michael. Connick, Seán. McGuinness, John. Coughlan, Mary. Mansergh, Martin. Cregan, John. Martin, Micheál. Curran, John. Moloney, John. Dempsey, Noel. Moynihan, Michael. Devins, Jimmy. Mulcahy, Michael. Dooley, Timmy. Nolan, M. J. Fahey, Frank. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Finneran, Michael. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Fitzpatrick, Michael. O’Brien, Darragh. Fleming, Seán. O’Connor, Charlie. Flynn, Beverley. O’Dea, Willie. Gogarty, Paul. O’Donoghue, John. 634 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Tá—continued

O’Flynn, Noel. Roche, Dick. O’Hanlon, Rory. Ryan, Eamon. Sargent, Trevor. O’Keeffe, Batt. Scanlon, Eamon. O’Keeffe, Edward. Treacy, Noel. O’Rourke, Mary. Wallace, Mary. Power, Peter. Woods, Michael. Power, Seán.

Níl

Allen, Bernard. McEntee, Shane. Bannon, James. McGinley, Dinny. Barrett, Seán. McGrath, Finian. Broughan, Thomas P. McHugh, Joe. Burke, Ulick. McManus, Liz. Burton, Joan. Mitchell, Olivia. Byrne, Catherine. Morgan, Arthur. Clune, Deirdre. Naughten, Denis. Connaughton, Paul. Neville, Dan. Coonan, Noel J. Noonan, Michael. Costello, Joe. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Crawford, Seymour. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. O’Donnell, Kieran. Creed, Michael. O’Dowd, Fergus. Creighton, Lucinda. O’Keeffe, Jim. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Mahony, John. Deasy, John. O’Shea, Brian. Deenihan, Jimmy. O’Sullivan, Jan. Doherty, Pearse. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Doyle, Andrew. Penrose, Willie. Durkan, Bernard J. Perry, John. English, Damien. Quinn, Ruairí. Feighan, Frank. Rabbitte, Pat. Ferris, Martin. Reilly, James. Flanagan, Charles. Ring, Michael. Flanagan, Terence. Shatter, Alan. Gilmore, Eamon. Sheahan, Tom. Grealish, Noel. Sheehan, P. J. Hayes, Brian. Sherlock, Seán. Hayes, Tom. Shortall, Róisín. Higgins, Michael D. Stagg, Emmet. Hogan, Phil. Stanton, David. Howlin, Brendan. Timmins, Billy. Kehoe, Paul. Upton, Mary. Lynch, Ciarán. Varadkar, Leo. Lynch, Kathleen. Wall, Jack. McCormack, Pádraic.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Question declared carried.

Social Welfare Bill 2010: Committee and Remaining Stages

SECTION 1 An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.

635 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

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

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I oppose this Bill in its entirety because it is consequential to a Budget Statement made on Tuesday last, one of the most unfair budgets that has ever been seen by this State. In particular, it is unfair on those who are dependent on welfare payments in the State and I oppose it on that on that basis. I also believe there was an alternative. This alternative should have been pursued by the Government rather than targeting the most vulnerable in our society, who, in many cases, are living in abject poverty. The consequences of what is contained in this Bill will have a detrimental effect and will increase the levels of poverty in our society. This is an absolute disgrace considering that the Government, which is implementing it, is one that was elected on a plat- form of protecting the most vulnerable. As I stated in the few minutes I had on Second Stage, the fact that the title of the Department was changed not so long ago to Social Protection was welcome, except that we see there is no protection being given when the very little those dependent on social welfare are getting is now being cut further. It has been cut over the past number of budgets and the cumulative effect of those cuts has never been measured properly by the Department. One of the key aspects of any legislation proposed here is that there should be an impact assessment of the effects not only in terms of throwing out figures such as the 4% or €8 decrease, but of a cut on those on social welfare. In the main, these people are already struggling to make ends meet considering the increase in the cost of education, housing, electricity, gas, transport, health, mortgage interest and communications, which I listed previously. These are the effects. What little was there already is being further squeezed. As I stated on Second Stage, these families are dependent on public services and their costs will also be increased given that the Government has further cut the grants to local government and public transport organisations. Many of the other social support networks which are available or should be available to those who are struggling have also been cut in the budget. Some were also cut in previous budgets and people are finding it difficult to manage. The Bill contains quite a range of proposals and virtually every one of them is detrimental to those dependent on social welfare payments. Every section of the Bill should be opposed because the effect of the entirety of the Bill is to make those dependent on social welfare worse off, and much worse off in many cases. It is scandalous that the richer people in our society will be hit proportionately far less. People dependent on social welfare spend all of their money. They do not save their money, put it away, hide it in bank accounts or squirrel it away in offshore accounts because they do not have money to do so. They spend their money locally. The effect of all of these cuts will be further job losses rather than what the Minister stated, which is that by this time next year the social welfare bill will have been reduced. I believe the opposite is the case and that we will see, particularly among local retailers, job losses because there will be less money going around. The effect of the cut in the Christmas bonus last year was to send many people onto the dole queues. With regard to dole queues, the Minister has proposed a new community work placement programme with 5,000 places. Any new initiative such as this should be welcomed but it is bizarre that there does not seem to be any facility for people who might want to participate in the programme. One does not apply to the scheme; one will be forced onto it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Deputy Ó Snodaigh should read the rules.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Questions will arise but given the short time we have we will not reach them on Committee or Report Stages to elicit all of the information. The Government is 636 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages rushing through this legislation. It is a pity it does not rush to the election, as I stated earlier. We should have dealt with this during an election campaign in which all of the platforms were put to the people prior to the Minister impacting on the poorest in our society. Who will reverse these cuts after an election? Who is willing to stand in opposition to each of these sections and reverse them on being elected to government? To date, Fine Gael has stated some of the same cuts will be implemented and I have not heard from the Labour Party other than its leader stating he will not reverse cuts. Perhaps things have changed now that they have seen the full scale of the cuts to be implemented.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: We said we would not tolerate any welfare cuts.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: On “The Late Late Show”, Deputy Shortall’s leader stated he would not reverse them.

Deputy Joe Costello: In the same way as we would not have a rate of blanket guarantee with regard to the banks.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: What I stated was that I would welcome clarification and I have received it and I will not have an argument with the Labour Party because the focus should be on the social welfare cuts.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: Deputy Ó Snodaigh might relay that to his colleagues.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: That is why I asked for confirmation that the Labour Party if in government would reverse these cuts, and I welcome the fact that it would reverse each and every one of the cuts contained in this Bill. We are dealing with a Bill which is odious because it targets those who are dependent. Social welfare supports employment in the real economy and the effects will be that people working in local shops will also suffer the consequences of the Bill. It is scandalous that no attempt is made to see the full impact of this. This is arrogance by the Government. I remember two or three years ago when a document, Regulating Better, was produced by the Government on how legislation was to be put forward. Regulatory impact assessments were to be made on every Bill. I have not seen it done on this Bill. Most of us here will be able to do it for the Minister in case he does not have his Departments in order. For every person dependent on social welfare the effect will be further poverty, going without food and heating, and struggling to ensure their children go to school properly dressed and that they can travel to school on the public transport network, particularly in rural Ireland where it has been made more expensive. Thankfully, many of the families on social welfare will still benefit from free travel. However, many others not fully dependent on social welfare will have to pay. The Minister announced a €40 once-off fuel allowance payment because of the conditions. This is welcome, but it is equivalent to only five weeks of an overall cut in social welfare payments. What about the other 47 weeks? It is a miserly once-off grant. One must consider that many of those now dependent on social welfare do not qualify because they have not been unemployed for long enough. They have been made redundant, as have quite a number of people, over the past 15 months and they do not qualify for it and will receive neither the €40 nor the fuel allowance. Other people will be affected by the various cuts. I oppose the section.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Chuir mé an-spéis sa mhéid a bhí le rá ag an Teachta Aengus Ó Snodaigh, mar dá leanfadh muid polasaithe Páirtí Shinn Féin, séard a tharlódh sa tírná nach mbeadh aon saibhreas á dhéanamh ag éinne. B’fhéidir go mbeadh chuile duine mar a chéile, ach b’fhéidir go mbéidis mar a chéile ar an gcaoi a bhfuileadar mar 637 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.] achéile i gCúba — bocht. Go bunúsach, má tá sé i gceist againn go mbeidh €20.6 billiún áíoc ar chúrsaí leasa shóisialaigh, caithfidh an t-airgead sin a theacht as áit éigin agus caithfidh an t-airgead sin a shaothrú. Leis an polasaí atá ag Sinn Féin, ní bheadh an t-airgead sin ann. As I stated in Irish, if we followed the policies of Sinn Féin, the simple reality is that the €20.6 billion required would not be available to spend on social protection. Sinn Féin would destroy the country in two ways: it would destroy the economic base of the country, which is the international sales we make to earn enough income for the country to function, and it would utterly destroy any capacity to borrow the money we need to pay for education, health and social welfare. An effect of its particular policy might be to make everybody equal, but everybody would be equal at the level of a country such as Cuba. I do not think that is what the Irish people deserve or want. Therefore, in putting together the budget it is our duty to ensure the productive parts of the economy can function, grow and continue to create more and more wealth. We need them to bridge the gap between the income of the State and the borrowing of the State, or the income of the State and the expenditure of the State. The reality of the matter is that a huge part of my Department’s income comes from social insurance payments. The level of funds gathered from that source depends, in turn, on the existence of a vibrant employment base in this country. If we want to get to better days, we have to make sure employment grows and, as a result, the income of the social insurance fund grows. That, in turn, makes it easier to maintain better and bigger social welfare payments. The people are being asked to make a fundamental decision. They need to decide whether to preserve the €20.6 billion in payments that will be made by the Department of Social Protec- tion next year. Perhaps they would prefer to divide a €13 billion contribution to social protection, which is what has been proposed by Sinn Féin, between the various groups that deserve payments under the system. Nobody in Ireland, other than those who are totally deluded, would choose a €13 billion budget in preference to a €20.6 billion budget. There are no easy choices. In framing this budget, we are putting the country on the road to having sustainable finances. We are continuing to allocate substantial funds to the Department of Social Protec- tion. If we want to increase rates in the future, we will have to continue to reduce unemployment. Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the Tús scheme. He said the numbers were small. The reason that is the case is níl ann ach tús. I know from experience that it takes time to place people in these positions. I will ask integrated Leader partnership companies throughout the country to roll out these places as soon as possible. I hope to have people in place by March. I know from my previous experience with the roll-out of rural social scheme that those staff will be put to the pin of their collars in trying to provide 5,000 places by the end of the year. Deputy Ring might remember that when the rural social scheme was originally rolled out, month after month of gríosadh was needed to get these positions filled. It took the guts of two years to fill them completely. I expect the roll-out to be much quicker in this case. I hope it will be. It is about time we faced the facts about the banks. When we guaranteed bank deposits, we guaranteed we would have a banking system. There is no comparison between the Irish banking system, which is largely deposit-led, and the banking system in Iceland. If we had allowed the banks to close, nobody would have been able to get money from an ATM, cheque books would not have functioned, it would not have been possible to access deposits and businesses would not have been able to get at their money. Our economy would have been devastated and our credibility worldwide would have been wrecked. It would have taken us many years to repair the damage. Although it was galling to have to bail out people and institutions that acted recklessly, we did so because we knew the effect on every ordinary citizen of this country of 638 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages failing to act would be much worse. The after-effects of the recklessness to which I refer would have been much worse if we had not acted in such a manner. As someone who has no particular connection with any bank or any bankers, I honestly and sincerely believe we had two options — to retain a banking system in this country or to have no banking system. It is a no-brainer to say the country cannot function on a day-to-day basis without a banking system. Our Cabinet colleagues from the Green Party are aware of the real choices we faced, as opposed to the choices we would have liked to have had. We could not act as if the madness that had happened in the banks and in society had never happened. When we faced a choice between saving the banks and not saving them, we had to decide that saving them was the lesser of two evils.

Deputy Joe Costello: On a point of order, the Minister is making a Second Stage speech.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am entitled to reply to Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s Second Stage speech.

Deputy Joe Costello: There is a guillotine on all of these amendments.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Minister should be fair.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke at length.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: We are not going to sit here all day.

Deputy Joe Costello: There is no reason for the Minister to imitate Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Yes, but I have the right to reply. I have never——

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Government has cut short the debate on this important Bill. I ask him to try to keep his remarks brief, in the interests of fairness. The rest of us want to debate the amendments that have been tabled.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: We are interested in the substantive issues.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: We went to the trouble of tabling amendments on the substantive issues.

Deputy Michael Ring: That is right.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I ask the Minister to be fair.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: If Members on the other side of the House keep their contributions short, I guarantee I will keep my contributions short.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Okay. That is fine.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: On a point of order, there is a precedent for the Minister to elaborate on the wider context. The first amendment that was proposed to open up this debate involved opposing the entire Bill.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: We are not on amendment No. 1.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: That is the point. A precedent has been set.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: It has not. 639 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The Deputies opposite are talking about deleting everything, rather than making amendments.

Deputy Joe Costello: We are not. The Deputy came in too late.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: All of the sections are being opposed.

Deputy Michael Ring: That is because so many amendments have been ruled out of order.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Rather than a list of amendments, we have a list of sections that are being opposed.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Deputy needs to get with the game.

An Ceann Comhairle: We will move on.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh is out of order.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3

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

An Ceann Comhairle: As section 3 is not agreed, I will call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Section 3 is not agreed. I will try to be brief to allow other——

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Section 3 is opposed.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will come to the Deputy in a minute.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: We are opposing this section.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I thought we would be called in order.

An Ceann Comhairle: I have called Deputy Ó Snodaigh to speak on section 3. I will call Deputy Shortall when he has finished.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I thought the practice was to call the first name on the list of those opposing the section.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I do not mind.

An Ceann Comhairle: Okay.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Labour Party is opposed to section 3 of the Bill, which proposes to reduce a range of benefit payments, including jobseeker’s benefit, illness benefit, health and safety benefit, injury benefit, disablement gratuity, carer’s benefit, invalidity pension, widow’s contributory pension, widower’s contributory pension and guardian’s payment, by €8 per week. All of those who will be affected by this measure suffered similar €8 cuts in their welfare payments last year. Throughout the past year, we have heard from many groups representing people in those categories about the impact last year’s cuts have had. The difference the cuts made to their lives was that they made them much more difficult and created hardship. The 640 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages rationale that was used at the time was that there had been a reduction in the cost of living. While I do not doubt such a reduction had taken place, the principal factors in last year’s reduction in the cost of living were house prices, interest rates and rent. Those factors did not apply to many of the people in these categories. There may have been some kind of cost-of- living justification last year, but there is no such justification at all this year. We know there has been no appreciable reduction in the cost of living across a range of items. Yet, the Minister is saying to people who have already suffered a cut of €8 in their payments that they must accept a further €8 reduction. There are many people in receipt of the benefit payments to which I refer who are just about keeping their heads above water. These individuals will not be able to manage in light of the additional cut that is being introduced. The proposed cuts are savage in nature. The Minister had a number of choices open to him in respect of this matter. Earlier, he gave a long, rambling speech regarding how he had no choice but to cut welfare payments. Notwithstanding the fact that it completely mismanaged the economy in recent years, the Government had choices available to it in the context of how it proposed to balance the books. The Labour Party set out a range of options which could have been pursued. For example, the Government could have introduced an additional tax in respect of people with incomes in excess of €100,000. That would have been one fair way of proceeding. In addition, the Government could have made much quicker and more considered progress in respect of the tax reliefs on pension contributions. It has taken an extremely easy approach in this regard. There is potential for much more significant savings to be made in this area. In the context of ending the reliefs on property-based tax reliefs, the Government took its time and proceeded at a very slow pace. These reliefs could have been removed much more quickly, which would have allowed the Government to avoid the necessity for cuts in welfare this year. Unfortunately, it did not take the approach I have suggested and instead targeted the cuts at people on the lowest levels of income. I refer here to those who are on welfare payments and those in low paid jobs, that is, the working poor. It is regrettable that this step has been taken. The Joint Committee on Social Protection heard all about the difficulties experienced by those who have been struggling with the cuts introduced last year from the numerous groups — the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, One Family, Social Justice Ireland, Focus Ireland and various others — which came before it in the past 12 months. I wish to make special reference to the Chairman of that committee, Deputy Healy Rae, whose behaviour in all of this has been reprehensible. A man who should be aware of the situation and who should know all about the levels of poverty that exist has entered into some form of grubby deal in order that he might maintain his political dynasty in Kerry South. Deputy Healy Rae has simply ignored the various concerns of the people to whom I refer and who have looked to him during the year for some kind of protection. These individuals have a right to expect that the Deputy, as Chairman of the joint committee, would stand up for their rights and oppose the cuts to their welfare payments. The way Deputies Healy Rae and Lowry have behaved in recent times is disgraceful. I hope that all of those people in Kerry South and Tipperary North who are dependent on carer’s allowance, injury benefit, jobseeker’s benefit and invalidity pension are aware of what the Deputies who represent them are doing in their name. Deputies Lowry and Healy Rae appear to have no compunction with regard to completely selling out those of their constituents who are dependent on welfare payments. That is a disgrace. I hope that in the forthcoming general election the people in the Deputies’ constituencies——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is straying somewhat from the content of section 3. 641 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Róisín Shortall: ——will give them their answer. The economy requires a stimulus package. The retail, hospitality and catering sectors are all haemorrhaging jobs. Rather than putting a stimulus package in place, the Minister has, in the form of this Bill, offered us an austerity package of €850 million in cuts. Not only will he cause extreme hardship for those who are dependent on social welfare payments, the cuts he is introducing will also cause further difficulties in the sectors to which I refer. Businesses in Corr na Móna, Whitehall, Ballymun and Castlebar will be directly affected by this austerity package, which will remove money from local economies. The money people receive via welfare payments is not saved, it is spent in local shops, in hairdressing salons and in the purchase of services. The removal of €850 million from local economies throughout Ireland will have massive knock-on effects. The Labour Party is utterly opposed to these cuts, particularly because they will cause real and substantial hardship for the many thousands of people who depend on social welfare payments.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Déanfaidh mé iarracht gan déileáil leis an rud ar fad. Sa chuid seo den Bhille, táimid ag déileáil le ciorruithe ar íocaíochtaí ar réimse mór fada. Do na daoine siúd ag a bhfuil post agus maoin, ní dhéanfaidh sé an méid sin difríochta go mbeidísthíos €8 sa tseachtain ach sa chás seo is figiúr substaintiúil é don chuid is mó de na daoine atá ag braith ar íocaíochta leasa shóisialta. Dá réir sin, tá mé ag cur ina choinne mar táimid ag déileáil leo siúdatá ag braith ar jobseekers benefit, illness benefit, health and safety benefit, injury benefit, disablement gratuity, carer’s benefit, the State pension, invalidity pension agus roinnt eile cosúil le disablement pension agus a leithéid. Seo iad na daoine is boichte inár sochaí, seo iad na daoine a ba chóir don Stát cosaint a thabhairt dóibh sa chéad dul síos, ach tá an Stát ag casadh orthu nuair atá siad in ísle brí agus ag baint an tseans atá acu a mhaireachtáil le caighdeánar bith. Tá an Stát anois ag baint an chaighdeáin sin uathu. Tá breall ar an Aire agus ba bhreá liom go mbeadh díospóireacht againn faoin achoimre a chuir muid os comhair an Rialtais sular chuir sé an buiséad le chéile, ina léirigh muid carbh as a dtiocfadh an t-airgead, ca háit a bheadh todhchaí na tíre seo, agus todhchaí i bhfad níos fearr a bheadh ann faoi Shinn Féin ná mar a bheadh faoin Rialtas seo agus na cinntí atá glactha aige go dtí seo. In ainneoin an meid a dúirt an tAire, that Sinn Féin might destroy the capacity to obtain loans to run the country, in light of its actions in recent years Fianna Fáil has already done a lot more than anyone else could possibly do to destroy this country’s capacity to do anything. Mar rogha nó mar alternatives, tá airgead sa tír agus is ait tar éis an bhuiséid seo go mbeidh breis airgid ag na milliúnaithe atá féinfhostaithe sa tír seo. Beidh siad ag baint tairbhe de €22,000 in aghaidh na bliana as an bhuiséad seo. Sin scannalach, na daoine is saibhre sa tír, ní amháin nach bhfuil siad buailte i gceart ó thaobh an bhuiséid de, beidh siad ag déanamh brabúis as. Sin an sórt scannail atá ag teacht chun cinn ar an lá céanna go bhfuil €40 milliún á thabhairt do lucht AIB de thairbhe go ndearna siad praiseach den bhanc sin. Sin an scéal atá ag dul amach, an rud a chloiseann na daoine atá ag braith ar leasa shóisialta. Níl mise ag tacú leis an alt seo den Bhille. Mar a dúirt mé,tá rogha ann. Mar shampla, tá leath-thrilliúnd’airgead i bpinsin phríobháideacha sa tír seo. Dá mbeadh levy de 1% ar an méid sin, bheadh €5 billiún faighte. Níor fhéach an Rialtas air sin, níor fhéach éinne air go dtí seo, fiú mo pháirtí féin, ach sin cruthú go bhfuil maoin ann. This is proof that there is wealth in our country. A 1% levy on the €500 billion that is invested in private pensions here would raise €5 billion. No party — including that which I represent — has considered this matter. It must be examined because when one is in dire straits, one should seek alternatives. The cuts relating to jobseeker’s benefit and the various other benefits are being introduced as a matter of political choice. There are alternatives and 642 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages there is a way out of the hole in which we currently find ourselves. However, the way to which I refer is not that proposed by the Government in the form of this Bill.

Deputy Michael Ring: This probably is the most savage cut of all. I repeat, at this late stage, that this measure probably will save approximately €96 million. This morning, Members learned from newspaper reports that AIB intends to pay out €40 million in bonuses.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The figure is €341 million.

Deputy Michael Ring: Not for all, if one——

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: All of this amounts to €341 million.

Deputy Michael Ring: In any event, I have found €40 million for the Minister already. He should simply take it from the banks if they have €40 million to give away. That would consti- tute a start and would deal with the blind pensioners. A story broke today concerning a social worker in County Kilkenny, who has seen children taking food from a bin. How could Members, particularly on the Government side, allow this to happen? I am referring to the four Independent Members, to whom I again wish to make a plea. The most savage cut of all is to the carer’s allowance. Carers work for their payment and do not receive it for nothing. They save the State a fortune of €2.5 billion each year and work very hard. What will happen if carers are not available? The State will be obliged to find nursing homes for those who are being cared for. These people will be admitted to hospitals, where they will take up badly-needed beds. Moreover, there will be a knock-on effect in respect of medicine, drugs and so on when trying to keep those concerned from becoming sick. I cannot understand how the Government or its backbenchers could allow this to happen. I acknowledge it was necessary to make choices but it should not have been necessary to make this choice. A measure affecting the blind, carers and the disabled is wrong. The Minister is a decent man who knows this is wrong, as do the backbenchers. I wish to make a plea today to the Kerry rose, Deputy Healy-Rae and to the Tipperary stars, Deputies Lowry and Mattie McGrath. The latter is a great speaker on RTE radio who tells the country that he will bring down the Government and will not allow this to happen. He then marches into the Chamber every time to vote for the Government. In addition, Deputy Behan has told people there is no alternative. There is an alternative to cutting benefits to the blind, the disabled and to carers. There is a fairer and better way. I appeal to the Kerry rose, the Tipperary stars and the Independent Member to be what the people elected them as, namely, Independents. They should take an independent view on this proposed measure, which was wrong yesterday, is wrong today and will be wrong tomorrow. I remember when the Government announced increases in child benefit and all social welfare payments in 2007 to applause from the choir opposite. It took full credit for all those payments. I also remember visiting the doorsteps that May. Although payment arrangements usually are put in place by the middle of a year, that year they were brought forward in order that the first increases in child benefit and social welfare would take effect by May 2007. What was so special about that month? It was the time of the general election when the Government thought it was doing a great job for the people. I again tell Independent Members and Fianna Fáil backbenchers that this offers them another opportunity. Opposition Members will give them an opportunity in a few minutes when they are asked to vote. They will even be given a second opportunity by being asked to walk through the lobbies. I appeal to them to vote with their conscience and vote that it is wrong to take money from carers, the blind and disabled. I urge Fianna Fáil backbenchers and 643 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Michael Ring.] the Independent Members to do the right thing and to vote with the Opposition. It will not change the overall Bill but it will restore the money to those who badly need it. I listened to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who talked about reverting to the payments levels that obtained in 2007. However, bread, milk and insurance were cheaper in 2007, as was the overall cost of living in Ireland. It is not cheaper now, as items are more expensive and people are experiencing greater pressure. Even this winter, people have been obliged to pay more money for coal and fuel to keep themselves warm in their houses. This measure is wrong now and will be wrong tomorrow and the week after. I appeal to Government Members not to be Christmas Scrooges and to make the right decision in this regard by changing this immediately.

Deputy Joe Costello: Members have listened to the Minister’s convoluted explanations of the reasons he has been obliged to introduce these measures, his justifications for so doing and so on. Behind it all lies a political choice. Fianna Fáil in Government decided last year to implement across-the-board cuts of €8 on the most vulnerable and least well-off and have done so again this year. This was a political decision and there is no other way to look at it. While the Minister can justify and explain all he wishes, this can be summed up by stating the Minister decided to do this and the Green Party decided to go along with him. The most vulnerable sectors, namely, jobseekers, the disabled, the blind, widows and everyone on the breadline are those who have been hit in this section of the Bill dealing with benefits and in the next section dealing with allowances. Moreover, this has not achieved anything for the Minister in the long run because in his concluding response to the Second Stage debate, he acknowledged that despite everything he has done, the social protection budget will still comprise 39% of total State expenditure, compared with 38% last year. In other words, the Minister is 1% less well-off.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: No, the percentage has decreased.

Deputy Joe Costello: The Government took the wrong choices because the savings it is making from all these measures is very small when compared with what it could get, were it to make the right choices. Why did the Government not introduce the abolition of the property tax reliefs before 2014? Why not abolish them all now? Why not deal further with the pensions? Why fail to touch the tax exiles, as was promised in the last budget? I refer to 7,000 people, virtually all of whom are millionaires, who still jet in and out of the country. They have not been touched and are not paying a penny in tax this year, any more than they did last year. Choices are available and although the Minister may justify the reason he was obliged to hit the less well-off all the time, it is mere political justification with no basis to it whatsoever. Why could the Government not have adopted the Labour Party’s suggestion to introduce a new tax rate of 48%? Why did the Government not change the tax rates, which would have been a much fairer choice to make? These all are political choices that relate to which sector and segment of the community will be hit hardest. Instead, the Government still protects the high earners and its friends in the property business. It still protects the influential and the most well-off in this society. With these measures it is hitting the least well off and the most vulnerable, whether it is carers, the blind, widows or lone parents. Members should consider the poor lone parent who is trying to escape from the poverty trap. Assuming that such a person is also in receipt of a half-carer’s allowance, he or she will be hit twice. In addition, such a parent also will be hit, after earning less than €80 per week, by the new universal social charge. The Minister will pauperise and impoverish those who already are on the edge. These 644 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages are the choices and the Minister should admit that this is what this Social Welfare Bill is all about.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Before the Acting Chairman, Deputy Charlie O’Connor, took the Chair, I raised a point of order about whether a Second Stage debate was warranted because a perusal of the proposals regarding the various sections, including section 3, which is under discussion at present shows that by and large, sections are being opposed but very few amendments of substance have been tabled. Deputy Ring was reported in the media last night as stating that he intended to table amendments to reverse the cuts proposed in this Bill. I cannot discern any such amendments. In my earlier speech on Second Stage, I mentioned to the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, that I disagreed with the impact on the vulnerable in the Social Welfare Bill and asked him to table his own amendments and to ascertain whether the money could be found from elsewhere in the Department. I will not go back into that long debate, but I believe there could be a little bit of tweaking. I had stated that if Deputy Ring——

Deputy Joe Costello: Tweaking?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: —— sought to cut €2 from the contributory old age pension, I would vote for it because, on balance, that might make it a little easier for some of the more vulnerable, as those who are also vulnerable, albeit slightly less so, might be able to take a small hit. However, no such amendments have been tabled; there is only opposition to the proposals. Let us now look at the opposition to section 3 and other sections. Sinn Féin says its budget would make savings of €4.5 billion, but I disagree with its analysis and its target figures. Not- withstanding that, I believe Sinn Féin is being true to itself in its opposition. It is a similar case with the Labour Party, which has stated that it would increase income tax and 3o’clock reduce tax on welfare. As part of the Government, the Green Party shares collective responsibility, but if it was in Government alone, the Green Party would have increased the tax element. However, as part of a collective Government, we must operate within its confines. We would not go as far as the Labour Party proposals. However, there is validity in the reason behind the Labour Party’s opposition to this section, although it would not want to oppose it in full because while it does not agree with cutting welfare, it would make the cuts somewhere else. Therefore, we can see the logic of its opposition. The opposition of Fine Gael to this section, however, makes no sense. It did not table any amendments, but seems to be surfing the wave of popular indignation rather than making an attempt to try to bridge the €6 billion gap. The Fine Gael leader and Fine Gael finance spokesperson have consistently said that we should keep taxes low. The difficulty is that if it was to do the opposite of what the Labour Party suggests and keep taxes low, it would have to cut more, including the biggest spending Departments, one of which is the Department of Social Protection. Therefore, there must be cuts in social welfare. The question then is whether those cuts should be to carers’ allowances, blind people’s pensions, old age pensions or long-term unemployment allowances. Someone must suffer. While I disagree that the very vulnerable should take the brunt, I feel an effort was made to try and make the cuts as equal as possible. I have already commented on why all of the parties said they would not touch the old age pension. Given this Bill is being opposed rather than amended in any way, the consequence of voting it down would bring down the budget and speed up the departure of the Government. While that might seem logical to the Opposition, it would not be logical in the context of the bailout, the four year plan or investor confidence in the country. I was reading a blog put up by Ronan Lyons recently which did an analysis of the budget in which he pointed out that a person on 645 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Paul Gogarty.] €100,000 would be hit for five times as much as a person on €20,000, although perhaps it should be six or seven times as much.

Deputy Joe Costello: Perhaps he should do another assessment.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: It is not true to say the budget does not affect higher earners.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Proportionately, it affects the lower paid more.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The PRSI ceiling is on the way out and higher earners pay more. Also, as I mentioned this morning, Deputies and local authority members are taking a cut in their pay, along with Ministers. Many people did not seem to be aware of this. I suggest that if parties cannot put forward a credible amendment that would ensure money is saved somewhere, they should explain from where the money will come, particularly when they do not wish to increase tax. Do they still agree that a saving of €6 billion must be made? If so, they should ensure they put forward proposals that will demonstrate how the more vulnerable will pay less. We need to ensure that. Both the Labour Party and Sinn Féin have said they oppose welfare cuts and while I disagree we can make the full savings required if we take that perspective, at least those parties are being true to their proposals. However, with regard to Fine Gael, it cannot have it both ways.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I often admire Deputy Gogarty’s sentiments because his heart is in the right place, but it is not possible to move an amendment which would reduce the rate prescribed in the Bill. Any amendment would be ruled out of order because it would involve a charge on the Exchequer

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Fine Gael should put forward its amendment.

Deputy Michael Ring: Deputy Gogarty should go home and mind the child. He will have plenty of time in a few weeks to do that.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): Deputy Noonan, without interruption.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I would like to say something that will give Deputy Gogarty the opportunity to vote against the whole Bill if he wants to put the principles he has just enunci- ated into effect. In his Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance said his objective was “That those who have most, will pay most”. Most people in the House agreed with that, including the Minister, but he has dismally failed to achieve that, not because people at the bottom end of the ladder are paying proportionately more than people at the top but because there is a category of people at the top who gain thousands of euro as a result of the provisions of the budget. My complaint is not that these people have not been cut proportionately, but that they make very large gains. On the day when payments for the blind, the disabled, widows, carers and the unemployed are being reduced, it is a disgrace that the very wealthy will gain thousands of euro from the budget. The universal social charge replaces the health levy and the income levy. The charge is 7% on income above €16,016. The two levies it replaces did not reach 7% until a person was on an income of €75,000. Therefore, the charge clearly hurts the lower paid and on the distribution basis the lower paid are hurt more than the higher paid. That, however, is not the main point of my submission. The problem is that the rate stays at 7%, regardless of how high one’s income is. Therefore, self-employed professionals and company directors who have sharehold- ings in their companies, proprietary directors, who would have paid 11% — with the combined 646 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

5% health levy and 6% income levy — on income over €175,000, will now only be liable to pay 7%. They do, however, pay an additional 1% PRSI. Therefore, their net reduction is 3%. If we take all the tax changes in the budget into account, this group is better off after the budget if their income exceeds €200,000. They are better off by 3% of the difference between €200,000 and what they get. The examples issued in the budget release only show the effect on incomes up to €175,000. The examples should continue up the income scale and look, for example, at the tribunal barrister or the company director with shares in the company on an income of €800,000, many of whom exist as we know from the tribunals. The Deputy need only talk to any of his contacts in the tax management business to know that they have plenty of clients with those levels of income. The person I have described on €800,000 will take home €18,000 more in 2011 than he took home in 2010, and it will operate pro rata.

Deputy Michael Ring: Shocking.

Deputy Michael Noonan: If the Deputy wants an explanation, it is 3% of €600,000, which is the excess over €200,000. Other examples can be calculated through the very simple sum of 3% of the excess above €200,000. The person in that category on €300,000 will be €3,000 better off. The person on €500,000 will be €9,000 better off and the top of the scale tribunal lawyer on €1 million will be €24,000 better off in 2011 than he was in 2010. Is that fair or just? Is that a matter of the wealthy paying proportionately more? We are discussing the Social Welfare Bill today and tomorrow the Minister will take the legal power to reduce the minimum wage, but do either the Minister or Deputy Gogarty know that a mother on the minimum wage with three children will be €2,600 worse off when this budget is implemented? The barrister in the tribunal will earn an €24,000 more on his €1 million emolument than he did in 2010. Is there any government?

Deputy Michael Ring: That is equality.

Deputy Michael Noonan: Could the Government have done this deliberately or is it only able to spend money and does not know how to make adjustments? Any Government that claims it is going to protect the poor and hit the wealthy while creating the budgetary hole I have just described should resign immediately. It is a strange sort of social justice to bring forward a budget like that. I do not know whether the Minister intended this measure but it appears to me that Fianna Fáil continues to look after its friends. It should erect the Galway tent in front of Government Buildings and get the Green Party Ministers to act as doormen because they will let in more than they keep out. I cannot get over the rank stupidity and incompetence of this decision from a political point of view. Despite all the support available to the Government, it only ran the income examples up to €175,000. Every tax consultant around the country is ringing his or her local Deputy to point out that the wealthy will pay 3% less when the income and health levies are turned into a social charge. They are making enormous gains not in theory or through tax breaks or avoidance, but in hard cash.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Deputy Noonan could have tabled an amendment.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I assure the Deputy there will be amendments to the finance Bill. He talks a great game about the poor and making the wealthy pay most. He now has an opportunity to vote against the Social Welfare Bill 2010 on those grounds.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Section 3 provides for a reduction in the jobseeker’s benefit, the illness benefit, the disability gratuity, the carer’s benefit and the invalidity pension. The con- 647 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Arthur Morgan.] sequence of the vote on this section will be that parents will have to choose between buying food and paying a bill. Other speakers have expressed similar concerns but they are worth repeating in order to ensure the Government’s supporters in this House understand what they are doing to people across this land. It is shocking to realise that is the case. We were told at the outset those who could afford to pay would pay. I, too, read the analysis to which Deputy Noonan referred. Two economists, Michael Taft of UNITE and Tom O’Connor of the Cork Institute of Technology, have produced papers which demonstrate that individuals on non- PAYE incomes of more than €200,000 will gain substantially from this budget. The Minister is indicating his disagreement with their analysis but I wonder if he has had the opportunity to read their papers. Given that he clearly disagrees with them, I would be grateful if he could point out the errors in their calculations. They convincingly argue that individuals earning in excess of €1 million will enjoy get an additional 5% in this budget. The benefit increases even further if one earns more than that. Where is the new tax band to capture those on very high incomes? Where is the measure to capture the benefit of the considerable wealth that exists in this State?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: And screw the economy.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: It is missing from this budget. Just three short years ago, when the Green Party Deputies sat on this side of the House, I was regularly impressed by their concern about social policy and how public services and the Exchequer were funded. It has clearly become a completely different party in terms of its political and social outlook since the days when its Members sat on these benches.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Like Sinn Féin’s relationship with the DUP in the North, we have to compromise.

Acting Chairman (Deputy O’Connor): Allow Deputy Morgan to proceed.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: I agree compromise is part of politics but this is a total capitulation from the Green Party.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: There was no capitulation in education.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: It was a walkover akin to the kittens sent in to negotiate with the IMF. Where is the compromise? Where are the measures to capture some of the significant wealth that has accumulated in this State since the Celtic tiger? Ordinary people did not benefit from it. Where is the Green Party input on capturing some of that wealth to alleviate the burden on those on lower incomes or welfare payments? I do not see it. Fianna Fáil and the Green Party made no effort to deal with this issue.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The PRSI cap was abolished.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: They just closed their eyes and walked away. I do not know whether this was because fatigue has set into what is clearly a broken Government. The two parties are barely speaking to each other. The fatigue of 4 a.m. negotiations appears to have persuaded them to give up and walk away.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We would never do that.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: I would not describe the Minister as a champion because that would be a very big title for him but I thought he had a social conscience for people who are on low 648 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages incomes or depend on the State for existence. He may have been hoodwinked by the finance people and the many right-wing boys and girls in Fianna Fáil or perhaps he simply did not notice this measure. However, nobody can claim to support the measures contained in this Bill unknowingly because Deputies on this side of the House have convincingly described what is going on. The Minister will see the sharp end of this Bill when he visits his constituents. Many of the people who make representations to my constituency office are in dire straits and if it was not for front line charities like the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which does outstanding work in Dundalk, I do not know what they would do. These charities cannot help everybody, however. It is ironic that the Government has reduced this State to the point where decent people must depend on charity handouts just to survive. When the Deputies opposite stand up to vote for these measures, they should be sure they know what they are doing.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: I wish to speak about social assistance schemes and, specifically, the farm assist payment. The rate of payment has been reduced from €196 to €188 per person. The qualified adult dependant allowance goes from €130 down to €124.80. I speak for people on farm assist because they are farming very small holdings and live, for the most part, in remote rural settings. I am talking about parts of south Kerry, Connemara and Sligo and Donegal in the north west. They often farm marginal land. The fact that they are receiving the farm assist payment is proof that their incomes from farming are meagre. These people will now suffer from the reduction in the rate of farm assist. They will also be subject to increased charges to get their children to primary and secondary schools. These families take the bus because do not have their own transport. They will also be subject to the new universal social charge. Their farm income will bring them into the social charge band. While they may have been exempt from levies in the past, they are now being brought into the tax net. The universal social charge is not a charge. It is a form of taxation. These people will suffer from the cut in social welfare rates but also because the Government has developed this inequitable social charge. We must speak for these people. It is clear that Fianna Fáil no longer speak for the marginalised people who live in rural areas. The message sent by the budget to these people is that they may have voted for Fianna Fáil all their lives but they, and their votes, will now be taken for granted. However, I can see from the number of calls I have received from people who are adversely affected by this budget that they are beginning to change their minds. No longer can one fool these people with false promises or take from them in a disproportionate fashion. A millionaire makes a net gain from this budget while a person making a marginal income from a small farm makes a loss. A family with a child in university will be further caught by the new adjacency ruling for third level grant qualification. Why does the Government need to make these cuts? There is no level of equity in them. The person who shaped this budget cannot have thought laterally about how it would affect people on the margins. In spite of our political differences, we were always a nation of people who sought to look after our most vulnerable. This universal social charge is grossly unfair. In normal times, we might have accepted the need to reduce payments for farm assist, for example. However, the universal social charge adds a further financial penalty for those people who are living on the margins. The same is true of the cuts in carer’s allowances and in other rates. Why must we consistently attack these people? There is no logical explanation for it. It is a disproportionate cut and is contrary to the canons of taxation. One is supposed to levy tax in an equitable fashion but that has not been done in this case. I accept that we are discussing the Social Welfare Bill, but taxation is pertinent to the argument. People who are earning money and are also in receipt of social welfare will suffer a double whammy because they will come into the net of the 649 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Seán Sherlock.] universal social charge as well as suffering a reduced rate of social welfare. I had a call today from someone who has a very marginal income and is dependent on a medical card, because of a genuine underlying medical condition. The person had an exemption from the levies but will not be exempt from the new charge. I have sought advice from colleagues as to whether such a person, despite the fact that the household has an income, should apply to the community welfare officer for a home heating grant in the coming months. We should ensure that households with a marginal income are not penalised further. These people may be in their 30s and 40s and still making large mortgage repayments, which eats up a large part of their disposable incomes. Imposing charges of this nature on those people could tip them over the edge and force them to rely on community welfare officers or supplementary welfare payments in order to sustain life and limb.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Which defeats the purpose of the measures.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: We must think more laterally in proposing budgets. We accept that there had to be cuts across the board. We were bought into the idea that there would be adjustments. However, in a proper society one cannot disproportionately affect people who are already marginalised.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I listened to the speech of the Minister for Social Protection. Those of us who know the Minister accept that he has a certain degree of sympathy for people who are underprivileged and marginalised. However, in this instance, he has lost the battle to protect those people. I was more than surprised. I know this is not the budget the Minister would like to have seen, but it is the budget that was brought in. It is a disaster for anyone who is dependent on the State. The Minister spoke of the difficulty of protecting one group. I do not accept his argument. I do not believe the Government has protected old age pensioners. It has isolated them and, probably, made them more vulnerable in the future. Now, they are sitting out as a group on their own. That is a difficulty for them. The Minister cannot say he has protected old age pensioners when it is not true. The old age pension has not been cut this year, but what the Minister says is not true. People want honesty and openness. As a woman said to me, “It will be awful in the next few years, but we would settle for honesty”. We need to be honest about this. One cannot break up the disability sector into different groups. The blind pension is a different payment from disability payments. It is separate and different and was constructed separately and differently, but one cannot isolate that group. We must accept that there are certain things in society that one must protect. In times of crisis, we must ask what services and sections of society we hold so dear that they will not be touched. We could all rattle them off. They are education, health, people on very low incomes, people with disabilities and people who need additional protection, such as those on farm assist. People on farm assist still populate rural Ireland, despite the fact that they are on very meagre incomes. The Minister must decide not to go below that floor. This morning he referred to this protection but the difficulty is that he keeps moving the floor. If it was set in stone and in legislation, that no one will fall below €200 a week, or any other figure, say, €220, at least we would know. The difficulty is that these are shifting sands. People do not know their position nor where it will all end. They are very fearful as a consequence. The argument for people with a disability needing additional money has been made many times. A person in a wheelchair cannot cut his or her own grass nor clean the windows. Such people need transport and heat and additional medical facilities. We have made the argument many times. It should be a question of what we want to protect and not a 650 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages question of how much can be cut. If it was looked at from that standpoint, it would have been a different budget. What has this Government got against widows or widowers? I am always staggered that women or men with children who lose their partner in life at a young age do not qualify for the household benefits package. If one income is unexpectedly lost from a household with small children, whether the income is small or big it is nevertheless a loss. No one wants to be a widow or widower but such a person has to continue alone caring and providing for a family which two people created between them. I refer to the policy of changing widows or widowers to the single or lone parent family allowance which I regard as the biggest con job of the lot. It is argued that the changeover to this payment will enable them participate on a community employment scheme. This scheme lasts for one year, at most, two years and if one is very lucky, for three years. When it finishes, one is suddenly on a means-tested payment and at the mercy of the Government and the whims of a budget. This should not be the case. Approximately 400,000 people are unemployed and they do not want to be unemployed. They are unemployed now because they were sucked into an industry which was fuelled by the Government but they were left high and dry when the air was let out of it. Many of these people are not in receipt of any payment because they were equally persuaded to go on C2 and C32 certificates. It was a case of become self-employed and you will be fine, which is not a path to social cohesion and definitely not the way to go if we hope to provide a single social pot. I hope the lesson has been learned on that one. These people are now left floundering and desperate to know how they will cope with Christmas. This issue should be dealt with urgently. The Minister lost the argument when it came to this budget. The people who are depending on this Government to put food on their tables and heat their homes and maybe allow Santa down the chimney this year, will feel the pain as a result.

Deputy John Perry: It was regrettable the budget did not contain a stimulus to get people off welfare. The figure of €90 million is referred to. The Government should encourage enterprise and bring those who can work back into employment. The financial institutions and the banks have closed down viable businesses and the retention of jobs is under threat in these circumstances. The most vulnerable in society such as carers, the disabled, the blind and widows, are trying to live on a fixed income and they do not have any allowance for discretion- ary spending. With approximately half a million people unemployed, it would be a good idea to bring 30,000 back to work. For instance, I suggest that job-sharing projects could be encouraged. Unemployed people could work in a business which in turn would top up their allowance to the level of the minimum wage. This concept would help to reduce the numbers on the live register. This budget is all about cuts and it has not provided any stimulus to encourage job creation. The generation of wealth depends on small companies. The 80,000 small companies in the country employing 800,000 people have not received any incentive. If each of those companies were to employ one person, then 80,000 people would be employed. The budget has failed dismally. The Minister did not think outside the box. It is about cuts and more cuts. One job creation incentive would be a reduction in employers’ PRSI if they took on additional staff. If 80,000 people were taken off the live register then there would not be a need to hit the most vulnerable in society. We missed the opportunity of offering a stimulus or encouragement or any degree of hope for job retention and job creation. Instead, the most vulnerable people in society, those on a fixed income, the disabled, the blind and widows must bear the cuts. It is a case of back to the future. A cut of €8 per week, over €800 a year over the past two years, is too much of a hit to take. 651 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy John Perry.]

I am a great believer in the enterprise economy. We have an extraordinary country. In the Coleman centre in Gurteen last week, people recognised the work of community development. I fully recognise the critical role played by the Minister in this regard. I know this budget is not his style of politics because I know he is wants to support job creation. This used to be a two-tier economy but it is now a multi-tier economy. People on lower incomes never benefited from the boom but they really paid the price of the recession. Those on disabled, blind and widow’s pensions cannot work and are on a fixed income. I refer to the money saved to the State by carers who look after parents, neighbours and friends in their own homes. Their work saves the State €2.5 billion. Carers look after people in their own homes up to their dying day. It is invaluable work, giving people a sense of security and independence. It is a very difficult job for very small money and they are being penalised. The budget was an opportunity to recognise these people but they were cast another blow. They never got their due credit even in the good times, the boom times and it is shocking to think they are being penalised in recessionary times. I suggest the Minister could have picked up this €90 million in several other ways. The taxpayers bailed out the banks. One would then imagine the banks would in turn feel obliged to support small companies and, in turn, companies would retain staff. The State bailed out the banks and they have failed to honour their commitment and have failed to deliver, which has put pressure on employers to hold on to staff. There is an extraordinary contrast when we did the bank guarantee. All of this stems from the bank guarantee; for every action there is a reaction. Following the action of the Government in bailing out the banks to the tune of billions of euro, the reaction now is that the most vulnerable in society are paying the price. Despite what the banks claim, viable companies are being closed with jobs that could be maintained being lost owing to the banks’ inability to give working capital to small companies. Jobs are being lost resulting in people signing on for welfare that otherwise would not be necessary. If the banks had given the money initially, these reductions in social welfare benefits would not be necessary. The bank bailout has been the cause of this and the banks have failed to deliver. Following the Government’s action, the reaction now is that the most vulnerable in society are paying the price of bailing out the bankers. It was further compounded today with the announcement of bonus payments to bankers, which is an insult to every hard-working person in the State. The bankers should be giving back their salaries, never mind being given a bonus. If they had any conscience they would say they did not justify getting a bonus. It is an insult to the carers, the disabled, the blind and the widows to hear that bankers are getting a bonus. Those vulnerable people are now paying the price of the banks’ greed. For the past two years all we have heard is talk about the bailout of bankers and bondholders, but there is nothing about the bailout of those who need it most. Of all the aspects of the budget, this is the most outrageous. Green Party Members who were talking about parables earlier have an opportunity to put a clear marker down. We want the Minister to reverse these cuts even at this late stage and find another way to raise €90 million by putting a tax on bankers or refusing to give them the bonus proposed today.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Bill. I wish to follow up on the area mentioned by Deputy Sherlock, the need for support for small farmers. He mentioned Kerry, Donegal and the west generally. I make no apology for saying that the farm assist was needed in areas such as Cavan and Monaghan because of weather conditions and especially the complete collapse in the price of milk to the dairy farmer in 2009. The proposed cutbacks are regrettable as is the imposition of the universal social charge. However, it is even more regrettable that many people who applied way back in 2009 are still going 652 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages through the appeals procedure. Regardless of what was stated in the Irish Farmers’ Journal or elsewhere, many other farmers who wanted to apply were simply told by the personnel that because of their farm size etc. was no point in them applying.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: There is no right for anybody to stop anybody from applying.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I am telling the Minister the facts.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Under the social welfare code anybody can apply for any scheme he or she wants.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I am sorry, Minister——

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Whether a person qualifies then is a matter for adjudication. Nobody can stop anybody from completing a form and submitting it. If a form is submitted it must be processed.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: When they went in——

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Any social welfare officer telling any person that he or she has no right to complete a form is in dereliction of his or her duty. I ask the Deputy to give me the names of the officials who are telling people they cannot make an application, I will immediately arrange for them to be informed that everybody and anybody can make an application on a form to my Department and it must be processed.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: They were advised there was no point. It is as simple as that.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: If they believed they were entitled they should have applied.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: For those who applied, the proof is there in that they still have not got anything even though they can show clearly by their accounts and their bank accounts that they had no income in that period. I can stand over those facts. Those people have got some break this year because of the increase in milk prices etc., which I appreciate. I spoke to a senior person in Teagasc this morning and was advised that pig farmers are in absolute desperation. While they may be seen to have big pig units, they have no income because the price of meal has increased so dramatically and the price of product has decreased so dramatically resulting in serious cash-flow problems. For two years they have been promised that a banking structure would be put in place allowing them to get finances to pay for their meal in time, but many of them are six months behind in payments to the millers and are incurring expenses accordingly. These people are in desperation and feel totally isolated. Given that I have talked about this so often, I had hoped there would have been some resolution and something would have been done about it. It is impossible to believe that widows and widowers have been penalised once again. A widow or widower does not choose to be left without a spouse, often with a young family, a mortgage and whatever else goes with it. Their payments have now been curtailed to the tune of €16 in the past two years, which is extremely unfair. Carers represent one of the most important structures in the country and we are always being told that so many extra carers are getting benefit, which is right and as it should be. So many hospital beds have been closed that there is nowhere for older people to go. If it was not for the caring structures, involving home helps and carers, there would be considerably more trouble than there is and they deserve all the help they can get. 653 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Seymour Crawford.]

I understand the Minister is considering grading the different levels of disability, which I appreciate. I know people who were brought before the medical people in the past year and refused disability benefit, yet they were never examined or looked at by the medical people. The Department is paying for that examination and if anyone was going to a doctor to have an examination privately he or she would make sure he or she was properly examined. However, when somebody goes into a room and is told it is too cold to take off a coat to be examined and is told afterwards he or she is not eligible, questions need to be asked. There is a need to investigate this situation and those who are more disabled should get more benefits. As Deputy Kathleen Lynch said earlier, someone in a wheelchair cannot mow a lawn or do many other things. While these matters need to be considered, they need to be considered in a structured way so that people cannot tell the Minister or me, as elected representatives, that they have not been given a proper examination or properly dealt with. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to reconsider the cuts he is imposing on the widows, the disabled, the blind and others in that category before it is too late. We have heard lectures from Green Party Members, Deputy Mattie McGrath and others. For the past few months they have been telling us over the airwaves how they have stood up for the people. Today they will show if they are standing up for them or not. I cannot believe Deputy Healy-Rae, who is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Protection, would come in and vote in support of this Bill. As he does not often attend that committee, he might not be fully aware of the information we have been given by those with disabilities and others. That information is significant and they have put forward their cases very well. It would be impossible to understand how Deputy Healy-Rae could vote in favour of such measures.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The most obvious lack in the Social Welfare Bill and the budget in general is that of fairness. In the two and half years since this Government came into office, members of the general public have expressed to us at every level that they realise there is a problem in the country and that sacrifices must be made. All they want is that it be done fairly. If it is done fairly, people will accept it, although perhaps reluctantly, but nevertheless they will do so. The problem, however, is that is it not seen to have been done fairly. This is the case when performance-related incentives have been offered to the banking sector at this time. I know this is a hackneyed expression but that is what the people see and they would not recognise that measure as being fair. It is wrong that the sector that is seen to be one of the major players in the downfall of this economy should be rewarded in the run up to Christmas and that the ordinary people who are burdened and hammered by the system are being told they have to take the punishment. A series of punishment beatings — I referred to this last year and the year before — is being administered to the ordinary people, the helpless people, one after the other, and it is not only one beating but a multiplicity of beatings. The cross-cutting nature of cuts that affect them in a multiplicity of ways does not reflect a sense of fairness. It may sound great in some quarters to say, “Look at that lads; was it not great how we got away with it? At a time when they are wallowing in this above in the Dáil, how did we manage it? Was it not great?” The artful dodgers and cute codgers who managed to circumnavigate the system for the last number of years continue to do so. I blame the Government for that as it had the power to do something about it. In this House, we speak about it — this is the Parliament, not the Executive — we talk, we condemn and we complain. It is a matter for the Government to take action and its members are the only people who can do so. I read in a newspaper yesterday that auditors are now being instructed to initial, sign off and date their reports. Under the Companies Act, that is the way it was supposed to have been done. It is incredible that it is only now, given that this is provided for under the Companies 654 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Act 1990, that auditors are being asked to sign off and initial reports, according to an article in yesterday’s edition of The Irish Times. I never saw the likes of that. When the DIRT inquiry was conducted approximately ten years ago, one of its findings was that audits were dealt with in a slipshod and haphazard way. If we think back to the predictions in recent years, certain firms of financial experts use to say of a morning, “The economic fundamentals are good. There is a bright future for the country. Everything is still solid. We are on the right road.” Then another report, obviously produced by a friend of theirs, stated the same thing and after another while, another report was produced supporting what was stated in the first two reports to the effect that, “Yes, you are on the road, lads, you cannot go wrong; this is great, let us go to it once again”. They were all wrong but, unfortunately, they are not paying the price. They are standing around and wringing their hands now and blaming the political system. They are not blaming the people who were in the system; they are not blaming themselves but they are punishing the people. The Government was instrumental in that in that it is allowing them to get away with it. What we have witnessed is appalling. Reference was made by Deputy Sherlock and others to the case of a widower or a widow with a few children in school who gets hammered in every direction in terms of his or her pension and in getting access to supplementary welfare. They are not only subject to one cut. They fail to qualify under new guidelines. The problem for those people is that they are here; they are remaining here and they are now selected as suitable victims in all this charade. It is appalling. We all know people who are in that category — those who do not have any more resources. They would not mind making a sacrifice provided it is done fairly. What is fair about what we have seen unfold in the past few days? What is fair about this budget? The most unfair part of it is that it is deceitful. It will not achieve its targets and that will be the saddest point of all. Much was made of the fact that the respite grant has been retained. That is great but nobody has said there are only half the number of respite beds available to meet requirements — some 697 when 1,400 should be available. Nobody on the Government side apologised for that. Nobody said, “We are very sorry about that but there is a little bit of a problem there”.Ifthe Government does not get the people one way, it will get them another way. Some people will not get respite care. Another issue is the number of applicants whose applications are the subject of an appeal, or even the subject of an appeal for a second or third time, whose appeals have been disregarded and who get the same old story back and forth. This applies to all payments but particularly to illness or disability benefits or allowances. We all know money is scarce at present but, as I have often said in the past, lack of funds is not sufficient or a legal reason for depriving somebody of a payment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It does not happen.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I must tell the Minister that it does.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Deputy keeps perpetrating this lie against the officials of my Department.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: It does happen and the Minister is wrong. I am surprised at you in this respect.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair. 655 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It does not happen.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I did not interrupt the Minister.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): I am protecting the Deputy.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: You are protecting me?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): I am.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It casts a serious slur on the officials of the Department to allege they are not applying the law. I can absolutely assure the Deputy that both the appeals office and the officials in my Department do this on an objective basis. No instruction is given and it would not be legal to give one, other than that this is done in accordance with the law. The Deputy keeps repeating this allegation and it is untrue. I have told him that it is totally untrue. I suggested that Deputy Ring invite the chief medical officer to a committee and he will explain in detail exactly how this operates. What the Deputy said was unfair and the officials are not here to defend themselves. They are not doing what the Deputy stated. It is not the first time this has been said. This allegation has been made time and again. I have offered to explain this and Dr. Leach has offered to come into the committee and explain objectively how they do this. The Deputy’s remark against the officials should be withdrawn until the Deputy has a chance to come in and listen to such an explanation. I hope he would then have the good grace to withdraw the scurrilous remark he made.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): The Minister will have an opportunity to speak. I ask the Deputy to proceed.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Can the Minister explain to the House——

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): No, the Deputy should proceed, as the Mini- ster will have a chance to speak at the end of the debate.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: No, he will not. He has had his chance now.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): He will another chance later.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I will have one too.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): That is why I am giving the Deputy this opportunity.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: If that be the case, can the Minister explain to the House why there are so many cases on appeal now when there has not been that number on appeal previously? Why is that the position? Why is there such a backlog of appeals when there was not such a backlog previously? In all my parliamentary questions to which the 4o’clock Minister replies, he keeps advising of the 44% increase in the applications under the various headings. We all told the Minister’s predecessor of the position last year and she told us she had put in place the necessary measures and staff, including relocating staff, to cater with such matters. Why did that not happen or if it is happening, why does this continue to be the position? Why does the Minister pretend that when I raise this issue it is an attack on the officials. This is not an attack on the officials, as the Minister knows well; it is an attack on the system that is depriving people who ordinarily could expect to have their cases heard within a reasonable time. 656 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

The Minister is shirking his responsibilities and hiding or whining when challenged. It is time for him to stand up and be counted. If he wants proof I will bring him to the people in my constituency arbitrarily cut off because somebody decided these people were capable of work. If that is the case, medical science has been defied as well because in most of those cases, I and others in the House have medical evidence to back up reports already given by GPs; this challenges those who say otherwise. It is insufficient for the Minister to skulk away and say that this is unfair, that there is a child in his arms and he cannot be hit. It is time to clear backlogs and ensure that the people being punished in this country — innocent victims — have their claims heard when they should be rather than being forced to wait, as has been the case heretofore. The Minister should know it is now a time for social healing in this country. The fabric of our society is under pressure and people are looking at each other and blaming each other because they are hurting. They know who is the cause of the hurt but they know they cannot change the Government and must wait for it to walk. They keep asking us why somebody does not do something about the Government. We tell them that we cannot do so as people voted for the Government and we must wait for it to leave of its own accord.

An Ceann Comhairle: I cannot imagine this being concerned with section 3.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I am speaking about the hurt and unfairness that will be caused by section 3.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Come on. It is obvious they do not want to discuss the Bill.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I refer particularly to the need for social healing, which I raise in all seriousness. There is nothing in this section, Bill or budget that in any way contributes to that social healing and understanding required in this country.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I will bring this back to practicalities and we are dealing with section 3. With regard to carer’s allowance and payments to blind persons, the disabled and widows, what is the logic behind the cuts? In my dealings with the Minister I have always found him to be a fair and decent man but these actions are illogical. Deputy Ring made reference to the carers earlier, and we all deal with countless carers in our constituencies. They work in helping elderly parents, a spouse, husband, wife, son or daughter. Invariably, they provide 24-hour care. To qualify for carer’s allowance, the work would be extremely onerous and very time consuming. It needs dedication and should come under the concept of vocation. These people save the taxpayer and State significant amounts of money, with the amount quantified at approximately €2.8 billion per year. Coming back to basics, the Government will take €8 per week from the carer, or €35 per month and €416 per year. That is a significant amount. We can think of the cost in terms of nursing home and hospital expenses and how these are saved. In addition, the sick person is allowed to remain in the home with dignity. I have seen people coming to our office in the constituency and when I visit them in their homes; they are decent and hard-working people who want to look after loved ones. The Government will drive people to a position where they will not be able to afford to do this, and there will be a cost to the State while these people lose dignity. A widow is effectively operating as a single earner in a home, with many having young children or children in college. In my experience, the group should be one of the more admired because they want to do the best for their children. Their payment has been cut. Children in such families have gone from a position where there were two parents in the house to a position 657 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Kieran O’Donnell.] where there is a single parent. With regard to the disability allowance, I have met advocates and those in receipt of the disability allowance, and they want to engage in independent living. The amount of money involved is small but it is similar to the position of the blind person’s payment. I would love to know the Government’s logic in cutting these allowances, the cost of which comes to approximately €90 million. What was the logic of putting €3.5 billion of taxpayers’ money into the banks without looking for a condition that no bonuses be paid at AIB? I heard the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on the radio yesterday being very evasive on bonuses for banks and today it has come into the public domain that a combined sum of €40 million will be paid to more than 2,000 people arising from a time in 2008 when the banking problem was at its peak. What are the bonuses for? This is not a personal attack on the individuals. The universal social charge should be termed the “universal tax charge”. I would like to know exactly what is it supposed to do. It is clearly ill-thought out, as was the income levy. Considering the scheme, there are people who under the health levy were exempt if earning less than €26,000. With the income levy, people on €15,028 were exempt. It is now the case that everybody earning over €4,004 is liable to this tax. Furthermore, the tax benefits the better off, such as those on very high incomes, instead of those on lower incomes. The minimum wage is to be reduced by €1. The irony is that somebody on the minimum wage working 40 hours a week would earn €17,992 a year, paying €360 a year with the income levy; they would be exempt from the health levy and PRSI. Such people will now earn €15,912 if they work for 40 hours per week but will pay €436 through the universal tax charge. There is something wrong in that case. People on higher incomes, such as those on €200,000, gain on the levies that were being paid. On the old scheme, somebody earning over €175,000 per year earned 11%, with 5% on the health levy and 6% on the income levy. They now pay 7% and if they are self-employed, they pay an extra 1%. They will gain 3% if they earn more than €200,000 per year. There is something wrong in that respect. This indicates that the Government has not learned anything in its social policy and that it is tailored to the Galway tent. If not, the Government is so incompetent it did not realise the impact of this measure. Somebody on €300,000 per year will be €3,000 better off. A person earning €500,000 per annum is €9,000 better off under the universal tax charge. The calculation is simple: €500,000 minus €200,000 leaves €300,000 and a 3% levy on the latter sum amounts to €9,000. If a person is earning €800,000, the application of the 3% rate on the difference between €800,000 and €200,000 leaves him or her €18,000 better off. I suggest that the Minister re-examine the proposal. The Minister argues he is trying to encourage people to return to work by reducing the minimum wage. The effect of the budgetary proposals will be that a person on the minimum wage will have less income and will pay more tax. A person working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage earns €346 per week and pays €360 per annum in levies. Under the proposed measures, he or she will earn €306 per week and pay €436 per annum under the so-called universal social charge, which is, effectively, a universal tax charge. Moreover, everyone who earns more than €4,004 will be subject to the tax charge. The flaw in the current system of income levies is that those earning €26,001 pay 4% on the entire sum while those earning €15,029 pay 2% on the full sum. A similar anomaly is built into the proposed system, with those earning €4,004 being required to pay 2% on the balance up to €10,000. 658 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Having found that the system is not integrated, the Government has proposed to reduce the minimum wage. How will we encourage people to come off social welfare by reducing the earnings of those on the minimum wage and increasing the tax they pay? The Government should have considered the matter from the viewpoint of an employer. If it had done so, it would have concluded that reducing the minimum wage and increasing tax for those who earn the minimum wage creates a disincentive to work. It should have abolished the 8.5% PRSI rate for lower paid workers. As the Minister is aware, the cost of an employee to an employer is gross pay plus the employer PRSI. He should have taken a progressive position. The universal social charge measure has been rushed.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Does the Deputy suggest the Government abolish PRSI for employers?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: No, it should be abolished at the lower rate for a three year period.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: What would be the lower rate?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I refer to the 8.5% rate that applies to people on low income.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Such a measure would create an incentive to employers to pay the minimum wage rather than a higher rate.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: No.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Deputy is arguing that if an employer employs someone at the new minimum rate, he or she should not pay employers PRSI, whereas if he or she employ someone on the old minimum wage rate, he or she would pay PRSI. That is a crazy idea.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: No, that is not what I am arguing. The minimum wage is too low to be reduced. If the Government wants to reduce costs for employers, it should abolish the 8.5% PRSI rate for a number of years to encourage employers to retain staff and recruit new employees.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: One would have to give up the income base in that case.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: What does the Minister mean? My point is that one must approach this matter in an integrated manner. Will the Minister justify reducing the minimum wage and increasing tax for those earning the minimum wage? These are the facts. I ran the numbers to show that those earning €17,992 per annum working a 40 hour week at an hourly rate of €8.65 pay a 2% levy or €359.84 on annual earnings. If the hourly rate is reduced to €7.65, they will earn €15,912 for a 40 hour week and pay a levy of 2% on the first €10,036 and a 4% levy on the balance. They will pay €435.76 under the new system. How can this system be described as progressive, especially when someone earning €200,000 will gain under the universal social charge? The position is unjustifiable and suggests the Minister did not run the numbers or consider the outcome of the proposals in depth, as any Government should be required to do. In the cold light of day the Minister will see that the measures are unfair and regressive and do not provide an incentive to take up employment at the lower rate. The underlying theme of all budgets is whether they are fair. While I accept we are in a financial crisis and must find savings and new means of generating revenue, we must do so in a manner that avoids driving 659 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Kieran O’Donnell.] the economy into the ground or leaves the less well-off struggling even more. I ask the Minister to examine this issue. Will the Minister explain the logic of reducing child benefit for the third child by €20 when the reduction for other children is €10? I have four children.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Will the Deputy explain the reason child benefit is higher for the third child than for the first and second children?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The family is bigger.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy O’Donnell to allow other Deputies to contribute.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I can only speak from experience. When we had our third child we found that our costs increased exponentially. There is a logic for the higher payment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Many people argue that the first child is the most expensive because one must buy new clothes and so forth.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It is illogical that the reduction in the payment for the third child is twice as high as for other children. This is an ill thought out proposal.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The payment for the third child is still €27 more than for the second child.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I ask the Minister to reconsider his proposals. One cannot have a position, in an economic crisis, of the better off gaining from a budget while the less well-off pay more. The Government must reconsider its budget.

An Ceann Comhairle: I remind Deputy Neville that the House will divide at 4.45 p.m. I am anxious to accommodate Deputy Charles Flanagan and allow the Minister to respond to Deputies’ comments.

Deputy Dan Neville: I appreciate the position and will make a relatively short contribution. I will address the measures pertaining to the carer’s allowance. Describing the budget as a “slap in the face” for family carers, the Carers Association, in its press statement, noted the following:

The Carers Association is appalled that all the assurances they received from back bench TDs that the Carers Allowance would not be touched in the Budget have come to nought. Family Carers who look after their loved ones in the home save the State an estimated EUR2.8 billion per year.

In return carers receive €212.00 per week, which is not sufficient in many cases to make ends meet. All of us will have seen the pressure many carers in our constituencies are under for various reasons, including financial reasons. The statement continues: “This latest cut of 3.8%, EUR8.05 per week, will have a real impact on the welfare of a very substantial proportion of family carers, already finding it difficult to meet everyday bills like heat and electricity, essential to maintaining the well-being of their loved ones”. We know how demanding the charges for heating and other essentials are and how they impact on the carer because of the loved one’s circumstances. 660 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Much strong language is used in the House at times. I will say merely it is extremely regrettable that the Government has reneged on its promise——

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: No promise was given as to what I was asked to do. I met with various organisations but no promise was given. I never gave any indication and, in fact——

Deputy Dan Neville: The Minister gave a promise——

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I said publicly——

Deputy Dan Neville: ——to protect the most vulnerable in our society but he has gone back on this promise by hitting family carers.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Deputy says I should have exempted carers. What about the people who are being cared for? What about widows?

Deputy Dan Neville: Of course, the Minister must protect them. I am talking about vulnerable people. I am a widower but because of my circumstances, I would not count myself vulnerable. That is a different story.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: This is the challenge. The problem is that if one does that and yet must raise the same amount of money, if one excludes the 260,000 people in question, one must then take from the other categories which puts an unfair imposition on the unemployed.

Deputy Dan Neville: I can repeat my Second Stage speech. Fine Gael clearly pointed out that such money could be available if there was an evaluation of the various schemes and the 20 groups involved. They could be rationalised, giving more efficiency. There are heavy savings to be made in administration that would yield several times the cost of the cuts the Minister is to apply to the vulnerable people——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will allow the Minister back in to deal with points as the debate continues.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: This is Committee Stage.

Deputy Dan Neville: I have no problem with it——

An Ceann Comhairle: We need to put structure on the debate.

Deputy Dan Neville: I am happy to debate with the Minister but——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is drifting somewhat from the provisions in section 3.

Deputy Dan Neville: I do not believe I am.

An Ceann Comhairle: There have been other offenders in that regard.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: This is Second Stage all over again.

Deputy Dan Neville: The proposal to cut the carer’s allowance goes against the Minister’s and the Government’s policy to provide care in the home for as long as possible for older people and people with disabilities. This is another instance of the massive chasm between Government policy and Government practice. In one area there is a policy but this is a practice that goes against that policy. This gap has widened in each of the past three budgets. 661 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Dan Neville.]

In most situations, family carers are relatives, friends or neighbours who provide unpaid care for people and children with a disability, with mental illness or a chronic condition, or for frail old people. Given that carers must be constantly available due to the heavy demands and responsibilities of caring, many are unable to take up employment and therefore are reliant on Government supports. They made a decision to ensure their loved ones are taken care of in their home environment. Let us remember that vulnerable people want to feel, as far as possible, that they can have care in their homes. All our families and extended families have experience of and have responded to that need, that natural human instinct, the desire to be in our own place. In addition, there are significant financial costs associated with caring. I mentioned raised heating costs, the dietary requirements, transport and medical expenses which must often be met by the family carer. Carers provide 3.7 million hours of care each week and save the State more than €2.5 billion each year. The average full-time carer saves the State more than €44,000 per year. We must put in context the contribution carers make. The saving made by family carers is even more apparent when one considers the cost of privately sourced care which comes at approximately €22 per hour. The essential cost of nursing home care is in the region of €800 to €1,000 per week and the cost of acute hospital care is in the region of €5,000 per week. I raise that point to put in context the contribution carers make to the State, to society and above all to the most vulnerable people who are under attack by the Government in this budget. I shall conclude because Deputy Flanagan wishes to contribute. Family carers are already propping up Ireland’s fragile health system but the recent announcements not alone by the Government but by the HSE highlight the expanding role they will have to play in the future. There will be fewer patients in our hospitals, shorter hospital stays and an increasing focus on community care. Research has shown that 90% of community care takes place within the home, yet carers will now be expected to carry an even greater responsibility for community care provisions with a lesser contribution from the Government and the social welfare system. I could deal similarly with the other categories that are counted as vulnerable but I confine my contribution to carers. Although all groups are equal, I wish to make a case for carers because of the contribution they make and the difficulties and pressures they have. I have seen burn-out and high levels of anxiety which sometimes move towards depression because of pressures the carer may have. The Minister should revisit this area.

Deputy Charles Flanagan: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution and add my voice to earlier speakers who condemned the Government’s actions with particular reference to the section of the Bill we are debating, section 3, and specifically about carers and those in receipt of the pension for the blind. There is an eerie irony that this issue is being debated in the Dáil on the same day that bank executives and senior bosses who contributed in no small way to the destruction of our economy are divvying up a Christmas bonus of €40 million between them while we are engaged on savage cuts for the most vulnerable and needy people in society. The Government is against those on welfare but this budget is particularly anti-children. The cuts in child benefit are harsh and biting and will affect children in a fundamentally unfair way, particularly in cases where there is no safety net. I ask the Minister to deal with this in his reply before we finally dispose of this Bill. There is no safety net to assist families who have children on the poverty line. The qualified child increase has not been increased in any way in this budget, nor has the family income supplement. As the Minister will be aware, in 2009 the €26 weekly rate of qualified child increase was paid in respect of 363,000 children and a further 662 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

129,000 children were involved at the €13 rate. Now there are 615,000 children availing of this basic child payment rate. This is fundamentally unfair. I ask the Minister to tell the House and reassure the people that he will not proceed with these cuts as proposed. How can he say it is fair or just to treat a family on €19,000 in the same way as a family on €120,000 a year, with reference to the payment of child benefit? This is seriously unjust and unfair. It will ensure the Government continues to foster injustice and unfairness in its attitude towards children and child policy. It will ensure an unhappy Christmas for hundreds of thousands of children in this country. The Government had the choice; it made the wrong one. I ask the Minister to deal with the following matter, which I cannot understand. A value for money review of child income supports was published by the Minister’s Department earlier this year in advance of the budget. This recommended a policy shift towards an integrated child income support payment but this was not acted on in the budget. Why was that? The child poverty index will show that children in this country are living in consistent child poverty at totally unacceptable rates. In 2008, it was estimated that 6.3% of children were living in child poverty but this has risen to 8.7% in 2009 and will increase further and substantially in the context of the changes the Government is introducing. If further injustices towards young people and children are added in the general budget, as with the cut to adult social welfare rates, the 24% cut in the youth justice budget, the cut in the school transport budget and the cut to special needs assistants, the Minister and his colleagues will do a grave injustice to the children of this country. Families receive no concession from this budget. Children continue to live in deprivation and poverty. The Minister still has time to withdraw some of the more unfair and unjust aspects of this budget. I ask him to accept the amendments put forward by Deputy Ring to ensure at least a modicum of fairness, in which the Minister has failed to engage with this Bill.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: It is an ideology of allowing some people to become very wealthy that is behind some of our economic problems. In terms of addressing those economic problems, we have an opportunity to re-balance the distribution of wealth in our society and to narrow the gap between rich and poor. If we were to take that approach, we would not cut social welfare, which is why the Labour Party opposed social welfare cuts.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It will do it when it is in Government.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: There are plenty of other options for the Government.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: When the Labour Party joins Fine Gael, it will do it.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: It is this Government’s budget.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Labour Party is in the auction politics game.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: The Labour Party identified savings that could be made that did not involve social welfare cuts.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We would not have been able to get the money.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: We will also reinvest a portion of those savings in job creation, which would hopefully reduce the social welfare budget even further.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Auction politics is all they are at — they have started early. 663 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: It is not like the Minister to get nasty.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: The social welfare rates of payment should have been the last thing to go after. The point is that people on those payments spend their money in the economy. People who are wealthy will save their money and reduce their debt but those on social welfare spend their money in the domestic economy. We have lost an opportunity in this regard. Last year, when there was a flat rate cut to child benefit, as noted by Deputy Charles Flanagan, a re-balancing measure was taken by the Government in regard to the family income supplement. If it thought it important enough to do it last year, why is the Government not doing the same this year? While the principle of universal child benefit is very important, if the payment is to be reduced, the Government should have protected the most vulnerable children. Many other measures could have been taken to reduce the social welfare bill. They would take a bit of thought and work but they would not necessarily involve cutting the rates as proposed here.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I do not have much time to address all of the issues raised. On the general situation, since 2004 carer’s allowance has increased by 46.1% for people under 66 years of age, jobseeker’s payments increased by 39.5%, disability allowance increased by 39.5% and one-parent family payment increased by 39.5%. In the same period, the cost of living has increased by 11.8%. Even with these adjustments, therefore, there have been considerable gains since 2004. Many issues were raised in the debate. In regard to carers, I reiterate my view that the most important thing to do for carers was to protect the architecture that exists in terms of all of the benefits they have——

Deputy Róisín Shortall: What about protecting the people?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: That is what I am talking about — the people who receive the half- rate payment and receive an underlying social welfare payment, those who get an extra payment for caring for more than one person and those on the respite allowance. There are very generous income disregards and the payment is considerably higher than the payment for disability, invalidity and so on. Therefore, what I sought to do and have done was to make sure those arrangements that are so valued by carers are kept intact. A suggestion was made earlier that, among the many easy answers, we would put a levy on pension funds. As Minister with responsibility for pension funds, I know many pension funds throughout the country are already in deficit and to add another pension levy would only exacerbate the situation. In fact, the budget seeks to do the opposite and to try to make defined benefit and defined contribution pension funds more solvent so they can give people fair returns for their investments. The easy solution would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Plenty of other things could have been done with regard to pensions.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: With regard to the Labour Party’s partners in Fine Gael——

Deputy Róisín Shortall: They are not our partners.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Fine Gael has proposed over the next four years to cut a further €6 on the jobseeker’s allowance and benefit, which is wrong. I clearly outlined——

Deputy Michael Ring: It is better than touching the blind, the weak and the carers. 664 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I clearly outlined, as did the Government in the four year plan, that cutting rates further should be the last resort and that we were not going to accept there was an inevitability to cutting rates. Fine Gael is inconsistent on this point. Its members keep telling me there are many other ways of saving money, such as fraud control, but they then sign up for a €14 cut in jobseeker’s allowance and benefit.

Deputy Michael Ring: They have a chance to go back to work; the others do not.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We are trying to give as many people as possible on as many schemes as possible a chance to work, including one-parent families and widows.

Deputy Michael Ring: The Government is giving them no chance.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: On the issue of who has money and who does not, I read a recent newspaper report — one would not know whether to believe anything in newspapers these days — that suggested pensioners have €16 billion in savings in the banks. This is, of course, very important to them, and many people have a nest egg of life savings. While it is important we would recognise people have a right to put away life savings, nonetheless, it is an interesting point. I am always consoled when I hear some of the more bizarre policies of Sinn Féin — policies that would break the State and would leave us literally with no money to pay for services.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Minister has not even read our policies. If there is wealth in the country, he should tax it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am always consoled because I look north of the Border and I see Sinn Féin in Government, doing what we have to do here. It gets very responsible——

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: We are not in control of the Exchequer, as the Minister knows well. We do not have the power to raise taxes.

An Ceann Comhairle: Order, please.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is in Government in a state where unemployment assistance is £60 and it seems happy enough with it because it is living with it. I did not hear it asking——

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: If the Minister reads the record, he would stop misleading the Dáil.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: ——for the devolution of the payment of social security payments to the North.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: We asked for the devolution of all finance-raising powers, including social welfare. The Government did not bother with that when it was negotiating the Good Friday Agreement. It was content to sit back and wait.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ó Snodaigh should allow the Minister to continue.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Sinn Féin always consoles me. I know one point about it — when you give it responsibility, it gets awfully hard-headed and very responsible. Many issues were raised in regard to tax. I always believed we should address urgently the problem associated with those on very high incomes. It was not that they were paying at a rate 665 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.] of 52% or 55% because, in many cases, they were paying at a rate of 0%. The Government, in this budget and in the next three or four, will close down the means by which those with high disposable incomes can pay no tax on a large part of their incomes. In this budget, we have made progress on the issue of pension funds, pension fund limits and ways of putting money into pension funds. We have moved on the issue of tax shelters.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Minister is still giving them three weeks in which to grab their lump sums.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Smash and grab.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: What is the justification for that? Some €1.3 million can be taken out without paying tax.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister without interruption.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We are moving on tax shelters and on the thresholds for inheritance tax so that when money transfers, there will be a bigger take for the State. As Minister for Social Protection, I believed it was time to rationalise the PRSI contribution. This means adjustments. What we have done is ensured that everybody who is employed or self-employed, other than those on very low incomes, and public servants will pay 4%. The advantage of having that simple system in the longer term is that it allows one to conjoin the rest of the tax system such that there will not be a rate of 3% for the self-employed, but with no limit, and a rate of 4% for an employee, but with a limit, as used to be the case. In eliminat- ing the old system and having a single rate of 4%, it makes it easier for future Governments to change tax policy without the social welfare contribution, because of its anomalies, creating difficulties. I have always felt it was wrong to attach non-medical entitlements to the medical card. By attaching entitlement after entitlement to the medical card, one puts people in a poverty trap that we have all encountered. People were afraid of doing overtime not only because it would have affected medical card entitlements but also because it would have affected PRSI and other areas. A rational debate is warranted on this. I believe it is better to keep the medical card for medical entitlements and have a more coherent tax system for entitlements not attached to the medical card. In time, when people look back at the old arrangement, they will say it was bizarre and that it is better to pay tax relative to income, not based on whether one has a medical card. When one makes changes in this area, one can encounter hard cases but, in the longer term, a system with a single rate of 4% is better. The system with the 36 rates of PRSI, which I do not believe anybody fully understood, is now much simpler and more understandable, which is important. I am a little surprised by the Labour Party’s great objection to the universal social charge.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Yes.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: What I find strange about it is that the party’s policy was to have much less revenue accruing from expenditure cuts and to tax much more.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: At the top end. 666 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: That may be so. I would like to see how the Labour Party would raise another €2 billion at the top end without having rates of tax of 80% or 90%. However, we will be waiting for the Labour Party.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: That is entirely disingenuous. The Minister knows right well what are our tax proposals. He should, therefore, stop trying to distort the issue.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Shortall should note we are running out of time.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: May I conclude?

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Minister should not mislead people.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: What we are getting at present is auction politics of a very blatant form. What we are getting is two parties who know they will wind up——

Deputy Michael Ring: I ask the Minister to stop considering what his party did before the 2007 election. What it has done over the past 15 years is outrageous.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Ring.

Deputy Michael Ring: We are now paying for the Minister’s auction politics.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We are involved in auction politics in that two parties are putting forward diametrically opposed policies. One is to try to court the supporters in one camp and the other is to try——

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Minister should just account for himself.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am now putting the question.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: Under Standing Orders, I call a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members not being present,

Deputy Michael Ring: On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle: There can be no point of order on this.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle must listen to a point of order.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: Are we not entitled to rise to our feet?

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: I am on my feet putting the question. 667 Social Welfare Bill 2010: 9 December 2010. Committee and Remaining Stages

Deputy Paul Kehoe: There are four Members raising a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle: As it is now 4.45 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: “That each of the sections undisposed of is hereby agreed to and that Schedules 1, 2 and 3 and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, that the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed.”

The Dáil divided by electronic means.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: As a teller, under Standing Order 69 I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means. The reason I give for this is the shameful measures that are before the House. It gives those who criticised the measures and have just voted for them an opportunity to be seen in public voting for the measures that they have criticised.

An Ceann Comhairle: As Deputy Emmet Stagg is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.

Question again put: “That each of the sections undisposed of is hereby agreed to and that Schedules 1, 2 and 3 and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, that the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed.”

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 75.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie. Gogarty, Paul. Ahern, Dermot. Gormley, John. Ahern, Michael. Hanafin, Mary. Ahern, Noel. Harney, Mary. Andrews, Barry. Haughey, Seán. Andrews, Chris. Healy-Rae, Jackie. Ardagh, Seán. Hoctor, Máire. Aylward, Bobby. Kelleher, Billy. Behan, Joe. Kelly, Peter. Blaney, Niall. Kenneally, Brendan. Brady, Áine. Kennedy, Michael. Brady, Cyprian. Killeen, Tony. Brady, Johnny. Kitt, Michael P. Browne, John. Kitt, Tom. Byrne, Thomas. Lenihan, Brian. Calleary, Dara. Lenihan, Conor. Carey, Pat. Lowry, Michael. Collins, Niall. McEllistrim, Thomas. Conlon, Margaret. McGrath, Mattie. Connick, Seán. McGrath, Michael. Coughlan, Mary. McGuinness, John. Cowen, Brian. Mansergh, Martin. Cregan, John. Martin, Micheál. Curran, John. Moloney, John. Dempsey, Noel. Moynihan, Michael. Devins, Jimmy. Mulcahy, Michael. Dooley, Timmy. Nolan, M. J. Fahey, Frank. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Finneran, Michael. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Fitzpatrick, Michael. O’Brien, Darragh. Fleming, Seán. O’Connor, Charlie. Flynn, Beverley. O’Dea, Willie. 668 Financial Emergency Measures in the 9 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Tá—continued

O’Donoghue, John. Roche, Dick. O’Flynn, Noel. Ryan, Eamon. O’Hanlon, Rory. Sargent, Trevor. Scanlon, Eamon. O’Keeffe, Batt. Treacy, Noel. O’Keeffe, Edward. Wallace, Mary. O’Rourke, Mary. White, Mary Alexandra. Power, Peter. Woods, Michael. Power, Seán.

Níl

Allen, Bernard. Lynch, Ciarán. Bannon, James. Lynch, Kathleen. Barrett, Seán. McCormack, Pádraic. Breen, Pat. McEntee, Shane. Broughan, Thomas P. McGinley, Dinny. Bruton, Richard. McGrath, Finian. Burke, Ulick. McHugh, Joe. Burton, Joan. McManus, Liz. Byrne, Catherine. Mitchell, Olivia. Carey, Joe. Morgan, Arthur. Clune, Deirdre. Naughten, Denis. Connaughton, Paul. Neville, Dan. Coonan, Noel J. Noonan, Michael. Costello, Joe. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Coveney, Simon. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Crawford, Seymour. O’Donnell, Kieran. Creed, Michael. O’Dowd, Fergus. Creighton, Lucinda. O’Mahony, John. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Shea, Brian. Deasy, John. O’Sullivan, Jan. Deenihan, Jimmy. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Doherty, Pearse. Penrose, Willie. Doyle, Andrew. Perry, John. Durkan, Bernard J. Quinn, Ruairí. English, Damien. Rabbitte, Pat. Feighan, Frank. Ring, Michael. Ferris, Martin. Shatter, Alan. Flanagan, Charles. Sheahan, Tom. Flanagan, Terence. Sherlock, Seán. Gilmore, Eamon. Shortall, Róisín. Grealish, Noel. Stagg, Emmet. Hayes, Brian. Stanton, David. Hayes, Tom. Timmins, Billy. Higgins, Michael D. Tuffy, Joanna. Hogan, Phil. Upton, Mary. Howlin, Brendan. Varadkar, Leo. Kehoe, Paul. Wall, Jack. Kenny, Enda.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Cregan and Curran; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Kehoe.

Question declared carried.

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Order for Second Stage Bill entitled an Act in the public interest, to provide for the reduction of the amount of the payment of pension or other benefits (other than lump sums) payable to or in respect of certain persons who are or were in the Public Service (including former holders of certain offices, members and former members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and former members of the Judiciary) under an occupational pension scheme or pension arrangement (by what- 669 Financial Emergency Measures in the 9 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 ever name called) which is provided for under the Superannuation Acts 1834 to 1963 or any other enactment or administrative measure to like effect, or is required to be made, approved of or consented to (however expressed) by one or more than one Minister of the Govern- ment; to amend the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 and the National Minimum Wage Act 2000; and to provide for related matters.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I move: “That Second Stage be taken now.”

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 72.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie. Kelly, Peter. Ahern, Dermot. Kenneally, Brendan. Ahern, Michael. Kennedy, Michael. Ahern, Noel. Killeen, Tony. Andrews, Barry. Kitt, Michael P. Andrews, Chris. Kitt, Tom. Ardagh, Seán. Lenihan, Brian. Aylward, Bobby. Lenihan, Conor. Behan, Joe. Lowry, Michael. Blaney, Niall. McEllistrim, Thomas. Brady, Áine. McGrath, Mattie. Brady, Cyprian. McGrath, Michael. Brady, Johnny. McGuinness, John. Browne, John. Mansergh, Martin. Byrne, Thomas. Martin, Micheál. Calleary, Dara. Moloney, John. Moynihan, Michael. Carey, Pat. Mulcahy, Michael. Collins, Niall. Nolan, M.J. Conlon, Margaret. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Connick, Seán. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Coughlan, Mary. O’Brien, Darragh. Cowen, Brian. O’Connor, Charlie. Cregan, John. O’Dea, Willie. Curran, John. O’Donoghue, John. Dempsey, Noel. O’Flynn, Noel. Devins, Jimmy. O’Hanlon, Rory. Dooley, Timmy. O’Keeffe, Batt. Fahey, Frank. O’Keeffe, Edward. Finneran, Michael. O’Rourke, Mary. Fitzpatrick, Michael. Power, Peter. Fleming, Seán. Power, Seán. Flynn, Beverley. Roche, Dick. Gogarty, Paul. Ryan, Eamon. Gormley, John. Sargent, Trevor. Hanafin, Mary. Scanlon, Eamon. Harney, Mary. Treacy, Noel. Haughey, Seán. Wallace, Mary. Healy-Rae, Jackie. White, Mary Alexandra. Hoctor, Máire. Woods, Michael. Kelleher, Billy.

Níl

Allen, Bernard. Byrne, Catherine. Bannon, James. Carey, Joe. Barrett, Seán. Clune, Deirdre. Breen, Pat. Connaughton, Paul. Broughan, Thomas P. Coonan, Noel J. Bruton, Richard. Costello, Joe. Burke, Ulick. Coveney, Simon. Burton, Joan. Crawford, Seymour. 670 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Níl—continued

Creed, Michael. Mitchell, Olivia. Creighton, Lucinda. Morgan, Arthur. D’Arcy, Michael. Naughten, Denis. Deasy, John. Neville, Dan. Deenihan, Jimmy. Noonan, Michael. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Doyle, Andrew. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Durkan, Bernard J. O’Donnell, Kieran. English, Damien. O’Dowd, Fergus. O’Mahony, John. Feighan, Frank. O’Shea, Brian. Ferris, Martin. Penrose, Willie. Flanagan, Charles. Perry, John. Flanagan, Terence. Quinn, Ruairí. Gilmore, Eamon. Rabbitte, Pat. Hayes, Brian. Reilly, James. Hayes, Tom. Ring, Michael. Higgins, Michael D. Shatter, Alan. Hogan, Phil. Sheahan, Tom. Howlin, Brendan. Sherlock, Seán. Kehoe, Paul. Shortall, Róisín. Kenny, Enda. Stagg, Emmet. Lynch, Ciarán. Stanton, David. Lynch, Kathleen. Timmins, Billy. McCormack, Pádraic. Tuffy, Joanna. McEntee, Shane. Upton, Mary. McGinley, Dinny. Varadkar, Leo. McGrath, Finian. Wall, Jack. McHugh, Joe.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Question declared carried.

Business of Dáil: Motion. Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders or the Order of the Dáil of this day, the Dáil shall sit later than 1 p.m. tomorrow and business shall be interrupted on the conclusion of No. a36, statements on reports published by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform into the handling of a criminal matter in Longford, on the Supplementary Order Paper, which shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 65 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: the statements shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, and which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 gives legislative effect to a number of the important measures decided on by the Government and announced 671 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] in the national recovery plan and budget 2011. These are difficult but necessary measures which Ireland must take to secure the budgetary position and promote national recovery. In summary, this Bill reduces some public service pensions by 4% on average to save €100 million in 2011; applies a further substantial reduction to the pay of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers; and amends the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 to allow the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to set a new national minimum wage and give effect to the Government’s decision to reduce the minimum hourly rate from €8.65 to €7.65 an hour. These measures are an essential part of the strategy decided on by the Government, a strategy which we must begin to implement immediately if we are to bring order to the public finances and restore the competitiveness of the economy. I assure the House that the Govern- ment has not decided to reduce pensions or the minimum wage lightly. All of us 5o’clock wish that Ireland was not in this position and that our society did not have to face such difficult choices but the Government must act in the public interest and, in view of the severe constraints now confronting the economy, we have decided that the wider public interest requires that these measures be introduced. Since the House passed the two Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts last year our economic position has become more difficult. Ireland is now in a position where we have had to seek external assistance from the IMF and the EU. Without any correction, the level of public expenditure on pensions is simply not sustainable. Either this House acts now to deal with the problem or the necessary actions will be imposed at some stage in the future. It is important to stress that the Government is also sharing the burden. In asking others to accept income reductions, this Bill shows that the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Ministers are accepting significant reductions in their own incomes. Ministerial pensions will also be reduced as part of the measures being introduced for the entire public service. Considerable controversy arose today regarding the payment of bank bonuses by AIB. The legislation introduced on foot of the State guarantee prohibits the payment of performance bonuses to senior executives and this continues to be the case. Certain bonuses have been paid to a range of bank employees for performance in previous years where pre-existing contractual rights have been built up and legal action was taken by employees to enforce their rights. The schemes where such rights were accrued have been withdrawn since State support was given to the banks. I made it clear yesterday and I repeat today that no bonus has been paid to senior bankers for 2009 and 2010. The AIB executive chairman, David Hodgkinson, has indicated that 2,400 workers will receive an average bonus of €16,700 in respect of moneys owed for duties performed prior to 2008. I welcome that he has clarified that the payments relate to a culture in AIB which he believes belongs to the past and will not relate to the future of the bank. He noted that the issues faced by the bank means that it currently relies on the support of the Government and taxpayers and he is working to ensure that in future the bank’s pay and benefit policy is more reflective of its responsibilities, performance and the economic climate in general. I welcome the statement by the chairman of AIB. The measures contained in this Bill point to the future. They are prospective rather than retrospective. They deal with the future and not the past. Lest there be a lingering doubt in any mind about the position of the Government on this, I have made it clear that no bonuses have been paid to senior bankers in 2009 and 2010 and, as far as the future is concerned, I propose to introduce an amendment to the Finance Bill to put this matter beyond any doubt and provide a 90% rate of charge on any banker’s bonus. That should copperfasten this matter and put it beyond any doubt whatsoever. 672 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

It is the Government’s strongly held conviction that the primary means by which we must reduce the deficit and continue on the road to economic recovery is to reduce Government spending. The cost of providing public services has to be reduced to bring it in line with sustainable revenue levels. That is why this legislation has been introduced. The Bill reduces some public service pensions by about 4% on average, a step which will save some €100 million in 2011. It is not often recognised that many public service pensions are very low. Data for the Civil Service show that about 25% of pensioners have pensions of €5,000 a year or less, while 40% of pensioners have a pension of €10,000 a year or less. It is the case, of course, that many of these pensioners had short service, others may be survivors or dependants of retired civil servants, and some may be also entitled to a state pension. No matter what the causes may be, the fact remains that the pension being paid to these older people after their working lives is small. There is every reason to think a similar pattern is repeated throughout the public service. We have to protect the many public servants and their survivors and dependants who rely on low pensions. Pensioners do not have easy ways of finding new sources of income or reducing their expenditure and, since their incomes are already low, it is entirely appropriate to protect those on public service pensions broadly equivalent to the state pension. Accordingly, the Government has decided that the first €12,000 of pension will be entirely exempt from the reduction. All public service pensions which are equal to or less than this amount — an amount broadly equivalent to the state pension — will not be reduced. Above this level of €12,000 a year, public service pensions will be reduced in accordance with the income bands and rates in section 2 of the Bill. This tiered approach ensures that those with higher public service pensions make a greater contribution than those receiving lower pensions. The rates and bands are set out in section 2 with a 0% reduction on the first €12,000, 6% on the next €12,000, 9% on the next €36,000 and 12% on the remainder of pension income. The Government is satisfied that this is a progressive and proportionate approach, taking account of the need to protect pensioners on low incomes as much as possible. For example, a public service pension of €15,000 a year will be reduced by €180 or just more than 1% annually. A pension of €25,000 a year will be reduced by €810 or 3.2%. On the other hand, a person with a pension of €80,000 will see a reduction of €6,360 or 8% a year in that pension. It is right that those with larger pension income will see the largest reductions. Former public servants in receipt of higher rates of superannuation benefit, including former members of the Govern- ment and the Oireachtas and other office holders, including the Judiciary, will bear the largest reductions. I want to make clear to the House that this Bill does not alter the terms of public service pension schemes in that the reduction will be applied after the pension has been determined in the standard way. The reduction applies only to the pension and does not affect lump sums in any way. The reduction applies to public service occupational pensions only. It will not affect the state pension a person may receive from the Department of Social Protection. The calculation of the reduction in public service pension does not take account of the state pension that may be payable to retired public servants who were members of co-ordinated pension schemes. I also ask Deputies to note that, in the case of those public servants retiring up to the end of February 2012, the measure will apply to pensions calculated by reference to the pre-1 January 2010 arrangements, that is, higher or pre-cut pay rates. This is what has been called the grace period protection of pension provided for under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No 2) Act 2009. I will make an order using the powers of section 3 of that Act to extend the grace period from 31 December 2011 to the end of February 2012. 673 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.]

The Bill provides that the pension reduction will not apply to anyone who retires or whose preserved benefits come into effect after the end of February 2012 when the grace period ends. Instead, their pensions will be calculated on the basis of salaries which have been reduced by an average pay cut of some 7%, as the 1 January 2010 pay reduction will apply to the calculation of their pensionable pay. In short, the pensions of public servants retiring before the end of the grace period at the end of February 2012 will be reduced by about 4% on average and the pensions of those who retire after that date will be reduced by about 7% on average, in line with the reduction in pay following the measures of January 2010. The proposed extension in the grace period to the end of February 2012 is to avoid the effect of a spike in pension lump sums costs in 2011 caused by public servants bringing forward their decision to retire. The extension will help to spread this cost over 2011 and 2012. It may be argued that someone who has worked in the public service for many years and has paid for his or her pension should not be affected by the financial emergency. However, in a pay-as-you- go pension system, the fact is that an active member’s contributions typically pay the pensions of those who have already retired. There is no continuing fund on which the member relies on in retirement. This is the essence of a pension scheme of this type. There is a widening gap between the burden being borne by those in public service employment and retired public service pensioners. Account must be taken of the fact that the pension-related deduction and the pay adjustment have not yet affected those in retirement, leading to, at least, a 10% to 15% difference between a public servant on a pre-cut pay level of about €40,000 and a former public servant on a pension of the same amount. The proposed reduction in public service pensions must be also seen against the background of the general reduction in prices. Prices have fallen and the CPI is now at 2007 levels. On the other hand, public service pensioners received general round increases of 2% in June 2007, 2.5% in March 2008 and 2.5% in September 2008, which is an increase of around 7%. These changes have conferred very significant real increases in income on public service pensions of which the Government had to take account in framing a budget which was fair for all sections of our community. In contrast to the position in the public service, the majority of private sector workers have no occupational pension and, for those who do have some provision, the prospects are not good as many pension funds are in deficit. For those pension scheme members who have defined contribution arrangements or personal retirement savings accounts — PRSAs — negative market returns will have seriously undermined their pension savings. Many who have accrued defined benefits face the prospect of not receiving all they have been promised. Above all, the Government has to consider the longer-term sustainability of the Exchequer and the public service pension system. While the public service pay bill has been reduced since 2009, public service pension costs are increasing significantly. Pensions now account for almost 15% of the total public service pay and pension bill. The cost of public service pensions paid by the Exchequer has increased from €l,433 million in 2006 to more than €2,235 million, an increase of 56%. In fact, the rate of increase in pension costs has been more marked since 2008 and this is mainly attributable to an increase in retirements in 2009. Faced with cost increases on this scale, costs which are clearly going to rise with the ageing of the public service and the additional number of retirements now in prospect, the Govern- ment has to act in the public interest. We must be clear that a pension regime which is not sustainable in the long run is of benefit to no-one, either existing or future pensioners or the Irish economy. 674 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

The Bill makes further reductions in the pay of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers. At the beginning of this year, like all public servants, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and other members of the Government accepted a substantial reduction in their rates of pay. The reductions applied were in accordance with the recommendations of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector, which was established in the 1960s to make recommendations to Government on the levels of remuneration appropriate to senior public service posts. For the purposes of this new exercise, it benchmarked the rates of pay of the Taoiseach and Mini- sters against their equivalents in a number of countries and recommended reductions of 20% in the case of the Taoiseach and 15% in the case of Ministers. These reductions, which were the highest applied in the public service, were accepted and implemented in full by this Govern- ment. The reductions reflected the fact that, in good times, pay rates in the public service had jumped ahead of what we can now afford. The reductions to public service pay generally which were introduced in the budget of 2010 brought pay levels back to a more reasonable and affordable level. By accepting a higher level of reduction, the Taoiseach and Ministers showed they were fully prepared to shoulder an additional burden. There seems to be the view abroad in this country, promoted in some — but not all — sections of the print and electronic media, that no public servant, including office holders, should be paid a salary that reflects the burdens of their offices. This is often linked to the very short-sighted view that talented people should somehow take up the responsibilities of public office on a voluntary basis. Let me be clear. Governing this country, as we all know in this House, is a difficult and complex job, both in good times and in the very bad times we are experiencing now. Those who carry out these tasks in the public interest should have an appropriate payment for it. Why then has the Government decided to reduce their own pay again? Quite simply, it is the strong view of the Government that they should take a further reduction in their pay because we are asking so much of others in this budget. It is the strong view of the Government that they should take a further reduction in their pay because we are asking so much of others in this budget. Under section 7 of the Bill the Taoiseach’s gross pay will, therefore, be reduced again by over €14,000, the Tánaiste’s by more than €11,000 and Ministers by more than €10,000. The announcement has been greeted with a deal of begrudgery and I cannot allow this to go unchallenged. Those who choose to criticise the Government cannot simply ignore the significant pay reductions that have gone before. The fact is that with the changes being introduced in the Bill, the overall reduction in the pay of the Taoiseach since 2008 is now 25% in gross pay or over €90,000 when the pension levy is included. It is 19.5% in the case of Ministers or over €60,000 when taking account of the pension levy. There can hardly be any clearer or better evidence to show that the Government has taken an appropriate adjustment that reflects the reduced circumstances of the country. The combined changes reflected in the Bill, which amends section 2 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009, by substituting the increased reduction for those applied on 1 January this year. The reduced pay rates will have effect from 1 January 2011. I wish to put it on the record of the House that those Secretaries General, whose salary would otherwise have exceeded the Taoiseach’s, have volunteered to take an additional reduction in their salaries to bring them in line with the reduced salary of the Taoiseach. I have agreed to this and I am sure Deputies will join with me in acknowledging this significant, public- spirited contribution. The Bill also changes the national minimum wage. Given the serious economic challenges Ireland now confronts, it is essential that obstacles to growth and employment creation are removed. In view of the high levels of unemployment within the economy, job creation must be the main focus of Government policy. We must move to maintain existing jobs and the 675 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] policy action that the Government has taken over the past two years has allowed us to regain much of the competitiveness which will provide an essential basis for future growth. I am glad to say there is now clear evidence that wage and other costs are adjusting throughout the economy. The fall in the live register in each of the last three months is a welcome sign that these changes are bearing fruit. The Government, however, has decided that we must do more to widen and deepen this process of adjustment, in particular, by ensuring that the labour market works as efficiently as possible Where a national minimum wage is imposed at an excessively high level, unemployment will be higher than it need be. This is especially so in the case of younger persons who can be denied the opportunity to work by the existence of a high national minimum wage. Independent research on the employment effects of minimum wage rates, cited in a recent Forfás report, found that a majority of international studies clearly showed up their negative effect on employment. The conclusion was that, in certain cases, there was evidence that a 10% increase in the minimum wage could reduce employment by up to 5%. While it is the case that 20 EU member states have legislation setting a statutory minimum wage, it is very striking that Ireland’s minimum wage is the second highest in absolute terms and the sixth highest when expressed in purchasing power terms. These facts alone tell us a lot about the loss of competitiveness that must now be recovered. Since our national minimum wage is high by international standards there is a risk, as the OECD economic survey observed last year, that it can restrict employment opportunities for low-skilled workers as wages fall. The OECD recommended that the national minimum wage be reduced in line with falling pay. While the large fall in domestic consumer demand which has affected the Irish economy has played a role in reducing employment levels, it is also striking that the sectors and occupations where the greatest job losses have occurred are generally those most affected by wage-setting legislation. Ireland’s minimum wage has been increased six times since its introduction in 2000 and is currently 55% higher than its original level. By contrast, it is forecast that the consumer price index will have increased by approximately 28% since 2001. The national minimum wage was introduced during a period where we lost sight of the need to maintain competitiveness. The changed circumstances of the Irish economy make it imperative that we take immediate steps to repair the damage done and secure more soundly based economic growth. The Government has, therefore, decided that a reduction in the minimum wage is needed from €8.65 an hour to €7.65 to remove any possible barriers to job creation. Section 13 of this Bill gives the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the powers required to make this very necessary change. I understand the Minister will deal with this aspect of the legislation as it proceeds through the House. I want to challenge the idea that persons already employed on the minimum wage will see their income drop automatically. Anyone already working under a contract of employment that sets wages at or above the national minimum wage is entitled to continue to be paid those wages unless otherwise agreed between both the employer and the employee concerned. The Government decided that the pay of the Taoiseach and Ministers should be cut again. When combined with the changes in taxation and PRSI in the budget, their pay will drop by an equivalent percentage amount, although by a vast or greater sum in cash figures, to the reduction applied to the minimum wage. Ireland needs growth and the jobs such growth can provide. For this to happen, all parts of the economy must be competitive. In particular, sectors such as wholesale and retail, hotels and restaurants, and other services which have real potential for employment creation, must 676 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage be put in a position to expand employment. The Government’s action to reduce the national minimum wage is complemented by the action it is taking under the national recovery plan to review the wider framework of statutory sectoral minima within a period of three months. I am confident that the steps the Government is taking on the minimum wage will remove many of the barriers which now prevent this from happening. I will outline the main provisions of the Bill. It is important that the House notes that the Bill has a preamble and recitals similar to those used in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts 2009. These introductory parts of the Bill explain the policy background to the Government’s decisions and place each of the measures very clearly in the context of the severe economic and fiscal crisis affecting the State. I will not speak in detail here but I ask Deputies to examine them very carefully before they make their final assessment of the measures in the Bill. The preamble and recitals not only make clear beyond any doubt the nature and scale of the budgetary problems Ireland must now confront, but they also record the fact that the Government has taken account of the generally favourable pension terms available in the public service and of the pay reductions imposed on serving staff. Section 1 defines a “pensioner” as a person who is entitled to a public service pension payable under a public service pension scheme, or has a preserved benefit in a public service pension scheme in respect of which the preserved pension age of the person falls on or before the relevant date. “Public service body” means the Civil Service, the Garda Síochána, the Perma- nent Defence Force, local authorities, the National Treasury Management Agency, the Health Service Executive, the Central Bank of Ireland, vocational educational committees, the Econ- omic and Social Research Institute, the Institute of Public Administration, primary and secondary schools, third level institutions and the non-commercial semi-state bodies where a public service pension scheme exists or may be made. The term “officeholder” includes the President, members of the Judiciary, Members of either House of the Oireachtas, members of the Euro- pean Parliament and qualifying officeholders such as Ministers, the Attorney-General, the chairman and deputy chairmanof the Dáil and Ministers of State. “Public servants” are defined as officeholders or employees of public service bodies. Section 2 deals with rates of pension reduction. This section requires a reduction be made to the annualised public service pension payable to a pensioner or someone who becomes a pensioner before the relevant date. Section 3 deals with the calculation of public service pensions not affected. The section provides that the calculation of the public service pension is not affected by the reduction measure, which was applied after the pension is calculated in the normal way. Sections 4 and 5 are technical provisions. Section 6 gives the Minister power of discretion where inequities arise. Section 7 contains the reduction in the pay of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers. Section 8 deals with preserved pensions. Section 9 restricts the scope of ministerial direction. Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, deal with an annual review of the operation of the measures, powers to make regulation and the removal of doubts. Section 13 deals with changes to the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. The budget I announced on Tuesday began the process of implementing the national recovery plan with a wide range of taxation and expenditure measures designed to secure the budgetary position and to put the economy on course to recovery. The preamble and recitals to the Bill show the scale of the difficulties Ireland faces. The future of the country is at stake and we must move at once to put in place the necessary policy response. This is why the Govern- ment decided to introduce this legislation to the House immediately. We do not have time to delay. The changes to the national minimum wage show that we are determined to support employment creation and to restore competitiveness to our economy. 677 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.]

It is entirely reasonable that some retired public service pensioners make a fair and proportionate contribution to the required adjustments in light of the generally favourable terms of public service pensions and the fact that, up to now, no adjustment of any kind has been made to those pensions. This was not an easy decision. No one changes the retirement provision for thousands of retired pensioners and their survivors and dependants, including Members of this House and former Members of the Oireachtas and their survivors, without the most careful debate and consideration. With the pay reductions in this Bill, the Government has shown yet again it is prepared to shoulder the burden and demonstrate that it will lead by example. I referred to the discussion which took place today about banking bonuses. I reiterate that it is intended in the finance legislation to ensure that bonuses will be taxable at 90% in any guaranteed institution. The Government cannot and will not ask those in public service employment to bear a significant additional burden or to ask the community as a whole to accept tax increases or expenditure reductions while nothing is asked of those pensioners who can afford to do so to make a reasonable contribution. The measures in the Bill are a central, vital part of the Government’s response to the economic crisis and I commend them to the House.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

“Dáil Éireann declines to give a second reading to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 having regard to the proposal to cut the national minimum wage by €1to€7.65.”.

There are three main issues in the Bill as the Minister outlined, first the proposed levies on the pension of public servants who have already retired. The levy is significant and will reduce the pension of retired public servants quite substantially. There is some consistency of approach by the Government and it could be regarded as anomalous that, while the pay of serving public servants attracted the pension levy, the pensions of public servants who had retired did not attract the levy. It is also, I suppose, anomalous that one set of civil servants would retire with a pension calculated on the historical maximum pension and a new set of civil servants would retire with pensions calculated on reduced pensions. I welcome that pensions of €12,000 per annum are exempt from the levy and that while the levy applies at escalating levels from 6% through 9% to 12%, the Minister did not introduce a flat-rate levy. The average levy overall is an imposition of approximately 4% on people’s pensions at the highest level, which is a significant imposition. When taken together 6o’clock with the universal social charge and the income tax changes announced in the budget, public servants on pensions will be significantly worse off than they are today. However, so will everybody else except the super rich in society who pay their tax on a different schedule from the rest of us, proprietary directors of companies and self-employed professionals who are having their emoluments enhanced significantly as a result of the provisions of the budget. The scope of the levy seems to include all relevant retired public servants including members of the Judiciary. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the variation in the advice he received on this occasion as opposed to the advice he received in the past that it was not possible to cut the pay of judges. I thought the same would apply to levying the pay of judges to reduce their pay. I understand the position, as the Minister advised us, was that one could 678 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage appeal to the judges’ better nature to voluntarily yield up some of their salaries, but that an imposition could not be imposed because of the separation of powers. I ask the Minister to clarify that matter when replying at the end of Second Stage.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The continuation in office is the constitutional phrase. The reduction can take place only during their continuation in office, not on their retirement.

Deputy Michael Noonan: The Minister might explain that more fully later.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I will.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I am a bit slow on legal issues. The second issue in the Bill is the proposed reduction in the salaries of the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and other officeholders. Fine Gael agrees with the intent of the proposal but reserves the right to further reduce the salaries if we are in office. We believe the proposals in the budget will reduce the income of so many people, including the poorest in society, and that this has left the Government with little enough moral authority. Given the reduction in payments to a variety of social welfare classes, it would have none if Ministers did not take a significant pay cut themselves. No Government would have moral authority after reducing the payments to blind persons, the carer’s allowance, widows’ pensions and allowances to the disabled if they had not touched their own pay. Following the budget there was a view — I believe it was the Minister’s fault — that Deputies’ pay was left alone. I understand that Deputies’ pay was cut by 28% in the past two years. However, it is not correct — as the public seem to believe because the Minister did not include it in his budget speech — that Deputies are unaffected by the budget. A new PRSI rate of 4% will apply to the pay of all Deputies and when this is taken with the decision already made to abolish increments to those Deputies who qualified for them, the loss will be approximately €10,000. Some Deputies, if elected to the next Dáil, will receive €10,000 less than they are receiving at present after the cuts. There are issues here as well and I wonder what the future generation of Deputies will do. At present take-home pay seems to be approximately €4,000 per month for Deputies, depending on their tax. If another €10,000 per annum is taken out in March or April after the general election they will be taking home €3,200 or €3,300 per month, which seems tight enough for Deputies with families at the expensive ages in secondary school and for whom they will need to pay fees in university. I am not beating my own drum — thank God, my adult children are now self-sufficient and are off the payroll for the time being at least. However, I know many of my colleagues have very heavy personal expenses. It is amazing what the public perception is about the manner in which we are paid and the amounts we are paid. Last week one of my colleagues told me he had to meet approximately 300 pensioners at a meeting of the elderly. He was challenged on a number of occasions about his pay and why he would not take a reduction in pay, which they believed would balance the budget. He produced a payslip from his pocket and they were absolutely amazed that a gross salary of approximately €8,000 ended up being slightly less than €4,000 in his case. There was no more argument when he showed it around. He advised a group of us that we should never go out without a payslip in our pockets. He said all argument died once they saw it. Fine Gael believes the reduction of €1 per hour in the minimum wage is a bad decision given that the minimum wage applies to less than 4% of the labour force. Many of those on the minimum wage are young and many are also immigrants, including young immigrants. A €1 per hour reduction on the pay of those workers on a 40-hour week results in a reduction of €2,080 on small income, which is a big whack of money. In addition the universal social charge 679 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] also applies to those on the minimum wage and of course child benefit reductions apply. After this budget, a mother on the minimum wage with three children is down by €2,600. On budget day the Minister announced that one of the purposes of his budget was that those who could best afford it would pay, but he did not carry that through. A mother on the minimum wage with three children is down by €2,600 on a gross income — including child benefit — of less than €18,000, which is a major imposition and is very unfair. We will not wear that and will move amendments on Committee Stage to oppose that. I return to a point I made earlier today. I am not sure if the Minister is aware that in his calculation of the universal social charge, while he put the income and health levies together, he stopped the levies at 7%. Proprietary directors of companies and self-employed professionals were paying 11% previously on incomes in excess of €200,000. The Minister has cut the PRSI by 1% for those persons, but they still have an advantage of 3%.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: We have increased it by 1%.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I know. The Minister has taken away the 4% completely and by increasing the PRSI by 1% they still have an advantage of 3%. The calculation is simple. They are paying more up to €200,000 or maybe slightly above, but for every €1 after that they have a 3% advantage. So a tribunal lawyer on €1 million per annum will be €24,000 better off next year. While there are not many people on €1 million, there are many people on €300,000, who will be €3,000 better off in take home pay next year than they are this year and that is taking into account everything in the budget. There are no other downsides that I have not taken into account. For a person on €500,000 — which is the kind of money a number of barristers and propriety directors would be on — the advantage of 3% on the interval between points 2 and 5 is three times €3,000 which works out at €9,000. Such a person would take home €9,000 more in 2011 while a woman on the minimum wage with three children would take home €2,600 less. That cannot be right. It belies the principle of the Minister’s budget. He can argue that this category of taxpayer had a very high marginal wage and if times were good and we were in the midst of the Celtic tiger era, we would say that it is a very high marginal wage; he might be able to argue the principle of this, but I draw attention to this in circumstances where everything that moves is being examined to see if a tax can be imposed on it. I note the Minister is shaking his head.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The restriction on pension relief will have a huge impact on the categories the Deputy mentioned.

Deputy Michael Noonan: Perhaps the Minister is able to justify it, but I have had the best of tax layers contact me today explaining this in detail.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: If the Deputy submits an appropriate proposal, I will examine it for the Finance Bill.

Deputy Michael Noonan: We will leave it for the Finance Bill. The Fine Gael proposal to abolish the 8.5% of employers PRSI was a better proposal than the abolition of the minimum wage. We capped that at around the total minimum wage and it would mean €30 to an employer taking on somebody. That is a more just incentive than reducing the minimum wage. The employer is worried about the cost of the job and if an employer’s PRSI commitment can be reduced by €30 that gets him or her very close to what he or she would gain by a reduction of €1 in the minimum wage. That would be more progressive and it would protect the more vulnerable people in society. To put it bluntly, the Minister’s proposals 680 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage on the minimum wage are a savage imposition on the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, many of whom have very little protection or rights at work. They have to work and that is their income. It would be easy for some of them to drift back into welfare, but they are people with a work ethic who want to work, they are earning low pay and the Minister is hitting them very hard. A issue that has arisen today, which the Minister addressed in his contribution, is the payment of bonuses to certain employees of the covered institutions. That should be levied. We will table amendments on Committee Stage to allow the Minister an opportunity to examine this and to impose a levy to remove it, unless this was done with the Minister’s permission. The Central Bank has raised serious doubts about it in a statement it issued this afternoon. I would be quite concerned about what is happening. My colleague, Deputy English, will deal with the Central Bank’s statement later in the debate.

Deputy Joan Burton: I wish to share my time with Deputies Penrose, Sherlock and Ferris.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is agreed.

Deputy Joan Burton: I want to move a Labour Party amendment to Second Stage of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I advise the Deputy that while she can refer to the amendment she cannot move it as there is an amendment already before the House.

Deputy Joan Burton: Yes, but I can read it into the record.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Of course.

Deputy Joan Burton: The amendment states:

Dail Éireann declines to give a second reading to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill, 2010 having regard to:

1) the decision to cut the national minimum wage by one euro to €7.65; the hardship that this will cause for workers earning at the lowest levels; the fact that this cut will do nothing to promote job creation and will make no difference whatsoever to the State’s budgetary position; and the decision to abrogate the long-established consultation process for determining the appropriate level for the national minimum wage;

2) the manner in which the reduction in public service pension is being applied which will see retired public sector workers on pensions of as little as €230 per week being subject to a cut of 6% in their income.

We have endured many days of shame and national humiliation brought about by Fianna Fáil’s mishandling of our economy and its failure to safeguard the vital interests of the public, as compared to its safeguarding the vital interests of its cronies and friends in the banking, development and construction industry. Restoring financial stability means restoring trust to this economy but restoring financial stability to this economy, as far as Fianna Fáil is concerned, means making the poor and the most vulnerable pay and causing people facing into Christmas and hoping to have a happy time with their families and their friends to fear the kind of cuts to be imposed on them. It is shameful that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has launched this Bill, this attack on people who have a public service pension, particularly on people who earn the minimum wage, on a day when he has the gall to come into this House and stand over the 681 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Joan Burton.] reports that high level employees in Allied Irish Bank are to receive a payout of some €40 million in bonuses. That is a testament to the bonus culture that has destroyed our banking system, cost many people in business their businesses and many workers their jobs. It has meant that if people on the minimum wage, ranging from blind people to carers to retired public servants on modest wages to people who are flipping hamburgers in McDonald’s or in other fast food outlets, change their jobs, the next time they take up work their wage will be cut by no less than €1 an hour, and if they work for 40 hours a week, they will lose €40. At the same time, this Government will levy them with a new tax introduced in the budget, namely, the universal social charge. The Minister has been economical with the truth in all of his previous budgets and in his six different statements on budget and financial emergency measures. His boast that people on the minimum wage would not be brought into the tax net was rendered hollow by the introduction of the universal social charge. It is important to put on the record of this House that section 2, dealing with the universal social charge in Resolution No. 13 introduced on budget night, specifically states: “THAT, with effect from 1 January 2011, there shall be charged, levied and paid, in accordance with the provision of this Resolution, a tax to be known as the “universal social charge” in respect of the incomes specified ... “. With the exception of social welfare payments and pensions, all income over €4,000 a year, that is over €80 a week, is to be subject to this new tax. So much for Fianna Fáil’s vainglorious boast that people on the minimum wage were not being brought into the tax net. It is typical of this Government to bluster, prevaricate and when the facts are undeniable then to pretend to change the facts. The bonus of €40 million announced for Allied Irish Bank executives today comes after a bonus last year of €54 million. This amounts to a total of €94 million in bonuses for executives in Allied Irish Bank over the past two years since the bank guarantee was brought in. The current Stock Exchange value of the bank is not much over €500 million. Although it goes up and down very slightly, the value is currently approximately €540 million. The bonus amounts given out in respect of this bank are just under 20% of the bank’s value. We know that last week the people negotiating with the IMF, ECB and European Com- mission did not do a good deal for Ireland but where were the brains of the Brians on the night they ran to negotiate the guarantee? There was no conditionality on the banks which brought this country to its knees to stipulate that the culture of bonuses — which drove our banks to destruction and has led to many ordinary people in this country losing their business, job or pension — should be changed. There was nothing to say that although we might assist the banks or bail them out, the culture of bonuses and greed that bankers and their buddies in construction exemplified would be brought to an end. There was no insight and intelligence to protect the public interest. A retired civil servant may have a modest Civil Service pension. We should bear in mind that according to statistics from the Central Statistics Office, there are approximately 126,000 public service pensioners, with 35,000 earning under €12,000. I am thankful they will not be affected. Some 40,000 retired civil servants have a pension of between €12,000 and €24,000, with 50,000 on a pension of between €24,000 and €60,000. These are the people who will take the principal hit. Only 1,000 retired civil servants receive a pension above €60,000. I have received correspondence from people who seem to be practically crying in writing e- mails to me. People are losing three times in this budget. Retired pensioners from the Civil Service on more than €12,000 per year are affected, as credits and tax bands are being decreased; there is a reduction in the pensions I outlined; and there is also a universal social charge. The health contribution exempted people on a medical card but the new universal social charge does not exempt such people. Somebody who left a job — either in the public 682 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage service or another sector — on a modest pension because of a disability used to be exempt from the health contribution but will now have to pay it. Parents with a disabled child, where one parent is working and one is acting as a carer, will find the person who provides the care will lose €8 per week in what is a typical scenario. The working parent will pay a higher levy, whereas he or she would have been exempt from the health contribution. What this Government has done is unbelievable, and it is all for the banks. It was not to save the banks or credit in the country because all it has done is make the banking position progressively worse. In 2011, this country will spend €5.1 billion paying interest, so the €6 billion in the budget will basically go to pay interest on the debt that has been accrued on our behalf by the bankers.

Deputy Willie Penrose: As the Labour Party spokesperson on enterprise, trade and innovation, I wish to make a contribution on behalf of the Labour Party relating specifically to section 13 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010, which proposes to reduce the minimum wage by €1 from €8.65 to €7.65 and thereby amend section 11 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. As most people know I have been privileged to serve as chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for the past three years and in that period I have facilitated various interest groups in making presentations to the committee, including representatives of the various industry sectors, such as services, hotels, restaurants and others. In this context, whereas the various groups have referenced the minimum wage, it was never elevated in my opinion to the level of it being of absolute and crucial importance that it be reduced. The greater import in many submissions was that the joint labour committees, registered employment agreements and employment regulation orders should be addressed and modern- ised, especially to protect conditions where Sunday work may be part of the weekly commitment and might not attract premium payments in current circumstances. That is a completely different concept from what prevailed when these agreements were negotiated and people did not normally work on a Sunday. There are areas which can be updated and modified to take account of current circumstances but the proposed cut is a Government decision. For a while it tried to offload the blame for this decision to the shoulders of Mr. Rehn and Mr. Chopra but that indication was untrue. The proposal to cut the minimum wage by up to 12% is proof positive that the least well off and most vulnerable are fair game as far as this Government is concerned. I am worried about the part of the Bill indicating “Whereas the State is availing of financial assistance programmes provided by the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the European Financial Stability Facility and the International Monetary Fund and it is necessary to take the measures in this Act as part of a range of measures provided for in those programmes to address the economic crisis in the State”, which appears to indicate this measure forms part of the agreement with the IMF, EU and other parties. I would like clarification on this as the text implies that the measure had to be taken as part of the agreement. My understanding is it was not proposed by those gentlemen as part of the negotiations. The Government has indicated that a future Government would not be in a poor position and would not be circumscribed; the text implies the opposite. Cutting the minimum wage makes no sense at any level and undermines the social floor, where people are already struggling to survive. The hardship that such a cut would impose would be very significant for the households relying on minimum wage employment and would 683 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Willie Penrose.] clearly act as a disincentive to work. There is no evidence that such a cut would create a single job but there is ample evidence that it will increase poverty and hardship for many families. Adding the universal social charge, which the Labour Party leader, Deputy Gilmore, referred to this morning, means that in some cases people at work are worse off than people who lost their jobs. This will accelerate a call for further cuts in social welfare and a deeper impoverish- ment of very large sections of our community. This presages a race to the bottom. Just 52,000 people are earning at or close to the minimum wage. Some people earn less because there are exemptions for those under 18 and others. To argue that the cut will significantly add to our competitiveness does not stand up to any objective scrutiny. The measure will not reduce the fiscal deficit by a cent but it is clearly part of a neoliberal orthodoxy that should be anathema to all fair-minded people. On 24 November, after the Government’s four year plan was published, the Labour Party stated unambiguously that it would oppose this miserly proposal tooth and nail. I reiterate unequivocally the Labour Party position: we would not countenance any reduction in the minimum wage and we will not implement such a measure if part of a future Government. A full-time employee working 40 hours per week on the minimum wage earns €346 per week or €18,092 per year, which is a low income. As I stated, there are reductions for those under 18 or in their first job, so their wages are even lower. Among EU states the wage ranks 12th when measured as a percentage of average monthly wages and ninth in terms of purchasing power parity. Reducing the rate by €1 per hour, €40 per week or €2,080 per year reduces the annual wage income to €16,012, or €306 per week. We should remember there has been no increase in the minimum wage since July 2007, some three and a half years ago. We are already aware and deeply concerned about 116,000 workers living below the poverty line, with the working poor making up 24% or almost one in four of all those in poverty, or 40% of all households in poverty. We are also aware that the minimum wage is especially relied upon for protection by women, with almost six from ten women in the work force relying on the minimum wage. It is therefore critical. Migrants and other vulnerable workers, some of whom we met today protesting outside the gates of Leinster House, are also affected. We also acknowledge the importance of the role of the statutory minimum wage in protecting against unfair competitive advantage by unscrupulous employers who exploit their workers. The minimum wage is extremely important from this perspective and as a means of establishing a social floor. Under section 41 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, an employer in financial difficulty may apply to the Labour Court citing inability to pay if the minimum wage has caused extreme difficulties. Despite the Government’s position, as set out in the legislation, this facility has never been invoked by an employer. A decent minimum wage backed by statute is a statement of core values which provides a threshold of decency under which society agrees that workers’ wages should not fall. The proposed reduction signals the start of a race to the bottom in which low wage workers, public and private sector employees, social welfare claimants and pensioners will suffer. What argument has been advanced to support the Government’s logic that poverty wages will create more jobs and that welfare rates must be below the poverty wages? If one follows this logic to its conclusion, further reductions in social welfare payments will be required to maintain the race to the bottom. Was a cost-benefit analysis carried out in respect of the proposed reduction given that a lower minimum wage will increase demands for secondary benefits, for example, family income supplement and medical cards? The result will be greater expenditure by the Exchequer. While 684 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage the Government may have the numbers to pass this legislation, my party will fight it tooth and nail. According to the Bill, the proposed reduction will not affect current contracts. An amendment should be introduced to provide that section 13 does not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act to ensure that people will not exploit the legislation, if passed. It is peculiar that section 10, which provides that before 30 June 2012 and every year thereafter a review will be undertaken of every provision of the legislation, excludes section 13 from the scope of such reviews. Why will the minimum wage not be the subject of review? In addition, the Labour Court’s role in this matter has been removed and transferred to the Minister. This is a fundamental issue which requires proper debate and careful assessment rather than rushed legislation. A reduction in the minimum wage will not contribute to competitiveness or job creation. It is a major mistake which the Labour Party in government will not be party to implementing.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: I wish to share time with Deputy Ferris.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Sherlock has seven minutes and Deputy Ferris three.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: I will share time equally with the Deputy. If I understood the Minister correctly, bank bonuses will be taxed at a rate of 90%. I have not been informed as to the number of employees who will benefit from bonuses. If, however, 90 employees of the banks which come under the guarantee were to benefit from a bonus of €40 million, each of them would receive €444,444. If a tax rate of 90% was applied to this figure, they would each receive a net payment of approximately €44,400. Any type of spin which seeks to dissipate the effect of paying these bonuses will not work because the beneficiaries will still receive significant sums of taxpayers’ money. An underhand approach has been taken and the legislation needs to be revisited in this regard. It is immoral that bonuses should be paid to fat cats when those on the minimum wage are countenancing a cut in their income. Some 6,000 signatures of people opposing the cut were gathered in the past 24 hours by the Migrants Centre of Ireland whose members campaigned outside the gates of the House today. The payment of bonuses to bankers is an affront when juxtaposed against cuts in the incomes of people who are barely surviving on the minimum wage. It is an insult and certainly not how the country should do its business. The introduction of the new universal social charge will bring those on the minimum wage into the tax net. The Minister misled the House last night when he stated those on the minimum wage would not be subject to taxation. The universal social charge is a tax, as explicitly stated in Financial Resolution No. 13. The Minister stated: “In the measures I am presenting today, those on the new reduced minimum wage will not be brought into the tax net.” Is he suggesting that those on the minimum wage will not be subjected to the universal social charge? It is as clear as the nose on my face that if one earns more than €4,004, one will be subject to the charge at a rate of 2% up to €10,000. There is a question mark over whether one can claim back the charge for the first €4,004. This matter should be clarified. The bottom line, however, is that the Government is not only reducing the minimum wage but removing the exemptions enjoyed by those on the minimum wage and subjecting them to a new tax. This measure is woefully inadequate and inequitable. If one subscribes to the notion that everyone must share the pain proportionately, one must accept that the proposal requires people on the minimum wage to pay a disproportionate amount. The measure must be opposed. 685 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Seán Sherlock.] I am proud to oppose any proposal that seeks to reduce the pay of those who are on marginal incomes.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I thank Deputy Sherlock and the Labour Party for allowing me an opportunity to speak on this issue. Of all the cynical, nasty things thrown at ordinary people as part of this budget and the so-called road to recovery, cutting the minimum wage surely stands out as the most malicious. It is malicious in so far as people who are dependent on the minimum wage to make ends meet will find their incomes cut by 12%. This is a disgraceful proposal. Earlier, outside the gates of Leinster House, I and other Deputies stood in solidarity and support with the victims of this Government’s vindictiveness. For those of us on a higher income, a cut in salary of 12% would perhaps mean having to forgo certain luxuries. A single person earning €306 per week — €304.27 after the universal social charge is applied — will have to make stark choices every day of the week regarding food, rent, the cost of heating and the cost of travel to and from work. This is before he or she enjoys any sort of social life in the community. Cutting the minimum wage has been presented as a means of stimulating the economy. How in the name of God can anybody sit on the benches opposite and tell us that taking €42 per week from people on the minimum wage will stimulate the economy when every cent received by people on that wage is spent in the local economy? It is spent to keep small shopkeepers going and on every other local concern. It is mind-boggling that Government Deputies can sit there and make such an assertion. Taking money out of the local economy does not stimulate the economy but has the opposite effect. The logic employed by this Government makes it believe that taking billions from the spending power of Irish citizens for the so-called bailout, which will be thrown into a black hole in the banks, will create growth. It will have absolutely the opposite effect. By the same logic this Government criticised my party and others for proposing that the National Pensions Reserve Fund be used as a stimulant and then turned around and placed the entire pension fund as collateral for the banking debt. It took that money to bail out the banks — it is as simple as that. We need to stop and think how we can bring this anti-national, anti-citizen Government to book. If it does not go quietly by January, perhaps we should honour the 92nd anniversary of the first meeting of Dáil Éireann with a national day of protest. Irish working people and all who are angered and ashamed by the surrender to the IMF and the banks need to make their feelings crystal clear, especially given speculation that the Government may pull a sleight of hand measure and ensure its term goes beyond the timeframe demanded by the Green Party. We cannot afford this Government any further time because it may use that time to sell off State assets to its friends. This came to light recently. I refer to speculation about Coillte and our forestry, some 7% of the land of this country, and the ESB. I call on all those Members of this House who are outraged by this nasty manoeuvre, including some from the Government parties, to vote against the decision to cut the minimum wage and vote against this budget because of what it has done to the people of this State. My party will also vote against the cuts to be imposed on low and middle income public service pensioners. If, as Sinn Féin proposed, the Government had capped salaries of higher public servants at €100,000 some €350 million per year would have been saved for the State. That represents most of what has been cut from social welfare rates for people of working age and is nearly half of what is being cut from the health budget. In regard to the rates of pay of Government officeholders my party has made its position clear by calling for greater cuts than are proposed in the budget. We sat and listened to the budget speech. Not one penny was 686 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage taken from the salaries of Deputies or Ministers of State but the Government took 12% from people on the minimum wage. It defies logic and is an absolute disgrace. It shows what this Government stands for, namely, the developers and the banks, cronyism and its friends. It does not stand for the citizens of this State but abuses their rights to service both its own political ends and its friends in the Galway tent.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): I shall begin by considering issues raised in regard to the minimum wage. The minimum wage was introduced in 2000 at the beginning of a period of sustained economic growth and subsequent rapid wage increases across the economy. However, in the past three years our circumstances have changed dramatically. Price levels have reduced and earnings have adjusted downwards to help to preserve jobs. Although I appreciate the genuine concerns of all Deputies regarding the impact of the proposed cut it is important to point out some background. When the minimum wage was introduced in April 2000, it stood at IR£4.40, the equivalent of €5.59. The wage has increased six times since its introduction and is now 55% higher than its original level. In contrast, at the end of 2010 the consumer price index is forecast to have increased by approximately 28% since 2001. A wage rate of €7.65 per hour, as proposed, or the 2005 rate, will still be substantially higher in real terms than when first introduced. When a minimum wage is at a high level and unable to respond to downward pressure in the labour market unemployment is more likely to persist. As has been pointed out to every Deputy in the House over the years, there are many workers who would be willing to work for a wage lower than the national minimum but their employers are restricted from providing these job opportunities. A high minimum wage can also act as a barrier for younger and less skilled workers to enter the labour force and take up jobs and can also prevent small and medium enterprises from adjusting wage costs downward in order to maintain viability and improve competitiveness. The minimum wage section of this Bill is designed with these aims in mind. Recent research published by Forfás and advice following from that indicate that a reduction in the national minimum wage can result in an increase in employment in the medium term. It is expected that there will be a benefit to the Exchequer in terms of savings from reduced transfer payments and increased taxation that may accrue from the increased employment arising from a more flexible labour market. I have consistently stated in this House and in other fora that we need to ensure that labour costs and wage fixing mechanisms do not have a negative impact on economic performance and employment levels. It is within this context that the Government has decided that a formal review of our statutory wage setting mechanisms, employment regulations orders, EROs, and registered employment agreements, REAs, should be undertaken within a short timeframe. The terms of reference are being finalised for that review which will allow Members of the Oireachtas to make their proposals known. I hope to publish them shortly. It is important to point out, in reference to the speech by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, earlier today that the ministerial order will set out that where an employee is already working under a contract of employment that sets wages at or above the national minimum wage, the employee is entitled under his or her contract of employment to continue to be paid those wages unless otherwise agreed between both the employer and the employee concerned, or unless the contract stipulates that the employer pays only the national minimum wage hourly rate. An existing employee will be under no obligation to accept a rate of pay reduced by the employer on a unilateral basis as an employer cannot arbitrarily impose a new rate of pay that would contractually bind an existing employee. If the employer proceeds unilaterally to make 687 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Dara Calleary.] a change in agreed rates of pay the employee would have grounds for a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act or for breach of contract in common law. In that context it is important to note that within the existing minimum wage legislation and even in the context of the downturn of the past three years, with the pressures being experienced by many employers in the sector that this mechanism has not been initiated. This would suggest that the vast majority of such employers would not seek to impose wage reductions unilaterally on existing employees. This decision is part of a series of attempts to facilitate job creation and foster an environment that seeks and promotes a return to sustainable employment. In this regard it is important to point out that the reduction in the minimum wage is only one element of the labour market reforms outlined in the national recovery plan. which will also include a review of sectoral agreements, new labour market activation policies and a review of our welfare policy. The package of measures reflects our determination to stimulate growth and create jobs. Getting people back to work is the number one priority of every Deputy. It is the driving force behind everything that we do. In this regard, the budget shows that we will continue to spend significant sums on investment to sustain employment and growth. Over €1 billion will be invested in my Department’s capital programmes in 2011, to support almost 10,000 jobs. It will give the labour-intensive construction industry a much needed boost through the introduction of tax incentives for retrofit schemes and by reforming the relevant contracts in tax regimes, in particular, in withholding tax. There are a number of other measures including the revamping of the usiness expansion scheme, the extension of the employer job PRSI incentive scheme, the extension of the tax exemption scheme for start-ups and the extension of accelerated capital allowance scheme for energy. In addition, there is an additional programme of activation measures to keep the unemployed close to the work force. This means that they will be in a position to take up jobs which arise as the economy recovers. Five thousand additional places will be provided in the private sector under the skills development and internship programme, which the Minister, Deputy O’Keeffe has discussed in detail with the business community in recent months and which will offer substantial opportunities for graduates. Another 5,000 places will be provided in the public service under the work placement programme and a further 5,000 places will be provided in the community and voluntary sector under the community work placement scheme. In spite of what many will say, the national recovery plan and the accompanying budget are designed to foster jobs, growth and stability. Although it is difficult this Bill is another important step in this regard and I commend it to the House. The Bill before us today, while difficult, is another important step and I commend it to the House.

Deputy Damien English: I wish to share time with Deputies Deasy and O’Donnell.

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

Deputy Damien English: The main issue I wish to address is the minimum wage but I will come back to it later. Before the Minister for Finance ran out the door, he mentioned taxing bank bonuses at a rate of 90%. Fine Gael has put forward an amendment for tomorrow to tax the AIB bonuses being discussed today at 99%. We could take that amendment tomorrow, which would solve the Minister’s problem. I want the Minister to clarify whether he means retrospective bonuses or future bonuses under existing contracts. It is a very important issue. 688 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

There is nothing more sickening than to read in the newspapers that staff in the banks are still being paid massive bonuses, and for what results? It is worse to read that staff in the HSE are paid bonuses as well, when the results are just as bad, although that is a different area. This culture of bonuses needs to be examined. In the banks it encourages bad practice and should be dealt with for that reason. However, in other areas such as the HSE and the public service, bonuses are paid simply for their own sake and for staff looking after each other. Both cultures are wrong and both can be changed by Govern- ment, although they have not been. The issue must be tackled. I hope the Minister will clarify his vision of the 90% tax rate on bonuses and when he intends to introduce it. The Minister was less than clear in his budget speech as to how he will reduce the wages and pay structure for CEOs of State bodies. He talked of hopefully reducing the wage to €250,000 and putting a cap on it but he was not very clear that he really intends to do this. It is easy for him to write it into the budget because he is going out the gate in a few weeks anyway and will not have to do it. There is no point in him saying it if he cannot do it. Will he introduce changes to tax CEOs’ pay above €250,000 at 99%, which would solve the problem? If he cannot legally change the wages, he can tax them. He should name those involved, one by one, and bring in the tax rate to deal with this. It can be done within the law. If it can be done for bank bonuses, the Minister can do it with regard to high wages in State bodies. The Minister should put his money where his mouth is. He should do it, not just talk about it. Before leaving the issue of bank bonuses, the Central Bank issued a report last week on the pay structures and pay systems of the banks. I cannot believe that two and a half years since the scandal broke as to what went on in the banks, nothing has changed. The Minister practically owns most of the banks and has a fair say in the ones he does not own, yet nothing has changed when it comes to the system of payment to the top executives — I am not talking about the workers who have to take all the hassle at the front desk. The top executives are still getting away with murder. The report stated that the pay structures are less than transparent in many situations. We own the banks and the pay structures should be clear. The staff are practically public servants at this stage. The report states that the situation is open to abuse and risk, that bonuses are still encouraged and that the culture and the method of payment is still wrong. The worst point in the report is that the banks are still open to the abuses that caused the difficulty in the first place. I cannot believe the risk still exists years after the disaster that has crippled this country and which is half the reason we are here discussing a draconian budget. The Minister needs to cop on and start doing his job with regard to the banks. He needs to once and for all put manners on those at the top levels. The Minister referred to how he reached the figure of 4% for the reduction on the pensions. He calculates this by factoring in the first €12,000 at 0%, the next €12,000 at 6%, then 9% and then 12%. Is this same method used to calculate the interest rate of 5.8% for the bailout fund? Is the money Ireland is putting into the fund being charged at 0% and then the rest of the money at other percentages, which brings the real rate down to 5.8%? The Minister has been less than clear to the House what contributes to the 5.8% rate. If this is how he reaches the 4% rate in this case, I presume it is how he reaches the 5.8% rate for the bailout fund. He might take the opportunity to clarify this point. If we are factoring in our own money at 0%, it means the bailout money is much dearer than 5.8%. People have a right to know what they are paying for that money. We know the IMF money comes at a rate of between 4% and 4.5% so somebody is charging us a lot of money for the use of their money. This needs to be 689 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Damien English.] transparent. The interest rate is too high for one section of the bailout and the matter needs to be clarified.

Deputy Dara Calleary: The Deputy will have a chance to ask on this point on Wednesday next.

Deputy Damien English: I should not have to ask. If the country is taking a bailout of €85 billion, it should be clear to everybody who is getting what out of it. The cut to the minimum wage is the most disgraceful thing this Government has ever done. The Minister of State sat at our committee meetings — I see the Chairman is present — where we asked those who were promoting this notion to prove it to us. The Minister of State quoted a Forfás report but that does not actually suggest reducing the minimum wage will increase jobs. Instead, it states a 10% increase in the minimum wage could reduce employment by up to 5% — it does not state the opposite and it does not recommend it be reduced. Those who came to the committee tried to claim this had to be done but none of them came back to us with proof they were right. If we thought people were missing out on jobs due to the minimum wage, we would agree to consider this. No one has given us that proof. It is unfair to say it and it is unfair to do it. If a person is on minimum wage, due to the lack of public transport in this country, in most cases the person will have to have a car to get to work. There are costs to employment in that one has to have suits, a uniform or other clothes to go to work, as well as lunch and so on. It is hardly worth a person’s while to go out and work for the new minimum wage. It was very tight on the old rate but this is disgraceful. The Minister said he wanted to challenge the idea that persons already employed on the minimum wage will see their income drop automatically. Of course they will. The Minister claims such people will have a contract. We know what will happen. The contract will be ended and somebody else will get the job at the lower rate, or the gun will be put to their head to take the lower rate. The Minister should not say people will be protected because they will not be. They know the Government does not protect them. It cuts them at every opportunity it gets. It is wrong that Ministers’ pay is as high as it is. Ministers should not clap themselves on the back for taking a small cut. There is no need, when a Deputy becomes a Minister of State or Minister, for an increase of €80,000 or €90,000. Ministers get such an increase of staff, a car and everything else that they do not need double the wages on top of that. A Minister’s job is probably easier than a Deputy’s and they should not be paid twice the money.

Deputy John Deasy: Last night in this House, a Member, in regard to the corporation tax rate, referred to Ireland as “a semi-fraudulent tax haven for major international companies dodging paying their legitimate taxes in their own countries”. It reminded me of former Deputy Joe Higgins, the socialist MEP, who said on Waterford local radio some weeks ago that he advocated doubling the corporation tax rate of 12.5%. As I said at the time, the effect would be that multinational companies like GSK and Genzyme in Waterford would not be long in re-evaluating their position in Ireland. A couple of recent comments from executives caught my attention, including one from Hewlett Packard which suggested that if the tax rate increased, it would be re-looking at its investment in Ireland, and, in regard to Pfizer, it was reported “Giant US multinationals may stop investing in Ireland or pull out completely if our 12.5 per cent corporation tax rate is hiked as part of the bailout”. 690 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

It is worth repeating a few statistics. For the first 11 months of 2010, there was a surplus of €589 million in corporation tax. In November alone, companies paid more than €1 billion in tax, which was one fifth of our total tax take, effectively making up for the drop in income tax. These companies employ 240,000 people, account for 70% of Ireland’s export market and are probably the most important ingredient in any export-led economic recovery. We know all this, as it has been repeated before. Perhaps some of the left-leaning politicians will explain how we will pay social welfare if these multinationals leave this country. It is fair to say our corporation tax rate is not the only reason multinationals are in Ireland. Some believe our rate is the lowest in the world but it is not. There are many 7o’clock reasons multinationals come here. It is not wise to become fixated on this element alone. An executive from a major pharmaceutical company was in my office yesterday and he talked about the standards in science and in schools and about corporation tax. He talked about standards in universities and State aid for research and development, etc. However, there is a growing body of opinion in this country to the effect that we have become slightly complacent about our corporation tax rate and almost fixated upon it as if it were the only relevant issue. While doing this, other countries are thinking about it and acting to make their own tax codes more competitive and, more important, more attractive than our own. An example concerns a Labour Party idea adopted by the Conservatives recently, which in itself says something. It was announced that corporation tax in the United Kingdom will be reduced from 28% to 24% over the next four years. What caught my eye was the patent box concept. By April 2013, a tax rate of only 10% will be applicable to profits from patents in the United Kingdom. This will be very attractive to the pharmaceuticals industry. In Britain, HM Treasury spokespeople are talking about making the UK tax code far more competitive. Should we be concerned about the UK plans with regard to patents? Our four year plan considers closing down income tax shelters from patent earnings. This recommendation was made by the Committee on Taxation. There is now a debate taking place on whether steps have been taken recently that would compensate for that. Let me quote a pharmaceutical executive on the UK patent box tax rate of 10%, which he believes has the potential to transform the way Britain is viewed by investors:

For too long, while great inventions and discoveries have been made in this country, down- stream economic activity in development and manufacturing, and associated employment, have been attracted to other countries that had more favourable corporation tax regimes. In one stroke, the introduction of the UK patent box will help to change this dynamic [completely].

This is relevant for me because the same company has announced it is investing £500 million sterling in the United Kingdom due to the announcement of the patent box reforms. This company employs 800 people in my constituency. While we have been concentrating on the corporation tax rate, our competitors have moved on and are thinking ahead. They are being innovative. It is on innovation that we need to focus. We need more innovation in our tax code so as to attract more investment. We must not become fixated on what we have. The hard left is getting a little giddy about the electoral gains it might make in the next election. It sees the collapse of Fianna Fáil as its ticket to the socialist republic. I have one thing in common with the Member who said in the House last night that Ireland is a “semi- fraudulent tax haven for major international companies dodging paying their legitimate taxes 691 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy John Deasy.] in their own countries”. This morning Citibank announced 250 jobs for my constituency and in the constituency of the Member in question. Jobs, rather than a failed ideology, are all that matter and that are of importance. It is a question of jobs and enterprise, not about socialism.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I was looking at last year’s Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and found the two last lines interesting: “Our plan is working. We have turned the corner”. I find this ironic because neither of these statements has come true. With regard to section 2, are the adjustments being made to pensions being made by way of a levy or cut?

Deputy Dara Calleary: It is a cut, a reduction.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It is a cut rather than a levy. Will the Minister of State outline whether the Government considered a levy rather than a cut? Let me deal with the minimum wage. While we all believe the country should be competitive, we must strike a balance. The Taoiseach’s salary was €228,187 and is being reduced by €14,000, bringing it down to €214,187. This is a reduction of roughly 6%, yet the minimum wage has decreased from €8.65 to €7.65, representing a reduction of 12%, almost double that applicable to the Taoiseach.

Deputy Dara Calleary: What about the reduction over three years?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: When one is considering measures that have moral authority, one must note the reduction in the minimum wage is double the reduction proposed for the Taoiseach. A salary of €214,187 does not compare with the minimum wage of €15,912. The Taoiseach’s salary is approximately 13 times the minimum wage. The annual minimum wage currently amounts to €17,992 if one works a 40-hour week. It is proposed to reduce the hourly rate from €8.65 to €7.65, a reduction of 12%, bringing the annual wage to €15,912. This amounts to a reduction of approximately €40 per week, which is significant to the individuals concerned. A person on the minimum wage currently pays an income levy but no health contribution or PRSI because of the exemption. The income levy amounts to approximately €360. Recipients of the reduced minimum wage, when brought into effect, will pay an extra €115 per year, resulting in a total of €435.76. It strikes me as illogical that, although one’s income is decreasing, one is paying a higher tax. This is because of the universal social charge. The charge should be called the “universal tax charge” because that is all it is. A social charge normally implies a charge for some social service. I would like to know exactly where the money accruing from the so-called universal social charge will go. It is no more than a tax. Let me make a comparison. Under the current system, a full-time employee on the minimum wage will more than likely not qualify for rent supplement and would have extreme difficulty qualifying for a medical card. Under the proposed system, with its reduced minimum wage, recipients will be earning just under €40 less per week, which amounts to just over €2,000 per annum. There is no incentive for people to work. While the economy must become more competitive, a balance must be struck. The proposal we put forward was more to do with reducing the overall cost to the employer by exempting the lower rate of PRSI for three years to reduce the cost on the employer by approximately €30 on or around the minimum wage. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on it. I hope he will review it. I hope also the Government will see that this measure is draconian and does not make sense. It is illogical 692 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage because it is reducing the minimum wage while increasing the tax. It is not progressive. Under the universal social charge system, someone earning over €200,000 a year, for example, a proprietary director or someone who is self-employed, is gaining from this budget. That is inconsistent. We must have a progressive tax system. This measure is draconian and regressive and it will put people deeper into the poverty trap.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: There are issues to be balanced in this Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill, which brings together into one a number of separate items. The minimum wage has just been referred to by Deputy O’Donnell. There is also the pay issues for the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers, and the issue of the public sector pensions. I want to address the issue of the national minimum wage first because there is eating and drinking in it, so to speak. On the one hand, the OECD proposed the reduction of the minimum wage in Ireland but, on the other, it sent a cautionary note. I want to examine the broader picture. I am not a fan of the narrative that because we pay the second highest minimum wage in Europe, it is an easy excuse for lowering it. I would have said we are certainly not the second or third wealthiest country and we should have a more comparative minimum wage. At the same time, we have issues in that our cost of living is higher and we are on the periphery of Europe. We have other issues that would argue for our minimum wage to be kept at a higher level. It is a bit of a juggling act, therefore. When the Minister for Finance was asked in August 2009 — I remember it well because I was on holidays and having lunch in Clara, of all places, the Taoiseach’s home town——

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Obviously, the Deputy is pally with him.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: I thought the Deputy meant Clara Lara.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The midlands does not benefit enough from tourism. I am trying to help develop the area.

Deputy Willie Penrose: I want to invite the Deputy to Mullingar to visit Belvedere House. He would love it.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I have been to Belvedere House. It is a great place and anyone inter- nationally reading the Official Report——

Deputy Dara Calleary: Senator Cassidy would entertain him as well.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Connemara and Wexford are places I visit as well but I happened to be in Clara and we heard the Minister for Finance state on a radio programme that he would not consider cutting the minimum wage and that it was not on the agenda at that time. He said if it affected employment prospects he might revisit the issue, but he thought it was something that would be more applicable to the Labour Relations Commission. It certainly was not an issue for the Minister himself, but he has now come back and said, along with his Cabinet colleagues, that it has to be changed. A major campaign is being organised, primarily by the Mandate union and SIPTU, to put pressure on politicians to vote against it the change. A compelling argument is being put forward in that regard but we have to weigh matters up. We must examine the impact on low earners but also the impact on job creation. Regarding low earners, I am somewhat sceptical in regard to unscrupulous employers. We know, for example, that some employers might attempt to force employees to take a pay cut against their will. That would be in breach of their current contract but some of them will try 693 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Paul Gogarty.] it. They will tell their employees that they can cut their hours from the roster, their job is finished and they will find some way of creating a new post. They can basically bully people, and we have to monitor that. The type of people who are likely to be bullied are not the ones who might know of the existence of the National Employment Rights Authority. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the measure, I believe some unscrupulous employers will try to take advantage of it. That must be examined immediately. There is no point in bringing in a measure and letting it take effect without any comeback. This measure will not come into force until the legislation is passed. Any employer attempting to take on a new employee at the new rate before the legislation comes in is also in breach of it and the person should contact the NERA immediately. It is an obscure body, however. The average worker would not be that familiar with it, although I am aware the unions make people aware of their rights. The key aspect in acknowledging that unscrupulous employers will try to coerce and misin- form employees is that the new minimum wage will apply only to new contracts. In that regard we are moving on. It is similar to what happened in the teaching sector, for example. I suppose it is an attempt to bring our cost of living down to levels——

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: On a point of order——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I will yield to the Deputy.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Many of the people on the minimum wage are in casual labour. They are working with an employer——

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): That is not a point of order.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It is a point of information. They could find themselves moving to two or three new employments in a year. If they move from one employment they will certainly be on the lower wage.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Deputy Gogarty, without further interruption.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The Deputy’s point is taken but for people who have a part-time contract they are working for the period of time that gives them the legal protection, and they cannot be taken out of that situation. The vast majority of workers in the country now cannot be told to take a pay cut. If it is above the minimum wage, people can and have been told to take pay cuts. I suppose the positive side to this, although it is certainly not positive in terms of the impact on people, is that if most people in the private sector are taking pay cuts — with the exception of those who won their court case in regard to banks, which was appalling — the public sector has to take them as well if taxes are increasing. The take-home pay for everyone is way down. Arguments were made about the impact of the Social Welfare Bill on those least able to afford it today. I put my viewpoint on the record on that earlier but, in general terms, social welfare as a budget had to be cut. In that context, the amount of money everyone has is being cut. Ireland’s standard of living is going back to 2002 levels at worst. The trouble is, as I said in my previous contribution, we were enjoying German standards of living but the Germans are a frugal people. The Germans do not even have a minimum wage, although they do have specific agreements for different sectors. A German doctor, for example, cannot afford to take three holidays a year. One of my colleagues told me he knows of a family on welfare who travel to Anfield six times a year. I do not begrudge anyone anything but at the same time our standards have risen to the point 694 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage where we are behaving in a manner well above what our national income can afford. It is because of this that we are cutting back. The argument about the banks is for another debate.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Tell that to someone on the minimum wage.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Two thirds of the reason we are cutting back in this budget is because we are spending more than we are taking in. We have to reign ourselves in. Everything has a knock-on effect. We cannot have very high levels of social welfare that are a disincentive to work while at the same time cut amounts for people who are on the borderline. Everything must be proportionate and while I personally would argue against reducing the minimum wage, I see the logic of it. We are not Germany. As I said earlier, we are more like Spain. If one goes to Spain and buys bottled water, it is a fraction of the price here. If one works there in a coffee shop, one gets paid wages that are a fraction of what one gets paid here. Our overheads are far too high and we must bring our costs down collectively. That does not mean letting employers unscrupulously exploit employees. The idea here is to allow employers take on more casual and part-time employees to get a little stimulus going to try to create jobs. Even at the new minimum wage, it is better than being on social welfare, which has gone down also, particularly for those under 25. There is still an incentive to get into some form of work. It is better than not working at all. That is the point of this. The national minimum wage will only come in to the income tax net in 2014 and one can see it still provides a clear incentive to employment. In Greece, another bailout country, the minimum wage is €4.28. In Spain, it is €3.84. In Portugal, it is €2.86. As I stated previously, in Germany — from whom we should learn much financially, at least — they do not have one, and yet Germans are able to raise their families, care about children and are able to contribute to overseas development aid.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I would hope so.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: Do they need a medal for caring for their children?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Can we have one voice, please?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: All I am saying is that the Germans have always been a frugal people. We should be learning from them and cutting our costs, particularly in the catering and hotel sectors. Then we might be able to employ more people and encourage some of the Germans with disposable income to come here.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Those involve JLC rates.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: Which is €11.45 an hour.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Rather than us asking the Germans to give us an extra €1 billion to put on our credit cards we should be saying that Ireland is a cheap competitive place to visit, we welcome Germans, they love Ireland, they should come over here, we will give them a good time, and we will take their money and give good value for it. That is the way it should be. We should be trying to develop good ways of investing German money rather than paying them interest for the privilege of overspending. In saying that, I do not buy into the argument that we, as a country, spent way beyond our means and it had nothing to do with the banks and the politicians; it did. However, our costs are far above those of others. Look at our neighbours in Northern Ireland. Their social welfare rates are a fraction of ours. I have told this anecdote previously, that if one goes to a garage or a hotel in Northern Ireland, one meets a Northern Irish person. 695 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Paul Gogarty.] One does not meet Poles or Latvians, who are very capable hardworking people. Nevertheless, in the tourism industry people want an Irish experience. The reason there is an Irish experience in the North is partly because Northern Ireland has a lower standard of living, but it also means Northern Ireland has a lower cost of living. By and large, it is cheaper to support one’s family and to buy goods and services in the North than it is down here and, therefore, Northerners can have a lower income. We need to stop imagining that we are the high-flying, free-spending Celtic cubs. We are not any more. We are, at best, like the Spaniards. We are a mid-level, middle-income rich country. We are far richer than those in sub-Saharan Africa, which is why I still support the fact that we are continuing to contribute to overseas development aid at a reasonable rate but we are not a rich country to the extent we thought we were. In that context, given that the national minimum wage was increased six times since 2000, this one adjustment is not the worst that can happen. I believe Deputy English mentioned that 2007 was the last time the minimum wage was increased. That was just before Lehman Brothers collapsed. It was when Ireland was still an economy booming on the overspill of the boom years of stamp duty revenue and when the service industry was still going strong. It was when we were going over the cliff like one of those Road Runner movies, not realising the ground had fallen beneath our feet. At that stage, the minimum wage increased to its highest level. National income has declined and we are still paying back our debts, and if we are cutting everyone’s pay, then, in line with social welfare cuts, the minimum wage needs to be cut as well. It is not nice to say. However, we hope that the price of goods and services continues to decline. There is marked evidence that they have. In the consumer price index, since 2008 there has been a 7% decrease overall in the price of general goods and services. The price of some products, such as petrol, has increased but, in general, prices have fallen. How many minutes do I have left?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Five minutes.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I welcome the pension reform measures. Some of the public service pensions will be reduced by approximately 4% on average. This, as the Minister for Finance stated, will generate a €100 million saving in 2011. It is a significant saving in the context of a €6 billion adjustment, and it had to be done. It does not please anyone to have to do it, but the money must be found. Earlier today I spoke about the issue of pay cuts and I want to elaborate. I mentioned that a levy is to be introduced on Deputies which was not well advertised and that the media seem to be saying that we were not taking a pay cut, which we are. I also note the comments made by other speakers on the Taoiseach’s salary and that of the Tánaiste and Ministers. I am glad that people are belatedly addressing this issue. As I stated in 2002 and 2003, we needed to take a pay cut. When I called for a pay cut for Ministers in 2008, Deputy Kenny stated it was populist nonsense. In fairness to him, he did a U-turn the following week and took a 5% pay cut, and tried to persuade some of this parliamentary colleagues to do the same. We are all taking a pay cut, whether we like it or not. That is the only collective way one can do it. As a Green Party member I give to my party the maximum permitted donation of €6,300 because we do not take corporate donations. In view of this, one is at a disadvantage compared to some other parties when fighting elections. One can only go so far in taking voluntary pay cuts when one knows one’s colleagues in other parties have a little extra cash to spend on advertising, race nights, literature, etc. 696 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: What does that say about Deputy Gogarty?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The other measure I welcome is that on vouched expenses. It means that people can prove where they spent their money. They can also prove that being in politics is a costly business. I do not subscribe to cutting pay so much that it provides an incentive either for corruption or for merely the wealthy to get into politics, but we must set an example at a time when everyone else has been pinned to the wall. There is a little room for more to be done, in terms of the Taoiseach’s salary and that of Ministers, and some more in terms of Deputies. I would hope that there is another increase to the same measure in next year’s budget. It is essential. Following my earlier speech to which I have referred, Deputy Noonan mentioned some of the existing anomalies in the case of very high earners and he made a relevant point. If those anomalies exist whereby the self-employed are a little better off following this budget, it sends out the wrong signal. I acknowledge the effort made, which was to try to equalise the system under the USC so that the top 52% marginal rate was paid by both the PAYE sector and the self-employed to ensure it goes a good way towards creating a unified tax system. However, in creating a unified tax system, one is benefiting some of the self-employed. A budget that is, in essence, trying to be fair, must, as well as being fair be seen to be fair. Deputy Noonan — to whom I paid tribute previously for his brave stance in abolishing Fine Gael’s taking of corporate donation and for whom I have a great deal of admiration — has referred to this anomaly. While it only affects a certain cohort and while, as he pointed out, a person on €100,000 is contributing five times more than a person on €20,000, it sends out the wrong signal at a time when we are saying, for example in the social welfare budget, that those who can least afford them must take cuts. I hope the Minister for Finance returns with the speed with which the Government returned last year when the remunerations of certain civil servants were restored post haste. I hope these anomalies can be ironed out, even within a unified system. Why not increase the top marginal rate to 53% or 54%? At least it would mean the anomaly would be narrowed. Perhaps it is because the PAYE sector might be hurt too much and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that it is something that can be addressed next year and that it will be ensured that the self-employed pay their fair share once more. It certainly sends out the wrong signal at a time when we are making a tough budget in the national interest. It has to be done and I think a genuine effort was made to make the budget fair, but it also has to be seen to be fair.

Deputy Joe McHugh: I wish to share time with Deputy Andrew Doyle.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Joe McHugh: How much time do we have?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): The Deputies have 20 minutes in total.

Deputy Joe McHugh: It is not longer than that?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): No.

Deputy Joe McHugh: Is the debate not continuing until 8 p.m.?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Yes, but this slot is 20 minutes.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: It is 19 minutes now. 697 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Deputy Joe McHugh: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak. I will highlight one comment made by the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, prior to the budget which was that he committed to ensuring that no sector would avoid a cut. In fairness, he has achieved this; not one sector has been left out of the budget. The question of leadership, or a lack thereof, is raised. We have a petrified paralysed Govern- ment more afraid to make decisions than to think about positive action and proactivity. This is at a time when there is anger, disillusionment and apathy in the country. I believe apathy is far more dangerous than anger and it has entered this stage, which the Minister of State knows from travelling the length and breadth of the country. We have a crisis. The budget was an attempt by the Government to get the country back on track towards recovery. This certainly will not be the case. We have had two years of nervous anticipation and expectation of cuts and more cuts. As John Maynard Keynes pointed out, it is the expectation of cuts rather than cuts themselves that can be more dangerous to an economy. I spoke to a small shopkeeper in Letterkenny who was able to point out to me that his sales in the three weeks prior to the budget were down 20%. It is this type of nervousness in the economy, the issue of leadership and the paralysis surrounding and associated with the Government that has left the country in a perilous state. While accepting that we have to make hard decisions, we must also accept that we have to make changes including to the type of governance employed in the country. I do not think the budget has done so in any way. It is very big on theory but the specifics have been left out. Cuts of more than €742 million will be made in health but we have not been given specific information on them. Last year, €90 million was allocated to the National Treatment Purchase Fund, NTPF; this has been reduced by €5 million to €85 million. While €5 million is a lot of money, we are still spending €85 million on getting rid of gridlock and queues in our health services and on accommodating people who cannot otherwise avail of hospital services. I have just received a note with clarification on the slot. I believe it will run until 8 p.m.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): No, it is a 20 minute slot. If Deputy McHugh wishes to use all of that time it is open to him to do so.

Deputy Joe McHugh: Yes, I will use all of the time. The NTPF represents acceptance by the Government that health service provision is not working. More than 2,600 patients have been referred from Letterkenny General Hospital to other hospitals, many of them to Ballykelly hospital, a private hospital in Northern Ireland. This raises an issue. If we want to keep money in the State and are trying to create economies and to use Government money in a worthwhile fashion why are we abdicating responsibility for performing operations? Consultants in Letterkenny General Hospital are being paid but they are idle as they do not receive the services to carry out orthopaedic surgery. In this day and age, why are we sending patients across the Border to Ballykelly hospital? While Ballykelly hospital and the surgeons there provide an excellent service, and the patients who have gone there speak very highly of it, why are we not considering a model whereby we do not have to send them there? We have beds——

Deputy Martin Mansergh: On a point of order, does this have any relevance to the Bill? We seem to be discussing hospitals and health. Have I come into the wrong debate?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): I take the point. I ask the Deputy to stay on the thrust of the Bill and what is contained in it. 698 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Deputy Joe McHugh: I am speaking about proper leadership and the budget yesterday which, as far as I am concerned, missed the point completely in terms of challenging how the country is governed. It is a missed opportunity. I speak to people in my constituency who, no matter what industry or business they are in, are strangled by red tape. Business, potential business and expansion of business are choked because people cannot carry out their business activity on a day-to-day basis. The people of the country are in a maxed out state in terms of surviving on a day-to-day basis never mind a week-to-week basis. The budget was a missed opportunity. The country needs to evaluate where it is in terms of debt, negative equity, people not in a position to pay back their mortgages or loans or to pay their rent and get by on a day-to-day basis. This is the problem with the level of anger that has moved on to apathy, and the level of apathy that has moved on to disillusionment. Yesterday, people wanted some form of leadership that would have proven the Government was willing to make hard decisions but it did not happen.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): As Deputy McHugh has not used the full time allocation, I will now call on Deputy Doyle. Deputy Lynch will then take the final slot.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: I thank Deputy McHugh for sharing his time. I have not had the opportunity to speak on the budget or the Social Welfare Bill because there has been so much interest in them. So many Members have wanted to express their anger at the measures taken that I left them the time to express their views. However, I would like to point out that the first responsibility of the Members of this House is to lead by example. Unfortunately, that example has not been set over the past couple of years. Instead, the policy of the Government Members has been to bury their heads in the sand, deny anything is wrong and insist that we have turned the corner. We have turned the corner so often that we must be going around in ever smaller circles, because we are now back way behind where we were two years ago and way behind where we should be today had we taken corrective action at the right time. Nonetheless, Fine Gael has accepted the broad parameters of what needs to be done to restore stability so that we can send home the people who have been riding shotgun over the country and those who have been in Government. We will be all right on our own and do not need them anymore. The budget, the four year plan and the deal negotiated here last week show all the hallmarks of a Government that is bankrupt of ideas. It is a Government that no longer has the moral authority or the vision to implement measures that will restore the country to stability. I would like to focus on the issue of the minimum wage, having listened with interest to Deputy Gogarty. Of itself, the minimum wage is not the problem. Less than 4% of the working population is in receipt of it. Deputy Gogarty referred to the hospitality sector. Members of the hospitality sector, the Restaurants Association of Ireland and IBEC, made representations to us asking us to deal with two issue — reference is made to these issues in the IMF proposal and in the budget. They asked that registered employment agreements and joint labour committee terms would be dealt with through legislation and negotiation. It would have been far better to have implemented the Fine Gael proposal concerning those on low pay, which was to forego the PRSI contribution of 8.5% up to the level of the minimum wage, approximately €356 per week, than to impose a cut on the minimum wage. What will happen now is that those people whose wage will be reduced to €7.65 per hour will fall back on the safety net of the family income supplement and other measures, which will cost the State as much as the money foregone and probably more. At the same time, the cuts will deny employers the opportunity to employ people and generate wealth and stimulate further employment if money was available from the banks. I will not go into the issue of credit 699 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

[Deputy Andrew Doyle.] other than to mention that this dimension is something else that must be tackled. Stimulating employment would have meant we had people working who did not require extra assistance from the State. There will be no difference in the cost to the State as a result of the reduction in the minimum wage but it will make a huge difference to prospects for employers. If an employer was going to employ someone at a rate of €7.65, he would do the same if the rate was €8.65 but there was an 8.5% exemption from PRSI. The cost to him would be the same. It makes more sense to provide the exemption from PRSI and I cannot understand why the Government did not think outside the box and adopt that policy. Fine Gael put that option in good faith to the Government in its alternative budget, but the Government was not magnanimous enough to accept it. The Government has, when it suited it, asked for our assistance and co-operation, but when we offer them it refuses to take them. It is ironic to see on the front pages of our newspapers today that a bank we practically own is paying out bonuses of €40 million while we, on the other hand, are cutting the minimum wage. I said we should lead by example. It was suggested here that those bonuses should be taxed at a rate of 99%. That may sound draconian, but I would like to know on what basis those bonuses were earned or on what improved performance they were earned. The issue of politicians’ pay is dealt with in this Bill. It is only appropriate that at a time when we are taking €40 a week from a person earning the minimum wage, we should take €300 or so a week from the salary of the Taoiseach. We must lead by example. Fine Gael put forward the proposal that all public sector pay should be capped at €200,000. The reduction of the Taoiseach’s salary to €200,000 would have been a significant gesture. I cannot understand why that was not done and the example set. On the issue of public service pensions, we must acknowledge that people in receipt of public service pensions have done well. I am the son of a retired school teacher who would admit that she expected some change in this regard and we all expected the same. However, it is not clear in the Bill whether the pay reduction is in addition to the universal social contribution. Will these pensions be hit twice? As I said earlier, the Government must set the example. As the saying goes, if one gets up early enough in the morning, one can stay in bed all day. The Government has not done that over the past two years. We need a reality check. The people are feeling pain but they believe we do not understand or empathise with them. Some of the carry-on, posturing and denial that has gone on here makes this worse. We have heard one arm of the Government say it was fiction that anybody was coming into Ireland from Europe to offer help or that we were going to send a request for assistance while another was saying that we were sending a request for help. People ask where is the leadership and whether those in charge know what they are doing. The answer, unfortunately, is that they do not. Over the past seven or eight years many of us have seen this Chamber become irrelevant. The partnership arrangements and the manner in which the Cabinet worked has meant that the other Members of the House and the people were not represented. Now responsibility has moved even further from us. It has not come back into the House, but has gone to people who have been here for the past three or four weeks negotiating new arrangements. That is not for what the founders of the State set up this institution and these structures. They did not set them up to be sidelined and parked and handed over to people who come from countries of which our forefathers never even heard. It is a sad day for that to have happened. This budget, limited as it was in terms of what could be done, has not done anything to set out a roadmap to get us out of this situation. 700 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public 9 December 2010. Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I spoke on the budget and on the Social Welfare Bill and now we have the final piece of the jigsaw that will deal with the immediate cuts that will come into effect as a result of the mismanagement of the economy. We could speak all day about the issues but every time a member of the Government stands up to speak, he tells us about the international crisis and the banking crisis. The last item on the agenda is always the mismanagement of the country. The international financial crisis also affected other countries but they are coming out the other end. The difference with Ireland is that the international and banking crises was compounded by the economic mess created by an arrogant Government that believed it could do no wrong. Deputy Gogarty spoke about his involvement in the last two general elections. I am always fascinated by people who remember what they said as long ago as 2002 or 2000. The only things they seem to remember are what they got right.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: That is correct.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: They never recall the things they got wrong. The human condition is fascinating. I am no different, except that I cannot remember what I got right or wrong. Child care was the main issue in the by-election held in County Kildare prior to the 2007 general election. Fianna Fáil introduced the early child care supplement just before that general election. Governments usually know when an election is being held, although I do not think anyone knows the date of the next election. All we know is that it will be soon and, according to Senator Boyle, it will not be fought in the cold. I do not know how these conditions will be met. The introduction of the scheme was a blatant political gimmick. The Government’s intention was not to offer child care, preschool education or the other child supports a civilised society should provide. It was simply a case of throwing around money in order to win an election. At the end of the day, people bought into the offer. The last election was all about not rocking the boat. One could feel the change in the last two weeks of the election campaign. There was an undercurrent of worry because people knew in their guts that the pyramid scheme of our economy could not last. They were warned by different economists to the ones we hear from now. However, Fianna Fáil won the election because when people get nervous, they are inclined to stick with what they know. As the Government must have known by then that the economy was going downhill, the election was not fought honestly. The consequences of the Bill before us will be felt long into the future. Every time I hear the words “financial emergency in the public interest”, I am reminded of Frank Hall as the minister for hardship and the chant “in the national interest”. We would not be in our present predicament had Fianna Fáil taken those words to heart but its links to a small elite caused it to follow the course of action which led the country to crisis. I do not think anger can be sustained for long but the memory of anger will linger. A supposedly sacrosanct pension fund comprising €17 billion is now to be used to bail out bankers who lived the lives of princes and did not give a damn about the country or the little person. As the money will not be enough to fill the hole, we are now being run by outside parties. I do not blame the IMF or the ECB. We probably should be grateful they are around to clean up the mess created by this Government. The people blame the Government. We are debating a Bill that will reduce the minimum wage by €40 per week while the people who caused this crisis are being paid €40 million in bonuses because the Government continues to make a mess of getting guarantees from the banks. Nobody would believe the Government if it announced this €40 million was to be the final payment. I am not even certain that the 701 The 9 December 2010. Adjournment

[Deputy Kathleen Lynch.] contracts drawn up to take over the banks are watertight. Somebody else is probably waiting to take another lump of money from the taxpayer. People on disability benefits, the blind pension and widows are now paying for what the bankers and Fianna Fáil did to the country. While the anger may dissipate, the memory will not. I grew up listening to my mother criticise Ernest Blythe for taking a shilling from the widow’s allowance. In fairness, I would not recognise the man if he walked down the steps of the Chamber because he made his decision long before I was born. However, he is still remembered. This period in our history will be remembered equally. I ask for clarification on the extension of the grace period until February 2012. If I understand correctly, we cannot tax retrospectively the €40 billion paid out by AIB. Are we able to introduce this type of change in pensions policy even though we cannot do so in respect of a bank that we own? How does the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh, define the word “republic”? He is the best qualified Member of the Government to answer that question. This is not a republic. We do not have equality at the heart of our society. In a republic this crisis would not have occurred and we would not be asking the poorest of the poor to pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 8 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 10 December 2010.

702 Questions— 9 December 2010. 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].

————————

Question No. 1 postponed.

Questions Nos. 2 and 3 outstanding.

Schools Building Projects 4. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding the building of a school (details supplied); if a date has been set for the next stage; if money has been set aside for this project; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46684/10]

7. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding the application for a new school building by a school (details supplied) in County Cork. [46718/10]

Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I propose to take questions 4 and 7 together. My Department has reached agreement, in principle, subject to contract with Cork County Council and is in on-going liaison with the Local Authority in relation to the proposed acquisition of a site. Due to the commercial sensitivities relating to site acquisitions, I am not in a position to comment further at this time. Once this acquisition is concluded, the proposed building project will be considered in the context of the capital budget available to my Department for school buildings generally.

Questions Nos. 5 and 6 outstanding.

Question No. 7 answered with Question No. 4.

Questions Nos. 8 to 25, inclusive, outstanding.

State Bodies 26. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Finance if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices 703 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd.] of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46711/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The information requested by the Deputy in respect of Bodies under the aegis of the Department of Finance is as follows:

Special EU Programmes Body I have received the 2007 and 2008 annual reports for the Special EU Programmes Body, and these have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; the 2009 Annual Report has been agreed, is being printed and will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas shortly. As the Special EU Programmes Body is a North South Body established following the Good Friday Agreement, the pay of the Chief Executive and employees complies with the Govern- ment Policy in the jurisdiction in which the staff member is employed — Northern Ireland- based staff are paid in accordance with Northern Ireland Executive policy and Irish-based staff are paid in accordance with Irish Government Policy.

Central Bank of Irealnd The Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland (CBFSAI) submitted an annual report in each of the past three years as required by the Central Bank Act 1942. Each of these reports was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland was replaced by the Central Bank of Ireland in accordance with the Central Bank Reform Act 2010 in October of this year. The terms and conditions of employment of staff of the Central Bank of Ireland are matters solely for the Central Bank Commission and the Governor. The code of practice for the governance of state bodies does not apply to the Central Bank but I understand that it applies its own, similar, code of governance.

The Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal The Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal has delivered an annual report for the past three years. Each of these reports was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas before being published on their website www.ifsat.ie . The Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal has no Chief Executive and no employees.

Financial Services Ombudsman I have received Annual Reports in respect of the Financial Services Ombudsman for the past three years. Each of these reports was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The remuneration of the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Deputy Financial Services Ombudsman is set by the Financial Services Ombudsman Council and does not take effect until approved by the Minister. The Financial Services Ombudsman Council confirms that the relevant requirements under the Code of Practice for Governance of State Bodies have been met and also that remuneration and allowances for employees have regard to Government policy as required to be met under Section 57BN(3) of the Central Bank Act (as amended). 704 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

An Post National Lottery The Annual Report of the National Lottery has been received by me for each of the past three years and laid before the Houses of the Oireactas. The Annual Report 2007 was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in March 2008, the Annual Report 2008 in April 2009 and the Annual Report 2009 in May 2010. As set out in the Company’s Annual Report, the National Lottery is in compliance with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, including the requirements set out at Section B of the Code relating to the Remuneration of the Chief Executive and staff.

National Treasury Management Agency (includes National Pension Reserve Fund Com- mission, State Caims Agency, National Developenment Finance Agency and National Asset Man- agement Agency The National Treasury Management Agency has forwarded its annual report to me for each of the last three years. While the National Treasury Management Agency is guided by Government pay policy, it is not governed by public sector pay agreements. As provided for in the National Treasury Man- agement Agency Act 1990 the remuneration of the National Treasury Management Agency Chief Executive is determined by the Minister for Finance after consultation with the ational Treasury Management Agency Advisory Committee. All staff of the National Treasury Management Agency have individual contracts of employment which are negotiated on an individual contract basis by the Agency. The Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies has not previously been applied to the National Treasury Management Agency and associated bodies whose legal structure does not follow the general semi-state model in all respects. During the course of this year, the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Development Finance Agency and the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission have considered how the Code may be adapted to fit their specific legal structures and have written to my Department setting out how they propose to implement the Code.

National Development Finance Agency The National Development Finance Agency has submitted annual reports as required in each of the past 3 years. The reports have been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Credit Review Office As this body only came into operation in 2010 no annual report has been produced to date. The pay of the Chief Executive and employees is in line with Government Policy. Two quarterly reports have been produced one of which has been laid before the Dáil to date.

The Standards in Public Office Commission The Standards in Public Office Commission is required by statute to furnish its annual report to the Minister for Finance. The Standards Commission is an independent public body; it is not a “State body under the auspices” of the Department of Finance. The Chairman of the Standards Commission furnished its most recent annual report — the annual report 2009 — to me in June 2010. A copy of the annual report was laid before each House of the Oireachtas in July 2010. The Chairman of the Commission furnished its annual report 2008 to me in June 705 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] 2009 and its annual report 2007 to me in June 2008. These annual reports were laid before each House of the Oireachtas shortly thereafter.

Anglo Irish Bank Accounts have been received by my Department for all relevant periods since nationalis- ation. Pay of Chief Executive Officer is in accordance with the Covered Institutions Oversight Committee (CIROC) guidelines and approved by me. The pay of employees is a matter for the Board of the Bank. Anglo Irish Bank is subject to the Code of Practice for the governance of State Bodies, and is in compliance with the provisions of that Code.

National Recovery Plan 27. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Minister for Finance the number of measures in the national recovery plan that will have a specific effect of County Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46750/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 provides a blueprint for a return to sustainable growth in our economy by setting out the measures that will be taken to restore order to our public finances, identifying the areas of economic activity which will provide growth and employment in the recovery and detailing the reforms the Government will implement to accelerate growth in those key sectors. The measures included in the Plan are of national application and are not broken down on a county by county basis.

Tax Code 28. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Finance when a VAT refund will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46791/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the VAT repayment claim in question is the subject of ongoing examination. The Revenue Commissioners requested details from the taxpayer’s agents on 10 November 2010 in connection with the claim, and these have not yet been provided. On receipt of these details, the Revenue Commissioners will be in a position to determine if they are satisfied regarding the claim, or whether additional enquiries are required.

Departmental Groups 29. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding the recent report from mortgage review group; if some or all of the recommendations have been accepted by him; if legislation primary or secondary is required to implement; if the position of each financial institution is known; if there is an ongoing process to sign up remaining financial institutions to the various recommendations; if the status of an institution (details supplied) is known in relation to accepting the 60% minimum of interest only mortgage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46800/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The Deputy will be aware that the Mortgage Arrears and Personal Debt Expert Group (Group) have now completed their work having submitted an Interim Report to me on 5th July 2010 and their Final Report on 16th November 706 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

2010. Both Reports were brought before Government. As I said at the time of its publication all of the recommendations included in the Group’s Interim Report were accepted by Govern- ment at the Cabinet meeting of 6th July 2010. These recommendations were also repeated in the Group’s Final Report along with additional recommendations based on the findings of the Group in the second phase of its work. The contents of the Final Report were noted by Govern- ment at a meeting on 16th November 2010. On the question of primary and secondary legislation to support the implementation of the Group’s recommendations the Deputy should note that there will be a need for legislative support which will involve my own Department, the Departments of Social Protection (DSP), Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG), Justice and Law Reform (DJLR), as well amendments to the statutory Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears by the Financial Regulator. In the case of my own Department the need for legislative change arising from the Group’s report will be examined in the context of the preparation of the second Central Bank Bill. In order to implement those recommendations in relation to the mortgage interest supplement scheme (MIS) changes to both primary and secondary legislation will be required. The Department of Social Protection is currently developing an implementation plan that will set out a framework for the future of the scheme. New regulations and guidance are currently being developed by DEHLG in the context of the social housing reform programme to provide that housing authorities could disregard the household’s current accommodation for the purposes of determining eligibility for social housing support (the relevant provision in the 2009 Housing Act provides that ownership of accommodation is one of the criteria which determines eligibility). I am informed that work is ongoing on the development of a new needs assessment process which will allow an earlier trigger point for the social housing needs assessment process to take place where a case has been determined to be unsustainable in the long term, following exploration of all other options. It has already been indicated by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to the House on several occasions that he intends to give early attention to the Final Report on Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement of the Law Reform Commission which is expected before the end of the year. That Report is expected to contain recommendations on comprehensive reform of the system of personal insolvency law in Ireland. In the interim, t he Minister, in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010, which is before the House, has provided for:

(i) a reduction in the application period to the Court for discharge from bankruptcy from 12 to 6 years, and

(ii) automatic discharge from bankruptcy where the adjudication order has existed for 20 years.

The commitment in the Renewed Programme for Government of October 2009 indicates that debt enforcement will be reformed in light of the deliberations of the Law Reform Commission. Many of the recommendations included in the Group’s Interim Report are being underpinned by amendments to the statutory Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (CCMA) approved by me and published by the Central Bank on 6th December 2010. Lenders are required to comply with the Code as a matter of law. The Central Bank will also be writing to lenders to issue directions under Section 149 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 which will mean they cannot impose arrears charges or penalty interest on borrowers who are co-operating with the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process. 707 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.]

Recommendations which are not required to be supported by legislation or are not being underpinned by the revised CCMA are not obligatory on the lender. However as the recommendations are intended to be of benefit to the lender as well as the borrower it is assumed that lenders will cooperate and implement the Groups proposals or variations of them. The Group has proposed in the context of the DIS which is voluntary that the scheme should be reviewed within 18 months of its commencement in order to inform whether alternative policy actions are required this review will also include the level of take up by all lenders.

Tax Collection 30. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide details of approximately the monthly take over the past 12 months from residential stamp duty; if any analysis of the category of buying has been done and if he has or will re-examine stamp duty scheme, to change rates and status of purchases and to amend the system to concentrate exemptions and support towards those under pressure which traditionally were first time buyers but now might be those in negative equity apartments but wishing to trade up to family home status [46804/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the information requested by the Deputy in relation to receipts from Stamp Duty on residential property is set out in the following table which reflects the position up to and including November 2010.

Month and Year Net Receipts

€ million

December 2009 14.6 January 2010* February 2010* March 2010* 21.8 for 3 months* April 2010 8.3 May 2010 8.4 June 2010 9.0 July 2010 10.0 August 2010 10.0 September 2010 11.0 October 2010 9.8 November 2010 10.3 *Due to the changeover to a new system, a separate breakdown is not available for the months January, February and March 2010. The total combined figure for the 3 months is provided instead.

There has been no analysis of the category of buying carried out. However, as the Deputy is aware, I announced in Budget 2011 a major reform of the charge to Stamp Duty on residential property transactions, which applies to all instruments executed on or after 8 December 2010. These changes have simplified the system by lowering the rates applicable and abolishing a number of exemptions and reliefs. The changes in rates are as follows:

708 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Stamp Duty rates on transfers of residential property up to 8 December 2010

Aggregate Consideration Rate of Duty

First €125,000 0% Next €875,000 (up to €1m) 7% Excess over €1,000,000 9%

New Stamp Duty rates on transfers of residential property from 8 December 2010

Aggregate Consideration Rate of Duty

First €1,000,000 1% Excess over €1,000,000 2%

In order to broaden the tax base, a number of reliefs and exemptions have been abolished as follows:

— First Time Buyer’s Relief;

— Relief from Stamp Duty on new houses under 125 sq metres;

— Reduced Stamp Duty on new houses over 125 sq metres

— Consanguinity relief in respect of residential property transfers;

— Exemption for residential property valued under €127,000; and

— Site to child relief.

There is also a transitional measure in place, for circumstances where the effect of these changes is to increase the Stamp Duty payable on the transaction. The new rates will not apply where a binding contract is in place before 8 December 2010 and the instrument is executed before 1 July 2011.

Tax Code 31. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding the recent withdrawal from Eircom company of €40 million by the employees share ownership plan; if this was allowed tax free; if this loophole can now be closed off as the circumstances and purpose of original legislative provision for such withdrawals has since passed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46806/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): For reasons of taxpayer confidentiality the Revenue Commissioners do not comment on or provide information on individual cases in relation to either businesses or personal taxpayers. However, by way of general information, the following is the position. The legislation governing an Employee Share Ownership Trust (ESOT) is contained in Section 519 of, and Schedule 12 to, the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. A company must apply to the Revenue Commissioners if they wish to operate such an ESOT. The Revenue Commissioners will only approve the ESOT where all the necessary conditions specified in the legislation are complied with. All the ESOTs approved by the Revenue Commissioners to date work in conjunction with an Approved Profit Sharing Scheme (APSS) under which eligible employees may receive shares free of income tax. The legislation governing approved profit sharing schemes is con- 709 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] tained in Chapter 1 of Part 17 of, and Schedule 11 to, the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. As in the case of an ESOT, the Revenue Commissioners will only approve an APSS where all the necessary conditions specified in the legislation are complied with. Where the trustees of an approved ESOT transfer shares to the trustees of an APSS for distribution to eligible employees, the employees may receive shares free of income tax to the value of up to €12,700 per annum. To receive the shares free of income tax they must have been held for a period of not less than 3 years. The time the shares are held in the ESOT is included for the purpose of this three-year period. In certain limited circumstances, and on a one off basis only, shares to the value of €38,100 may be received free of income tax. The same three-year retention period is required. In its recent report, the Commission on Taxation reviewed the tax treatment of ESOT’s and APSS’s. The Commission recommended the retention of the tax relief for these schemes in view of the role they play in enhancing employees’ interests in the competitiveness and performance of their employer, supporting economic activity and the modernisation and privatis- ation of State-controlled businesses. Notwithstanding the above recommendation, the Commission on Taxation indicated that the benefit realised from APSS should be subject to PRSI, Income Levy and Health Levy charges. Provision for the introduction of these charges was made in the National Recovery Plan and in Budget 2011.

Tax Collection 32. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for Finance in respect of each of the past ten years, the tax take for each year from stamp duty; if he will provide for each year the amount of stamp duty which arose from residential property; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46811/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The information requested by the Deputy in relation to the tax take from stamp duty is as set out in the table which reflects the position up to and including November 2010.

Tax Revenue 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 End Nov 2010

€ m € m € m € m € m € m € m € m € m € m All Stamp Duties* 1,227 1,167 1,688 2,088 2,725 3,717 3,186 1,651 930 855 Stamp Duty on Residential 265 349 528 752 945 1,311 1,018 445 150 98 Property

*Figures for all stamp duties are Exchequer receipts.

Proposed Legislation 33. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Finance his plans to revisit Section 35 of the Credit Institutions (Financial) Support Bill in relation to additional conditions in light of the non-compliance of persons towards the process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46818/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): As the existing conditions regarding non- compliance with the terms and conditions of the Government Guarantee, as set down at Section 35 of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Scheme 2008 (SI 411 of 2008), are wide ranging, I have no plans to revisit the issue. 710 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

State Bodies 34. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of employees in Anglo Irish Bank earning in excess of €100,000; the number earning between €150,000 and €200,000; the number earning in excess of €200,000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46822/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Anglo Irish Bank is run on an arms length basis and I have formally delegated responsibility for managing the State’s day-to-day relationship with the bank to the NTMA. Accordingly, the normal ongoing business of the bank, which includes the pay and conditions of bank staff, is a matter for the Board of Anglo. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to place confidential and commercially sensitive information in the public domain. However for the Deputy’s information the salaries of all senior executives in Anglo Irish Bank fall within the guidelines recommended by Covered Institution Remuneration Oversight Committee (CIROC).

Tax Policy 35. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the nature of the understanding that was reached with the EU and International Monetary Fund in respect of the future of the policy of maintaining the 12.5% corporation tax here; if the commitment of the EU and IMF to support this policy is time limited or open ended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46846/10]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I do not know what “understanding” the Deputy is referring to in the question. This Government has made the policy position regarding the current and future direction of the single 12.5% corporation tax rate abundantly clear, most recently in the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 and in the Budget Statement on 7 December 2010. In the National Recovery Plan, the Government repeated its commitment to retaining the 12.5% corporation tax rate and made the point that this commitment is protected, in an EU context, by the principle of unanimity in taxation matters. In my Budget Statement this week, I welcomed the recent comments of support by European Finance Ministers who understand the importance of this issue to Ireland. I also reiterated the point, once again, that there will be no change to Ireland’s corporation tax rate. I do not believe there is anything more that I can usefully say on this matter.

Hospital Procedures 36. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding hip and similar bone related procedures normally carried out in Beaumont Hospital; if she will confirm that no such operations have taken place for some weeks now; the reason for same; when the replacement equipment will be provided and the reason for the delay of the provision of same; if the lack of equipment is as a result of a financial, managerial or indeed equipment failure and if she will give a target date for matters to be back to normal [46698/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

State Bodies 37. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Health and Children if she has received

711 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd.] an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of her Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if she will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if she will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46713/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): The contracts of the chief executives of my Department’s State Agencies, which include remuneration levels, are approved by my Department in association with the Department of Finance. Those employed in grades below that of chief executive are remunerated on approved public sector pay scales relevant to the grades employed in accordance with Government policy. In relation to annual reports, the information sought is currently being collated and will be forwarded to the Deputy as soon as possible.

Health Service Allowances 38. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Health and Children the rates of mobility allowance that will apply in 2011 [46754/10]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): The Mobility Allowance will be €208.50 per month in 2011. The reduced rate of Mobility Allowance for people also in receipt of the Disabled Drivers/Disabled Passengers Tax Concession Scheme will be €104.25 per month.

Medical Cards 39. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Health and Children the medical card income guidelines that will apply in 2011 [46755/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): The assessment guidelines used by the Health Service Executive (HSE) in respect of applications for medical cards and GP visit cards are subject to review by the Executive and my Department from time to time, having regard to the need to ensure that persons intended to benefit under these arrangements can do so. Such reviews have regard to factors such as changes in income levels generally, the nature of typical household outgoings and also changes which may be made to the various social welfare schemes. Since the beginning of 2005 substantial changes have been made to the way in which people’s eligibility for a medical card is assessed and these apply equally to the assessment process for a GP visit card. In 2005 the income guidelines were increased incrementally by a cumulative 29%. Other significant changes which I have introduced are that applications are now considered on the basis of income net of tax and PRSI and that allowance is made for reasonable expenses incurred in respect of mortgage/rent, childcare and travel to work. In June 2006 I agreed with the Executive a further adjustment to the assessment guidelines for GP visit cards and these are now 50% higher than those in respect of medical cards. I provide a table for the Deputy which gives details of Medical Card and GP Visit Card income guidelines as at 9th December, 2010. Table showing allowed weekly income, after tax/PRSI, before mortgage/rent, childcare and travel to work expenses are allowed for:

712 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Medical Card (with effect GP Visit Card (with effect from October 2005) from June 2006)

Single Person Living Alone Aged up to 65 years 184.00 276.00 Aged between 66-69 years 201.50 302.00

Single Person Living with Family Aged up to 65 years 164.00 246.00 Aged between 66-69 years 173.50 260.00

Married couple/Single Parent Families with dependent children Aged up to 65 years 266.50 400.00 With 1 Child 304.50 457.00 With 2 Children 342.50 514.00 With 3 Children 383.50 575.00 With 4 Children 424.50 637.00

Child Care Services 40. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Health and Children the rates for foster payments that will apply in 2011 [46756/10]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): In recognition of the fact that foster care is an essential and integral component of child care services, it has been agreed to maintain the rates at the existing levels in 2011. The rates of foster care payments that apply are €325 per week per child under twelve years of age and €352 per week per child of twelve years of age and over.

Parliamentary Questions 41. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Health and Children further to Parliamen- tary Question No. 73 of 5 October 2010, if she will ensure that a response will issue without further delay [46759/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): I have been advised by the Health Service Executive that a reply to Parliamentary Question No. 73 of 5 October 2010 issued to the Deputy on the 8th of November 2010.

Medical Cards 42. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will support the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin regarding a medical card [46766/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for attention and direct reply to the Deputy.

Health Service Expenditure 43. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children the compensation payments made by the Health Service Executive in Cork city and county for the years 2006 to 2009, inclusive, in respect of all claims against the health service in that area, and the steps the HSE is taking to address the level of claims. [46767/10] 713 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for attention and direct reply to the Deputy.

Health Service Staff 44. Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Health and Children if the voluntary early retirement scheme has been extended to other grades in the Health Service Executive specifically care assistants; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46776/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): On 1 November 2010 I announced that the Government had decided to approve a voluntary early retirement scheme and a voluntary redundancy scheme for certain categories of staff in the public health service. The purpose of the schemes was to achieve a permanent reduction in the numbers employed in the public health sector from 2011 onwards and to facilitate health service reform. The VER and VR schemes were open to management and administrative staff and general support staff (e.g. chefs) but priority was given to management and administrative grades. The exact grades covered by the two schemes were set out in detail in the relevant Circular (Circular 7/2010). The schemes were not targeted at those providing front-line services.

Parliamentary Questions 45. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Health and Children further to Parliamen- tary Question Nos 201, 202, 203, 206 and 207 of 30 September 2010, the reason the Health Service Executive has not issued responses [46779/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): My Department has been informed by the HSE that a reply has issued to the Deputy on 26th November in respect of one of the questions which he again raises. The Executive has been asked to expedite replies to the remaining questions as they refer to matters of service.

46. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Health and Children further to Parliamen- tary Question No. 191 of 5 October 2010, the reason the Health Service Executive has not issued a response [46780/10]

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy Áine Brady): As this is a service matter it has again been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Medical Cards 47. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the renewal of a medical card in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46833/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Nursing Homes Support Scheme 48. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Health and Children the way her Depart- ment recoups its share of the family home under the fair deal scheme; in the event of delays in achieving a sale, if interest accrues on the outstanding amount and if so at what interest rate [46834/10]

714 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy Áine Brady): When the Nursing Home Loan falls due for repayment, the HSE writes to the person responsible for the repayment and notifies them of the amount due. In doing this, the HSE will apply the Consumer Price Index to the loan to take account of the time value of money (i.e. inflation or deflation) since the loan was made. Money owed under the Nursing Home Loan must be repaid to the Revenue Commissioners and goes into the Central Fund. If the repayment arises because of the death of the person in care, the loan must be repaid within 12 months of the date of death. Otherwise interest will apply from the date of death. If the loan is repayable because of the sale or transfer of the asset during the lifetime of the person in care, it must be repaid within 6 months of the date of sale or transfer. Otherwise interest will apply back to the date of sale or transfer. The rate of interest applied where an individual does not make the repayment within the relevant dead- line is prescribed by the Minister for Health and Children following consultation with the Revenue Commissioners and with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The Nursing Homes Support Scheme (Collection and Recovery of Repayable Amounts) Regulations 2009 set the rate of interest at 0.0219% per day.

Hospitals Building Programme 49. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the provision of new hospital facilities in Ballinamore (details supplied) [46838/10]

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy Áine Brady): The HSE has advised that they replied to the Deputy on the 28th September 2010 in relation to this matter.

General Practitioner Services 50. Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for Health and Children the measures she will take to implement the new policy of allowing all suitably qualified general practitioners offer services to general medical services patients; the date on which she intends to implement the policy; when all suitably qualified GP’s will be entitled to offer their services to GMS patients; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46839/10]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): The Government has decided that all restrictions on appropriately trained general practitioners (GPs) who wish to hold General Medical Service contracts are to be abolished. My Department is working with the HSE with a view to giving effect to these commitments by March 1st 2011.

Nursing Homes Support Scheme 51. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of applications received to date from persons in Cork city and county under the new nursing home support scheme; the number of these applications that have been fully processed with the decision issued to the applicant; the amount of money expected to be spent on the scheme in Cork city and county in 2010; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46848/10]

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy Áine Brady): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

715 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Child Care Services 52. Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Health and Children the total number of separated children in the care of the Health Service Executive as of 1 December 2010; if she will provide figures in respect of the number of these children who were in hostel accommodation, supported lodging or foster care in tabular form; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46850/10]

53. Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of foster care placements of separated children that have broken down in the past five months; the reasons such placements have broken down; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46851/10]

54. Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Health and Children if the plan to close the remaining separated children hostels by 31 December 2010 is still on track; if the social work separated children’s team currently based in Baggot Street Hospital will be redeployed or disbanded; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46852/10]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): I propose to take Questions Nos. 52 to 54, inclusive, together. As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

State Bodies 55. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46717/10]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): It is the responsibility of the Boards of the relevant bodies under the aegis of my Department to agree terms and conditions (including remuneration) of their respective Chief Executives. However, these are subject to the agreement of the Minister for Finance in conjunction with the Minister for Transport. The Minister for Finance indicated in his Budget speech that the Government believes there should be a maximum salary rate of €250,000 in the public sector including the State Agencies. While there are issues about the contractual position of incumbent post holders, the position of the State as a shareholder or statutory stakeholder in these companies can be used to enforce the objective of the maximum salary within a reasonable timeframe. It is worth stating also that the Chief Executive Officers of the non-commercial bodies have already been subject to the salary reductions provided for in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No.2) Act 2009.

Emergency Planning 56. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Transport the quantities of road salt and grit that were recorded in storage and available for use in the State on each day from 22 to 28 November 2010; the locations at which quantities of this salt and grit were held and the relevant amounts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46744/10]

716 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

57. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Transport the quantities of road salt and grit that were recorded in storage and available for use in the State on each day from 28 November to 5 December 2010; the locations at which quantities of this salt and grit were held and the relevant amounts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46745/10]

58. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Transport the quantities of road salt and grit that are in storage and available in the State as of 6 December 2010; the locations at which quantities of this salt and grit are held and the relevant amounts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46746/10]

59. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Transport as of 6 December 2010 the vol- umes of road salt and grit that have been ordered from sources; the agencies that have ordered this salt and grit; the organisations from which the salt and grit has been ordered; when it will arrive in the State; where it will be stored; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46747/10]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): I propose to take Questions Nos. 56 to 59, inclusive, together. As part of its role on the Government Emergency Task Force, my Department reviewed the transport-related response to the severe weather events last winter and is working with the Task Force and other Government Departments with putting in place additional measures in response to such events. In relation to transport issues, my Department and its agencies are engaged in the implementation of these actions. Arising from the review the National Roads Authority (NRA) were tasked with ensuring adequate salt supplies are available in future to maintain the prioritised road network. To achieve this, the NRA advertised a framework contract in August 2010 for the supply of de- icing salt for the coming winter. The contract is for the supply of 80,000 tonnes with an initial call of 50,000 tonnes to be imported and distributed by mid December and a further 30,000 tonnes in January 2011. This supply is in addition to the 20,000 tonnes of salt stock already available. Additional supplies are being purchased to meet requirements under the framework contract. The existence of the Framework Contract does not preclude local authorities from purchasing salt directly from other/traditional sources. The NRA is also investing €6million this year in additional dry storage facilities for de-icing salt and a further €2.5million for grit spreaders/snow blades etc. for local authorities. The day to day management of salt supplies is a matter for the NRA which I understand is working closely with the local authorities, on a daily basis, to prudently manage the distribution of salt for use on the prioritised routes. The NRA is co-ordinating the supply of salt stocks to local authorities on a needs basis and stocks in the different authorities will vary from day to day.

Aviation Regulation 60. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Transport the reason for not implementing the six recommendations made two years ago by the Commission for Aviation Regu- lation to change the existing legislation covering the travel industry here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46788/10]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): As the Deputy will be aware in 2008, I requested the Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR) to undertake a review of the regulation of the travel trade. My Department considered the recommendations arising from this

717 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Noel Dempsey.] review and concluded that the implementation of the majority of the recommendations would require amendments to legislation. Since the review by the CAR, the European Commission launched a review of the Package Travel Directive in November 2009, which will have impli- cations for the regulatory framework of the travel trade industry. The European Commission has indicated that intends to publish a proposal for revising the current legislation at the beginning of 2011. Given this development, there would not appear to be any merit in undertaking fundamental reform of the regulatory regime at this time without a clearer understanding of what the Euro- pean Commission is proposing in this area.

Regional Airports 61. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Transport if the report on the public service obligations for regional airports was considered by him; when a decision will be made on the renewal of the PSO for Kerry Airport after the present PSO lapses next July; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46789/10]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): The Deputy will be aware of the Value for Money (VFM) Review of Exchequer Expenditure on the regional airports programme was recently completed.The review was carried out to assist me in evaluating the appropriate scale of a regional airports programme in future years bearing in mind aviation policy objectives, the updated EU legislation, the improved surface links under the NDP and Transport 21 and the need to address the difficulties with our public finances. The Review is being considered by Government and it is intended that it will be published shortly. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any likely PSO scheme beyond 2011, including the Kerry PSO service, in advance of the Government decision in the matter.

Road Safety 62. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the way the new mobile safety cameras located in Waterford have been performing; the number of driving offences they have been responsible for catching; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46825/10]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I have requested a report from the Garda authorities in relation to the matter referred to by the Deputy. I will contact the Deputy again when the report is to hand.

State Bodies 63. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46714/10]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): The following statutory State bodies under the remit of my Department are comprehended by the Deputy’s Question:

718 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

• the Courts Service

• the Legal Aid Board

• the Private Security Authority

• the Property Registration Authority

I can further inform the Deputy that the pay of all the employees of the bodies concerned is fully in accordance with Government policy and as set out by the Department of Finance. The Deputy should note that the 2007 and 2008 reports for the each of the four bodies have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas as have the 2009 annual reports for the Courts Service and the Property Registration Authority. The 2009 annual reports for the Legal Aid Board and the Private Security Authority will be laid before the Houses in due course.

Crime Levels 64. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of burglaries recorded in County Waterford in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46733/10]

65. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of robberies recorded in County Waterford in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46734/10]

66. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of domestic violence cases recorded in County Waterford in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46735/10]

67. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of persons prosecuted for driving without insurance in County Waterford in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46736/10]

68. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of persons prosecuted for driving without motor tax in County Waterford in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46737/10]

69. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of assault cases recorded in County Waterford in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46738/10]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 64 to 69, inclusive, together. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 makes provision for the compilation and publication of crime statistics by the Central Statistics Office, as the national statistical agency, and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose. I have requested the CSO to provide statistics directly to the Deputy.

Garda Operations 70. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of drug seizures in Cork city and county for each of the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and to date in 2010 and the quantity, type and value of drug seizures involved [46771/10]

719 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): In the time available it has not been possible to compile the statistics which the Deputy has requested. I will communicate further with him when the information sought is to hand.

Closed Circuit Television Systems 71. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will support a matter (details supplied) [46814/10]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am informed by the Garda authorities that the location referred to is within Raheny Garda Sub-District. Local Garda management is aware of one incident of burglary in the location referred to by the Deputy, the investigation of which is ongoing. No further incidents have been recorded in the area during 2010. I am further informed that the Garda authorities are not aware of any commitment to install Garda CCTV in the area referred to. A member of the local Community Policing Unit is specifically assigned to the area referred to and attends residents’ meetings to help address their concerns. The area is subject to regular patrols by uniform and plain-clothes personnel, including the Community Policing and Mountain Bike Units and the District Detective and Drug Units, supplemented as required by the Divisional Crime Task Force and Traffic Corps personnel. Local Garda management closely monitors and keeps under review patrols and other operational strategies in place, in conjunction with crime trends and policing needs of the communities in the area, to ensure optimum use is made of Garda resources and the best possible Garda service is provided to the public. The situation is kept under review. Current policing plans in the area are designed to address issues of crime and public order offences. Community policing is a central feature and core value of Garda policing policy, and current policing strategies are predicated on the prevention of crime, public order offences and anti-social behaviour.

Garda Vetting of Personnel 72. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the reason a response has not issued to representations sent to his office in early October on behalf of an organisation (details supplied) whereby persons offered work placements on community employment schemes are not permitted by FÁS to take up their placements until Garda vetting has been completed which can take up to ten months [46854/10]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): A response has issued to the Deputy’s representation on behalf of the organisation to which he refers. The Garda Central Vetting Unit (GCVU) provides employment vetting for a large number of organisations in Ireland registered with the Garda for this purpose and which employ persons in a full-time, part-time, voluntary or training capacity to positions where they would have substantial, unsupervised access to children and/or vulnerable adults. FÁS is among the organisations registered with the Garda for vetting purposes and uses the services of the vetting unit in accordance with its requirements for placements in relevant positions. The processing time for vetting applications fluctuates in line with periods of increased demand. Furthermore, additional time may be required to process an individual vetting application in cases where clarification is required as to the details provided or where other enquiries

720 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers need to be made, for example, when the person in question has lived and worked abroad. There will always be a reasonably significant time period required to process a vetting application. Registered organisations have been advised to take account of this in their recruitment and selection process. However, the Garda make every effort to reduce this to the minimum possible consistent with carrying out the necessary checks. I am informed by the Garda Authorities that the current average processing time for vetting applications received at the GCVU is approximately 12 weeks.

Foreign Investigations 73. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress of the investigation undertaken into the death of an Irish citizen (details supplied) in Botswana; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46687/10]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): As the Deputy will recall from our recent correspondence, our Embassy in Maputo and our Honorary Consul in Botswana have been closely following the case mentioned by him. Our Honorary Consul was informed last August by the Director of the Department of Justice, Defence and Security that a thorough review of the case had begun. The Deputy will also recall that the Director indicated that when the review was completed that the Commissioner of Police intended presenting a report on the case to the Office of the President and to the Justice Department in Botswana. I am now informed that in recent weeks the Botswana Police completed their review of the case. I am also informed that the formal presentation of the report to the Office of the President of Botswana is expected to take place within a reasonably short timeframe. I understand that in turn, the Office of the President will provide a formal response with the findings of the case review to our Honorary Consul, for onward transmission to the family through my Department’s Consular Assistance Section. This will, of course, be forwarded to the family as soon as received.

Departmental Functions 74. Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the criteria for the signature, seal or stamp required by the consular section of his Department for the authentication or apostilling of documents for use abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46691/10]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): The Consular Section of my Depart- ment can authenticate or apostille documents executed in Ireland that are to be used in other countries. Authenticating or apostilling a document simply means confirming that a signature, seal or stamp appearing on the document is genuine. Authenticating or apostilling does not mean that the content of a document is accurate or that the Department of Foreign Affairs approves of the content. The Consular Section can authenticate or apostille documents of Irish origin provided that they bear an original signature, seal or stamp from an Irish practising public official or organisation. An Irish document is one that originates or has been executed in Ireland. Irish solicitors, Notaries Public or Commissioners for Oaths signing a document must state clearly what exactly it is they are certifying in relation to the document. They must sign their own name and not use a company signature. The types of documents which the Consular Section can authenticate or apostille include, original certificates issued by the General Register Office, company documents issued by the Companies Registration Office, documents signed by the Chambers of Commerce in Ireland.

721 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Micheál Martin.] Court documents, Powers of Attorney, and other Notarial Acts can be authenticated or apostilled provided they bear an original signature, seal or stamp from a practising Irish solicitor or Notary Public in Ireland. Educational Certificates can be authenticated or apostilled provided they fall within the National Framework of Qualifications established by the National Qualifi- cations Authority of Ireland or are recognised by the Department of Education and Skills. Medical reports signed by a doctor who is registered with the Medical Council of Ireland can be authenticated or apostilled. Photocopies of certain types of documents can be authenticated or apostilled provided they have been certified by a practising Irish Solicitor or Notary Public in Ireland. In such cases, applicants must confirm with the authority to whom they are presenting the document that a certified copy will be acceptable to them. A fee of €20 is charged for each apostille or authentication. There is a standard fee of €50 for a series of apostilles or authentications in relation to inter-country adoptions.

Human Rights Issues 75. Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the case of a person (details supplied); his views on same and if he will indicate the assistance he has offered in this matter [46694/10]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): I refer the Deputy to my previous written answers number 205 of 20 October 2010, numbers 72 and 73 of 28 October 2010 and number 222 of 11 November 2010 to Deputy Michael Creed which outline the assistance we have provided to the father, to date, through our Honorary Consul in Phuket and our Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. Our consular services continue to pursue this matter with vigour. Last week, the Commander of the Phuket Police agreed to meet with our Honorary Consul in Phuket in her Office to discuss the case. The Commander undertook to step up the search for the mother and the child through all his contacts in the police force. During that meeting, the Commander rang an inspector in area of Thailand where the child in question is believed to be held by his mother who agreed to intensify investigation of the matter. Following the meeting, the Com- mander together with our Honorary Consul visited the father of the child at his home and discussed the case with him for an hour. Since then, the Thai Police have increased their efforts to locate the child and its mother. Detectives have followed up with the father at his home and at the Phuket Police Station in the last week. The Honorary Consul has been told that detectives from Phuket intend to travel to Bangkok to pursue contacts there that might lead to the child and its mother. While the investigation into the whereabouts of the child and its mother remain primarily a matter for the Thai authorities, our Honorary Consul in Phuket and our Embassy in Kuala Lumpur will continue to maintain ongoing contact with the Thai authorities and the child’s father in relation to this case and to ensure that the father receives all possible consular assistance.

State Bodies 76. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report

722 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46712/10]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): There are no State Agencies operating under the auspices of my Department. The Board of the Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange (the Fulbright Commission) does operate under the aegis of my Department. However, it is financed jointly by the Irish and US Governments and enjoys autonomy of management and administration, including relating to the remuneration of its staff, in accordance with the Educational Exchange (Ireland and the United States of America) Act, 1991. Copies of the accounts together with copies of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on an annual basis. There are also three advisory committees under the auspices of my Department: the Development Education Advisory Committee (DEAC); the Government Emigrant Services Advisory Committee; and the Irish Aid Expert Advisory Group. Their administrations are all serviced by my Department and do not involve the direct employment of any staff.

Social Welfare Code 77. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for Social Protection if a person evicted from a local authority house can be considered for rent allowance; the way this can be achieved since they are banned from applying for local authority housing; if arrangements can be made since they are in private rented housing for seven months at their own expense; and if they can receive rent allowance. [46794/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Social Welfare legislation provides the Health Service Executive (HSE) with the authority to refuse, suspend or terminate payment of a rent supplement in the case of a person who has been required to deliver up possession of a dwelling provided by a housing authority or an approved body where the reasons for that requirement include anti-social behaviour or the interests of good estate management. It is a matter for the HSE to make this decision in relation to individual cases.

Departmental Staff 78. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will respond to points raised in correspondence (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46686/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): On 1st November, there were 967 staff in my Department participating in the work sharing scheme, 926 of whom are female and 41 are male. This is 18.5% of the Department’s staff. All applications for participation in the scheme are considered in the context of the operating requirements of individual business units and of the Department as a whole. While all reasonable efforts are made to facilitate requests from staff to participate in the work sharing scheme, it is not always possible to approve such requests as regard has to be had to the Department’s obligations to provide an acceptable level of service to its customers. The operation of the work sharing scheme does not assist the Department in complying with its employment control framework or associated funding, nor does it make it more difficult to do so. The operation of the scheme is entirely neutral with regard to those matters. For example, two people working half-time count the same under the employment control framework as one full-time person.

723 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.]

In circumstances where an individual Department is in excess of its agreed total staffing and is seeking to reduce numbers, granting work-sharing applications without replacing the hours of work lost would of course contribute to achieving a reduction. My Department is not in that position. The number of staff employed in my Department has increased in recent years, mainly through redeployment from other Departments. This was done in response to the greatly increased workloads arising as a result of the economic downturn and the total number of staff currently employed by my Department is at its employment control framework total. I wish to assure the Deputy that my Department fully implements civil service policies on gender equality and work/life balance and it has appropriate monitoring and training arrangements in place in that regard. There is absolutely no question of gender being taken into account when staff apply to change their work attendance pattern. The fact that the vast majority of people availing of work sharing are female is simply because the vast majority of applications are from female members of staff, reflecting the life choices made by the Depart- ment’s staff, both male and female. In that regard, I would point out that 69% of the Depart- ment’s staff are female. My Department does not regard this statistical outcome as a matter that requires some initiative to redress.

Social Welfare Benefits 79. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Social Protection the reasons rent allowance has been reduced from €34.80 to €7.70 in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46693/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): In the time frame available, I regret that my Department is not in a position to reply to this question. My Department will be in contact with the Deputy over the coming days and will reply in full to the question raised.

State Bodies 80. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Social Protection if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46715/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The three statutory bodies operating under the aegis of the Department are the Social Welfare Tribunal, the Citizens Information Board and the Pensions Board. In addition the Pensions Ombudsman comes under the remit of the Department.

The Social Welfare Tribunal The Social Welfare Tribunal consists of a Chairman and four ordinary members. The members are not in receipt of an annual salary, they are paid appearance fees for attending hearings or meetings. They would also qualify for travel and subsistence expenses if necessary. The Social Welfare Tribunal is a statutory body set up in 1982 to deal with cases where entitlement to Jobseeker’s Benefit or Allowance is refused due to involvement in a trade dispute. The Chairman of the Social Welfare Tribunal is not required to furnish an annual report.

724 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Citizens Information Board In line with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, the Citizens Infor- mation Board’s Annual Report is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. An Annual Report in respect of 2007 and 2008 has been received and was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. A draft Annual Report for 2009 was received earlier in the year. I understand submission of the audited Annual Report for 2009 is imminent and will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course. Pending receipt of the 2009 Annual Report, I am satisfied the Citizens Information Board is complying fully with Government Policy and in discharging its statutory duties in line with the Comhairle Act 2000 and the Citizens Infor- mation Act 2007.

The Pension Board The Chairman of the Pensions Board has submitted an annual report for each of the past three years to the Minister and all reports have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The pay of the Chief Executive and employees is in accordance with Government policy and the Pensions Board has complied with the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Govern- ance of State Bodies.

Office of the Pension Ombudsman The Office of the Pensions Ombudsman has submitted, within the time specified, an Annual Report to the Minister since 2004 and all reports up until the 2008 Annual Report have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is planned to bring the 2009 Annual Report to Government as soon as possible. The pay of the Pensions Ombudsman and his staff are fully in accordance with Government policy. The Office of the Pensions Ombudsman has complied with the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies.

Social Welfare Benefits 81. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of rent supplement claimants for longer than 18 months in receipt of a jobseeker’s payment and living in Dublin; the number that are single, single with children, a couple without children and a couple with children [46743/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): There are currently 4,889 people in receipt of rent supplement for 18 months or more living in Dublin and in receipt of either jobseeker’s allowance or jobseeker’s benefit. A breakdown of rent supplement recipients by family size is not available.

Question No. 82 withdrawn.

Pension Provisions 83. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the full entitlement to retirement or old age pension in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46793/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): As I informed the Deputy in reply to questions on 10th December 2009 and 12th October 2010, and in previous correspondence, the person concerned has reached pension age and has been sent a claim form. On receipt of the completed claim form, her entitlement to pension will be fully examined and she will be notified of the outcome without delay.

725 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Question No. 84 withdrawn.

Social Welfare Code 85. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding the way family income supplement payments are treated with rent allowance applications; if same can be outlined and if such treatment is consistent with other benefits. [46810/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Rent supplement is administered on behalf of the Department by the community welfare service of the Health Service Executive as part of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Rent supplement is normally calculated to ensure that a person, after the payment of rent, has an income equal to the rate of supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to their family circumstances less a minimum contribution of €24, which recipients are required to pay from their own resources. Many recipients pay more than €24 because they are also required, subject to certain income disregards, to contribute any additional assessable means that they have, over and above the appropriate basic supplementary welfare allowance rate, towards their accommodation costs. Social welfare legislation provides that all income in cash is assessable for supplementary welfare allowance purposes. This includes income from most social welfare payments including family income supplement. Some specific disregards of income are provided for in the legislation in respect of the means test for pensioners, carers, recipients of child benefit, guardian’s payment, respite care grant and those engaged in rehabilitative employment. The income assessment for rent supplement provides for a gradual withdrawal of payment as hours of employment or earnings increase. Where a person has additional income in excess of the standard weekly rate of supplementary welfare allowance, the first €75 of such additional income together with 25% of any additional income above €75 is disregarded for means assessment purposes. For the purposes of the assessment, any income from family income supplement which is in excess of the standard supplementary welfare allowance rate can be subject to the additional income disregard. This ensures that those engaging in part-time work or participating in training schemes are better off as a result of taking up such an opportunity.

Social Welfare Benefits 86. Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding jobseeker’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [46847/10]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): According to the Departments records the person in question claimed jobseeker’s benefit from 23 October 2008 to 24 October 2009 when his benefit exhausted. He then made an application for and was paid jobseeker’s allowance from 26 October 2009 to 1 July 2010. The Health Service Executive (HSE) has advised that the person concerned is currently in receipt of basic supplementary welfare allowance at the rate of € 32.00 per week which is the maximum amount payable based on his household circumstances. Department records show that the person in question claimed illness benefit on the 2nd July 2010. However, this claim was refused as he did not have sufficient contributions paid or cred- ited in the relevant tax year. From January 2011, the person concerned will qualify for a payment of illness benefit, at the minimum graduated weekly rate. The person in question should continue to submit medical certificates to the Department in order to preserve his entitlement.

726 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

There is no record of the person concerned informing the Department that he was incapable of work and that he wished to claim illness benefit prior to his claim on 2 July 2010.

State Bodies 87. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport if she has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of her Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if she will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if she will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46716/10]

Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport (Deputy Mary Hanafin): The information requested by the Deputy in relation to the annual reports of the State bodies under the aegis of my Department in respect of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 is set out in the table:

Body Annual Report year 2007 Annual Report year 2008 Annual Report year 2009

Fáilte Ireland Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas

National Sports Campus Received and laid before the Received and laid before the The Annual Report will be Development Authority Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas submitted to the Department following finalisation of the Accounts by the C&AG.

Irish Sports Council Received and laid before the Received and laid before the The Accounts are currently Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas being audited by the C& AG

National Gallery of Ireland Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Received in Department Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas

Irish Film Board Received and laid before the Received and laid before the The Accounts are currently Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas being audited by the C& AG

The Arts Council Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Awaiting sign off by the C& Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas AG

Crawford Art Gallery, Cork Not applicable — managed by Received and awaiting The Accounts are currently City of Cork VEC at this translation prior to laying being audited by the C& time. before the Houses of the AG Oireachtas

National Library of Ireland Received and laid before the Received and laid before the The Accounts are currently Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas being audited by the C& AG

National Museum of Ireland Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Received in the Department Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas

National Concert Hall Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas

Irish Museum of Modern Art Received and laid before the Received and laid before the Received in the Department Houses of the Oireachtas Houses of the Oireachtas

I am satisfied that the pay of the chief executives and employees of the above bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy. 727 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Mary Hanafin.]

Tourism Ireland is a North/South body and is not covered by the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies. As a North/South body, the pay and conditions of the Chief Executive and employees of Tourism Ireland are not determined by the Government of Ireland alone, but are determined by the North South Ministerial Council and Finance Departments North and South.

Community Development 88. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will respond to the concerns of Waterford City community forum (details supplied) regarding future funding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46689/10]

90. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the alternative structures he plans to put in place to ensure that the skills and knowledge of the support workers are not completely lost due to the proposed cut to support funding for the community and voluntary fora; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46702/10]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I propose to take Questions Nos. 88 and 90 together. Further to the reply to Question No. 135 of 2 December 2010, the issue of the funding of the Community & Voluntary Fora from my Department’s Vote has been addressed in the Estimates for 2011. As a result, a total of €587,000 is being provided next year by my Depart- ment to support the Fora in each county/city council area. This funding is in addition to the continued payment of expenses by local authorities to Fora representatives on County/City Development Boards, Strategic Policy Committees and Joint Policing Committees.

Departmental Bodies 89. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the agencies, groups, quangos and committees funded or part-funded by his Department; if he will instance their cost, remit, role, the number of staff in each and the number of board members and their remuneration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46701/10]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): The following table sets out the relevant information in respect of agencies and bodies funded or part funded by my Department. The boards of An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency are executive in nature and the members are full-time salaried positions. In accordance with Department of Finance guidelines, Civil Servants appointed as non- executive members of State Bodies under the aegis of my Department do not receive fees or remuneration for such membership.

728 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers 7,695 8,978 Rate) 11,970 31,799 € € € € 121,208.16 (Non 206,616.30 138,655.04 Personal Pension € € € 127,588.36 (Personal Fee/Per Diem Fee) Contribution Rate) comparator/Annual Pension Contribution € Members 10 Deputy Chairperson 1 Ordinary members 6 Members 23Members 25 Nil Nil 31/09/2010) Members members (Salary 20,000 Nil Chairperson 1 € 2,127,000 15.0 Chairperson 1 592,200** Nil Chairperson 1 13,029,000 161.5 Chairperson 1 € € € — la was established in 1977 á affordable housing. Since 2009,has the moved agency towards supportmatters on to all local housing authoritiesof and Environment, the in Dept lineof with the the new creation Housing Agency. under the Local Governmentand (Planning Development) Act, 1976responsible and for is the determinationappeals of and certain otherthe matters Planning under and Development Acts, 2000 Building Control Act 1990:Building (2) Regulations The Advisory Body relating to building regulations, and or on behalf of the Minister. consultation on all issuessustainable relating development. to Its rolework is in to partnership tosustainable encourage development in Irelandadvise and Government to on policiessupport which and promote sustainable development. to 2010 and determination of applications for strategic infrastructure development including major road and railway cases. It proposals for the compulsoryof acquisition land by localunder authorities various and enactments. others Thehas Board functions also to determineWater appeals and under Air PollutionBuilding Acts Control and Act. the is also responsible for dealing with (a) shall advise the Minister on matters (b) may provide such advisory services for la An Bord Plean Agency/Body Role/Remit 2010 Allocation Staff (WTE* at No. of Board Remuneration of á Affordable Homes Partnership ToAn co-ordinate Bord and Plean promote the delivery of Building Regulations Advisory Body The remit of BRAB comes from the Comhar Sustainable Development Council Comhar SDC is the forum for national

729 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers 127,588 138,655 € € – 182,786.55 day 8,978 5,985 8,500 € (PPC) € € € 145,952 (PPC) € 173,647.35 (Non € 121,208 – PPC) 166.50 per meeting 208 per preparation Fee/Per Diem Fee) comparator/Annual 208 per meeting plus € € (Non PPC) € € Members 10 Members 12 Nil Members 4 Directors 4 31/09/2010) members(Salary 200,000 Nil Chairperson 1 539,000 5 Chairperson 1 € € 8,482,000 15 Chairperson 1 € 43,715,000*** 328.8 Director General 1 € Irish “ (IWS) in July 2006. ” s national heritage and to ’ Board was established, on a non-statutory established under the Environmental independent body under TheAct Heritage 1995 and seeksenhance to the protect richness, and qualityof and our diversity national heritageworks for with everyone. its It partners,local particularly level, at to increaseIreland awareness of highlight its importance toand public everyday policy life. established in November, 1999Order by made an under theServices Local (Corporate Government Bodies Act),The 1971. Association was re-establishedcorporate as body a under its new title basis to make recommendationsMinister to in the cases whereto landowners the object inclusion / exclusion of their land Protection Agency Act, 1992.also The derives Agency its mandateManagement from Act, the 1996, Waste and the Water Safety in/from proposed Special AreasConservation of (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) or Natural(NHA). Heritage Areas Protection of the Environment Act, 2003. wide range of licensing,monitoring enforcement, and assessment activities associated with environmental protection. The Agency has responsibilities for a Agency/Body Role/Remit 2010 Allocation Staff(WTE* at No. ofBoardMembers Remuneration of Designated Areas Appeals Advisory Board The Designated Areas Appeals Advisory Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is an independent public body The Heritage Council The Heritage CouncilIrish is Water a Safety statutory The Irish Water Safety Association was

730 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers 8,500 5,985 8,500 5,985 8,978 7,695 11,970 € € € € € € € Fee/Per Diem Fee) comparator/Annual Members 16 Members 16 Members 11 N/a Members 11 31/09/2010) Members members (Salary 17,100 Nil Chairperson 1 4,125,000 7 Chairperson 1 4,125,000 9 Chairperson 1 3,685,000 46.6 Chairperson 1 € € € € s Park. The Agencies are ’ established in June 2007confidence to and build trust withincommunity the in Limerick andcomprehensive to regeneration deliver programme a for the social, economic,regeneration and of physical the areasSouthill, of Ballinacurra Moyross, Weston andMary St. relation to any generalaccommodation matter for concerning Travellers; anyreferred matter to it byappropriate the measures Minister; for the improving,local most at level, consultation with,participation and of, Travellers inprovision the and management of accommodation; general matters concerning the preparation, adequacy, implementation and co-ordination of Traveller accommodation programmes. responsibility for all regulatory, monitoring and advisory matters pertaining to ionising radiation. specifically charged with deliveringordinated a public co- sector responseregeneration. to the Agency/Body Role/Remit 2010 Allocation Staff (WTE* at No. of Board Remuneration of *WTE **Environment Fund Limerick Northside Regeneration Agency The Limerick Regeneration Agencies were Limerick Southside Regeneration Agency National Traveller Consultative Committee The NTACC advises the Minister in Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland The RPII is the statutory authority with ***Vote and Environment Fund.

731 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Question No. 90 answered with Question No. 88.

State Bodies 91. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairmen of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46710/10]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): The agencies operating under my Department’s aegis are in the main non-commercial, undertaking quasi-judicial/ regulatory, advisory and developmental functions. In some instances, due to the form and function of the body, there is no requirement for an annual report or accounts to be provided to my Department or the Government. Otherwise, preparation of its annual report is a matter for the body concerned. My Department, following the presentation of a report, submits it to Government and/or arranges for the laying of the report before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have received an Annual Report from all bodies under my aegis required to submit such a report for 2007 and 2008 and have received a majority of reports for 2009. The 2009 Reports from the Environmental Protection Agency the Fire Services Council, the Limerick Regener- ation Agencies and the National Building Agency are currently in preparation. In accordance with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, the Chairperson of each State body is required to furnish to the Minister, in conjunction with their annual report and accounts, confirmation that the Code of Practice has been adopted and is being compiled with; such confirmation has been received in reports to date. However, while the pay of the Chief Executive of the DDDA for the first half of 2009 did not comply with Government policy, this matter has been resolved and the Authority is now in compliance. In relation to DDDA employees, a small number are paid amounts in excess of the requirements of Govern- ment policy due to contract terms previously agreed; this matter will be pursued with the DDDA.

Water Quality 92. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the contamination of the Mount Melleray water supply in Waterford; if he has received any correspondence from Coillte on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46753/10]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): The European Communities (Drinking Water) (No. 2) Regulations 2007 prescribe the quality standards to be applied in relation to supplies of drinking water, including requirements relating to sampling and analysis of water to ensure that it meets those standards. The Regulations designate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the supervisory authority for local authority drinking water supplies. The Regulations also stipulate that where a supply of water intended for human consumption constitutes a potential danger to human health, the local authority must ensure that the supply of such water is prohibited, or its use is restricted, and

732 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers that consumers are informed promptly and given the necessary advice. The EPA must also be notified of such instances. Neither I nor my Department has received any correspondence on this matter. However, my Department has consulted with Waterford County Council which has confirmed that the source for the supply in question was flooded following heavy rainfall which caused the water to become discoloured. The Council advised that it immediately imposed a boil water notice on the supply and it consulted with the EPA. The Council has confirmed that there was no contamination of the water supply and the boil notice is precautionary. A new groundwater source has been identified and tested by the authority and this is currently being developed with a view to replacing the original supply.

Local Authority Housing 93. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment the position regarding the entitlement to housing by a person evicted from local authority housing on anti-social grounds; if the two year ban from consideration for local authority housing is a national rule or set by individual local authorities; [46794/10]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): Social Welfare legislation provides the Health Service Executive (HSE) with the authority to refuse, suspend or terminate payment of a rent supplement in the case of a person who has been required to deliver up possession of a dwelling provided by a housing authority or an approved body where the reasons for that requirement include anti- social behaviour or the interests of good estate management. It is a matter for the HSE to make this decision in relation to individual cases.

Water Charges 94. Deputy Noel Ahern asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment the position regarding the installation of domestic water meters; the timescale for installation of meters; if the contract or contracts have been awarded or when same will be advertised; the way plumbers indicate or register their interest in being involved; if the Department is involved in training courses or has given their support to private training courses for non- plumbers and the reason this is deemed necessary with so many unemployed plumbers [46799/10]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I refer to the reply to Question No. 279 of 7 December 2010, in regard to the installation of domestic water meters. My Department is not involved in, nor does it support, any private training courses for non-plumbers. However, together with the local authorities, FAS, and the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, my Department supports the Water Services Training Group which, through its five regional training centres, aims to provide training on the delivery of water services to a broad range of staff within the local authorities and in the private sector. Details of the training courses offered by the Group are available on its website www.wsntg.ie .

Water and Sewerage Schemes 95. Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made on the construction of a new treatment plant for Oughterard; if the revised design review report, submitted to his Department on 22 October 2010, has been

733 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael D. Higgins.] passed by him; if he will confirm that if he has passed the report the council can then proceed to contract document stage [46840/10]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I refer to the reply to Question No. 352 of 9 November 2010 which outlines the position in this matter.

Energy Prices 96. Deputy Charlie O’Connor asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the action he is taking to deal with the concerns being expressed in respect of energy prices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46690/10]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) collects and publishes energy statistics to support policy analysis and development in line with national needs and international obligations. On 1st December 2010 SEAI published a review of Electricity and Gas Prices in Ireland from January 2010–June 2010, which highlights the continued fall in electricity and gas prices over the last year as Ireland strengthens its competitive position. Both householders and businesses have benefited from falling energy costs. Householders experienced a large fall in electricity prices of 12% bringing prices in line with the EU average. Domestic gas prices also fell by 23%. It is important that all customers who are concerned about energy costs should shop around and take advantage of the value and choice available in the competitive electricity market. To date an estimated 28% of households have switched their electricity supplier, taking advantage of the significant discounts currently available. In recognition that the current economic climate is placing additional pressures on energy consumers and that customers rights needs to be enhanced, the Commission for Energy Regu- lation (CER) has recently announced its decision that the cost of disconnections for electricity and gas be shared equally between the supplier and the customer in the case of non-payment of account. This is an interim measure commencing December 22nd and will remain in place for 12 months. CER will also begin a review on the disconnections charges levied by networks companies. The Code of Practice for Disconnections has been revised to include additional supplier measures to assist domestic customers in managing their bills and reducing discon- nection rates. I also welcome the recent decision by ESB, Bord Gáis and Airtricity, to suspend disconnections during the current bad weather spell. CER is also currently running a Smart Metering pilot scheme, which aims to establish how the potential benefits of smart metering can be best applied to prepayment meters for both electricity and gas. The trial, along with a cost-benefit analysis, is due to be completed in early 2011. I am also working closely with the Ministers for Social Protection and Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to deliver a fully cohesive Government response to the challenges of addressing energy affordability in Ireland. I expect the Affordable Energy Strategy to be submitted to me shortly with a view to bringing it to Government in the coming weeks. This strategy will be the framework for building upon the many measures already in place to protect vulnerable households at risk from the effects of energy poverty. These measures include social welfare supports such as the Fuel Allowance and the Household Benefits package, advice on energy efficiency.

734 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

State Bodies 97. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46705/10]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): The State Boards, agencies, regulators or other bodies under the remit of my Department are as follows:

• An Post;

• Bord Gáis Éireann;

• Bord na Móna;

• Broadcasting Authority of Ireland;

• Commission for Communications Regulation;

• Commission for Energy Regulation;

• Digital Hub Development Agency;

• EirGrid;

• Electricity Supply Board (ESB);

• Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission;

• Inland Fisheries Ireland;

• Irish National Petroleum Corporation;

• Mining Board;

• National Oil Reserves Agency;

• Ordnance Survey Ireland;

• Radio Telefís Éireann;

• Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland;

• Teilifís na Gaeilge (TG4).

My Department has received an annual report from these bodies for each of the past three years, with the exception of, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI), Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) and the Mining Board. BAI was established on 1st October 2009, under the Broadcasting Act 2009, and replaced the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I expect to receive the 2009 annual report in the coming days. IFI was established under the Inland Fisher-

735 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.] ies Act 2010 and involved merging the Central Fisheries Boards and the seven regional from 1 July 2010. The Department received an Annual Report from the Central Fisheries Board for the past three years. The Mining Board is an appeals body to adjudicate on decisions of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources concerning the grant/denial, of a mining licence. The body does not produce an annual report. As I indicated in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 83 of 8th December 2010, it is a matter for each board to determine the remuneration of its staff, in line with Government policy. The Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies applies to all of the above bodies. It is a matter for each body to comply with the requirements of the code, including remuneration, and to report annually to me on compliance with those requirements, subject to the provisions of the relevant legislation governing each body.

Telecommunications Services 98. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the percentage of households in Waterford city and county with broadband services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46739/10]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): The provision of telecommunications services, including broadband services, is a matter for private sector service providers operating in a liberalised market regulated by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). Broadband services are provided by private service providers over various platforms including DSL (i.e. over telephone lines), fixed wireless, mobile, cable, fibre and satellite. ComReg’s website www.callcosts.ie provides detailed information on the various private sector telecommunications products and services available on a county by county basis, including County Waterford. While my Department does not hold information on broadband penetration by region, Com- Reg publishes quarterly statistical reports on national developments in the fixed-line, mobile and broadband communications markets. These reports demonstrate the significant progress in broadband roll-out over recent years. At the end of June 2010 Ireland had in the region of 1.48 million broadband subscriptions and narrowband connections had reduced to less than 5% of all Internet connections. The year-on-year growth in subscriptions over the preceding 12- month period from June 2009 was over 16.5%. Broadband services are now available throughout the entire National Broadband Scheme (NBS) area. A list of the Electoral Divisions (EDs) covered in County Waterford is provided below. In summary, broadband services in the NBS EDs in the county are available to 97.99% of premises by means of mobile wireless broadband coverage, with coverage to the balance of 2.01% of premises being provided by way of satellite. However, despite Government and private investment in broadband, I am aware that there continues to be a small percentage of premises throughout the country that will not be capable of receiving broadband services. This is primarily due to technical and other reasons (suitability of a telephone line, distance from an enabled exchange, no line of sight etc.). The European Commission has set aside a portion of the European Economic Recovery Programme (EERP) funding for rural broadband initiatives. Using this funding, which will be augmented by an Exchequer contribution, I intend, subject to Government approval, to formally announce the launch of a Rural Broadband Scheme before the end of this year. This scheme will aim to provide a basic broadband service to individual un-served rural premises outside of the NBS areas.

736 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

There will be a competitive process to engage a service provider who will offer a broadband service to qualified applicants under the scheme. While the exact details have yet to be finalised, I expect that the service offered under this scheme would at least match the service offered under the NBS. This process will be technology neutral — it will be a matter for the bidders to decide which technical approach they propose in their bids. Information in relation to acceptance of applications and the process of qualification under the scheme will be made available in due course when the scheme is launched.

National Broadband Scheme (NBS)

Electoral Divisions (ED) Covered by the NBS in County Waterford

ED Name Reference No

BALLYDUFF ED 227004 BALLYDURN ED 227005 BALLYNAMULT ED 227013 BALLYSAGGART MORE ED 227014 BOHADOON ED 227015 CARRIGCASTLE ED 227019 CASTLERICHARD ED 227021 CLASHMORE ED 227022 COLLIGAN ED 227025 COMERAGH ED 227026 COUMARAGLIN ED 227027 FEWS ED 227038 FOX’S CASTLE ED 227039 GARDENMORRIS ED 227040 GEORGESTOWN 227041 GLEN ED 227042 GRAIGNAGOWER ED 227045 GURTEEN ED 227048 KILBARRYMEADEN ED 227052 KILCOCKAN ED 227053 KILWATERMOY EAST ED 227062 KNOCKAUNBRANDAUN ED 227065 KNOCKMAHON ED 227066 MOCOLLOP ED 227068 MODELLIGO ED 227070 MOUNTKENNEDY ED 227072 RATHGORMUCK ED 227078 ROSS ED 227082 SESKINAN ED 227083 TEMPLEMICHAEL ED 227087 TINNASAGGART ED 227088

Warmer Homes Scheme 99. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the number of homes in County Waterford that have benefited under the warmer 737 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Brendan Kenneally.] homes scheme in 2010; his plans to extend the scheme in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46751/10]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): The Warmer Homes Scheme (WHS), which is administered by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) on behalf of my Department, provides energy efficiency improvements to homes in, or at risk of, fuel poverty and is primarily delivered by 28 community based organisations (CBOs). The CBOs work in partnership with their local network of poverty and community support organisations including public health nurses, MABS and the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul to identify and address vulnerable homes. Through this devolved model, each CBO is responsible for managing the applications in their own operational areas. Private contractors are also engaged to supplement CBO coverage and capacity in order to address the increasing demand for the scheme. Through these mechanisms the WHS has, to date in 2010, been delivered to 22,949 homes including 1,010 homes in County Waterford. There is no pre-set amount of funding allocated to individual counties under the WHS, as it is a national scheme with a funding envelope which varies on a county by county basis annually. Activity levels in 2011 will be subject to the allocation for the scheme in 2011 and I have yet to decide on this which will be funded from the overall 2011 allocation for energy efficiency schemes of some €69.25m. A dedicated WHS hot line — 1800 250 204 — has been in operation for some time and all queries, from scheme applicants and public representatives, on delivery dates for individual households and/or funding agreements are dealt with immediately. In addition, the WHS programme manager, Mr Michael Martin of the SEAI is available to deal with queries on 042 939 1548.

Energy Prices 100. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he is satisfied that the price of bottled gas for the consumer is appropriate; that any reductions in the cost of producing gas are equally passed on to bottled gas customers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46831/10]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): Domestic gas cylinders contain liquid petroleum gas (LPG), which is a by-product of oil. The Irish oil industry is fully privatised, liberalised and deregulated. Accordingly, there is no price control on petroleum products in Ireland and my Department does not have a role with regard to prices charged in respect of LPG. While the regulation of Bord Gáis Éireann natural gas tariffs is the responsibility of the Commission for Energy Regulation, which is statutorily independent in the performance of its functions, the Commission has no function in regard to the setting of the retail price of LPG.

Harbours and Piers 101. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if budget 2011 will allocate funding for the continuation of a project (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46748/10]

738 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): Greencastle harbour is owned by Donegal County Council and responsibility for the maintenance and development of the harbour rests with that local authority in the first instance. My Department has, however, in recent years, project managed works on phase one of the Greencastle Harbour development project on behalf of Donegal County Council as well as providing funding. Any application received from Donegal County Council for funding, under the 2011 Fishery Harbours and Coastal Infrastructure Development Programme, to continue phase one of the Greencastle development project will be considered in the context of available exchequer funding and competing national priorities.

Water Quality 102. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any assurances from Coillte concerning its work in Mount Melleray in County Waterford; if he is confident that the Coillte works did not contribute to the contamination of the local water supply in the area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46692/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): Coillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act, 1988 and day-to-day operational matters, such as harvesting and associated work, is the responsibility of the company. I understand from Coillte that, in this case, discolouration of water occurred after extremely heavy rainfall and before any extraction work took place in the area feeding the reservoir and that therefore, in their view, the discolouration was not a result of forestry operations. The company also advise that all the extraction routes and felling methods used were agreed with Waterford County Council in advance of harvesting and were planned to prevent any run off in the direction of the reservoir.

State Bodies 103. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46704/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): All of the State Bodies have submitted Annual Reports and Accounts for the past three years and, with the exception of seven reports for 2009, have been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. My Department monitors the pay of CEOs of the State Bodies under its aegis to ensure compliance with Government guidelines. In addition Statements of Assurance are submitted by the Chairmen of these bodies to confirm that all aspects of Government policy are adhered to.

Live Exports 104. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the

739 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Denis Naughten.] steps he is taking to protect live exports in view of new EU requirements on 30-day testing and 30-day on-farm residence pre-movement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46720/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): There are no new EU requirements on live exports. The position is that Member States are legally obliged under Council Directive 64/432 on intra-community trade to certify, among other things, that bovines and pigs being exported for breeding or production have been on a single holding during the 30 day period prior to export or, if such animals are younger than 30 days, that they have been on the holding of their origin since birth. The EU Commission has taken the view that the arrangements in place in Ireland are not in line with this Directive. My Department is satisfied that the arrangements provide the necessary safeguards but has decided, nevertheless, to con- sult with the farming organisations and live exporters on how best to comply with the Com- mission’s interpretation of the Directive, while at the same time minimising any disruption to the live export trade.

Grant Payments 105. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers in County Waterford in receipt of single farm payment in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46721/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The payments made to farmers in Waterford under the Single payment Scheme since 2005 were as follows:

County Year Numbers Paid Amount Paid

€

Waterford 2010 2,356 35,184,761.30 Waterford 2009 2,421 40,592,836.60 Waterford 2008 2,436 40,763,082.60 Waterford 2007 2,450 40,442,978.60 Waterford 2006 2,463 40,943,297.30 Waterford 2005 2,504 38,241,653.40

Payments to farmers for the period 2005 to 2009 have been fully completed unless there are issues of inheritance or other similar transfers in isolated cases. I can confirm that advance payments under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme commenced issuing on 18 October and that the balancing payments under that Scheme began issuing on 1 December, in line with the very ambitious payments targets I set for my Department. I am confident that, by year-end, payments to farmers nationally will have exceeded €1.1 billion under the Single Payment Scheme. I can confirm that every effort is being made to clear remaining cases for payment at the earliest possible date and, to this end, regular payment runs continue to be made.

Disadvantaged Areas Scheme 106. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers in County Waterford in receipt of disadvantaged farm aid in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46722/10] 740 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The payments made to farmers in Waterford under the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme since 2005 were as follows:

County Year Numbers Paid Amount Paid €

Waterford 2010 1,336 2,876,623.22 Waterford 2009 1,433 3,243,237.68 Waterford 2008 1,470 3,842,174.06 Waterford 2007 1,477 3,871,046.76 Waterford 2006 1,421 3,793,091.85 Waterford 2005 1,424 3,054,660.95

Payments to farmers for the period 2005 to 2009 have been fully completed unless there are issues of inheritance or other similar transfers in isolated cases. The 2010 payments under the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme, which commenced on 22 September continue to be made to farmers as there application is fully processed and clear of errors. I am confident that, by year- end, payments to farmers nationally will be well in excess of €200 million under the Disadvan- taged Areas Scheme. I can confirm that every effort is being made to clear remaining cases for payment at the earliest possible date and, to this end, regular payment runs continue to be made.

Departmental Schemes 107. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers in County Waterford who applied for inclusion in the agri-environment options scheme in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46723/10]

An Ceann Comhairle: The Agri-Environment Options Scheme was launched on 30th March 2010. A total of 191 applications were received from farmers in County Waterford before the closing date of 17th May.

EU Directives 108. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers in County Waterford prosecuted and fined under the nitrates directive in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46724/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): Ireland’s first National Action Programme under the Nitrates Directive was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2006, SI No 378 of 2006. These Regulations were revised by the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 101 of 2009. Prosecutions for offences under these Regulations may be taken by a local authority or by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, therefore, does not undertake prosecutions under these Regulations.

Farm Waste Management 109. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number 741 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy John Deasy.] of farmers in County Waterford in receipt of grant aid under the farm waste management scheme in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46725/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The Farm Waste Management Scheme was introduced under the aegis of the 2000-2006 National Development Plan and therefore closed for new applications at the end of 2006. The numbers of payments (including instalment payments) made in County Waterford each year since 2005 under the Scheme are set out in the following table:

Year Payments

2005 70 2006 67 2007 116 2008 225 2009 478 2010 (end-Nov) 362

Total 1,318

Grant Payments 110. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers in County Waterford in receipt of payments under the suckler cow welfare scheme in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46726/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The Suckler Cow Welfare Scheme was established in 2008 and payments have issued in respect of 2008 and 2009 born animals where the required measures were completed. Under the 2008 Scheme 656 farmers in County Waterford have been paid to date a total of €1,550,419, in respect of 19,772 animals. Under the 2009 Scheme, 510 applicants have been paid to date a total of €552,105 in respect of 14,183 animals. The rate payable under the 2008 Scheme was €80 per head, whereas, under the 2009 Scheme and subsequent years the rate is set at €40 per head. Payments continue to issue in respect of both 2008 and 2009 born calves as individual cases are cleared.

111. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers in County Waterford in receipt of ewe sheep grassland payment in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46727/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The Upland Sheep Payment was implemented in Ireland in 2009. Payments amounting to €95,790.13 were made to 197 farmers in Waterford. The Grassland Sheep Scheme replaced the Upland Sheep Payment in 2010. There was no specific direct aid scheme in place for sheep farmers prior to 2009 but sheep farmers benefited from payments under both the Single Payment Scheme and Disadvan- taged Areas Scheme.

112. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers in County Waterford in receipt of capital grant aid for fencing and handling facilities 742 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46728/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The numbers of payments made in County Waterford each year since 2005 under the Farm Waste Management, Alternative Enterprises and Farm Improvement Schemes in respect of fencing and handling facilities are set out in the following table:

Year Payments

2005 7 2006 9 2007 13 2008 5 2009 19 2010 (end-Nov) 8

Total 61

In addition, grant-aid has been made available since 1 November 2010 for fencing and mobile handling facilities in the sheep sector by virtue of the Sheep Fencing/Mobile Handling Equip- ment Scheme. However, no payments have been made, to date, under the Scheme.

Fishing Vessel Licences 113. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number and types of fishing licences issued in County Waterford in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46729/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The following are the number of sea fishing boat licences issued in respect of vessels owned by persons with addresses in Co Waterford for the years 2005-2010:-

Year No. of Licences

2005 60 2006 72 2007 67 2008 72 2009 84 2010 95

The Deputy should be aware that the number of licences issued in a given year may differ from the number of vessels operational at any given time for a number of reasons — for example where a short term licence expires, or where a vessel is sold.

114. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the current size of the national fishing fleet and the number operating in County Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46730/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The national sea fishing fleet currently comprises 2,129 vessels. 743 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Brendan Smith.]

82 vessels are currently licensed and registered to persons with addresses in Co.Waterford.

Grant Payments 115. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of fishermen and fishing-related enterprises in Waterford receiving grant aid in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46731/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): This is a matter for Bord Iascaigh Mhara, as the implementing agency for grant aid programmes for the fishing industry, funded through my Department. I will ask BIM to respond directly to the Deputy.

Fisheries Protection 116. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of persons in Waterford fined for breach of fishing regulations in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46732/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): Operational aspects in relation to sea fisheries control operations are a matter for the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA). I have asked the SFPA to respond directly to the Deputy.

Grant Payments 117. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding the single farm payment in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford; if payment will issue before Christmas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46741/10]

118. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive their single farm payments and disadvantage area aid payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46763/10]

744 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Under EU regulations governing the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme and the Single Payment Scheme all Ground Eligibility Inspections must be completed before any payment can issue to any applicant under either scheme, including those not selected for a Ground Eligibility Inspection. In the vast majority of cases that were inspected amendments have had to be made to the maps in order that the Land Parcel Identification System that is used for making payments to farmers is kept up-to-date. Processing of these changes is continuing with priority being given to applications that were the subject of a Ground Eligibility Inspection.

119. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway has not received their single farm payment; when payment will issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46773/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): An application under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas Scheme was received from the person named on 8 May 2010. An Advance payment under Single Payment Scheme issued to the person named on 18 October on the clear eligible area. However, some of the land parcels listed on the application required re-digitisation. This process is now complete and the balancing payments due in respect of the Single Payment Scheme issued on 1 and 8 December respectively.

120. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a payment under the single farm payment scheme can be expedited in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46775/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): An application under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme was received from the person named on 12 May 2010. Pay- ments under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme commenced nationally on 18 October 2010. The person named submitted an application with 10 land parcels, 5 of which required re- digitisation. Payments to the person named were made under the Single Payment Scheme in respect of the clear land parcels on 18 October 2010 and 1 December 2010. My Department has now completed the re-digitisation process and this application is currently being processed with a view to a final balancing payment issuing shortly, provided no further errors are identified.

Departmental Contracts 121. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Bord Iascaigh Mhara have made applications to the Department of Finance or relevant Departments to extend employment contacts of two BIM contract employees of a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46784/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): My Department in consultation with the Department of Finance have been examining an application from Bord Iascaigh Mhara to extend the contracts of two Dingle Ice Plant operators in the context of the Employment Control Framework.

Grant Payments 122. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when

745 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Jimmy Deenihan.] single farm payment will be made available in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46787/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): A Single Payment Scheme application was received from the person named on 7 May 2010. The application submitted did not include a herd number, as the person named had not been assigned a herd number at that time. Following the allocation of a herd number the application was further processed. It was established that the land declared required digitising and this process is now complete. The person named submitted an application for an allocation of entitlements under Category A of the 2010 National Reserve. Category A caters for farmers who inherit, or acquire a holding free of charge by deed of transfer from an EU Early Retirement Scheme (ERS) partici- pant farmer who retired or died before 16 May 2005. The holding must have been leased out to a third party during the 2000 — 2002 reference period. In addition applicants are required to meet certain criteria in relation to on and off farm income limits. The person named did not submit the necessary documentation in order to fully process his application and my Department wrote to him requesting the relevant documentation. While, a reply was received, all the relevant information was not submitted by the applicant. A further letter has issued to the person named requesting him to submit documentation indicating that he received the land free of charge. In addition, further clarification with regard to his off-farm income has been requested. Upon receipt of the required documentation his application will be further processed in order to determine his eligibility for an allocation from the National Reserve.

Question No. 123 withdrawn.

124. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when single farm payment will issue in respect of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46812/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): An application under the Single Payment Scheme was received from the person named on the 20 April 2010. This application was selected for a Ground Eligibility and Full Cross Compliance inspection. The inspection process is complete and the results are now being processed. During the course of the Ground Eligibility inspection, discrepancies were found with some of the parcels applied on and deductions were made accordingly. The claimed area for the Single Payment Scheme of 357.25ha was reduced to 348.83ha. As the total area found is not sufficient to support the number of entitlements held, penalties will be applied as per the Terms and Conditions of the scheme. In this case the number entitlements held by the person named is 396.83. As the difference between the area declared and the area found is more than 3%, under EU Regu- lations, the difference between the area found and the area claimed is doubled and deducted from the area found. As a result the area put forward for payment under the Single Payment Scheme is 337.51ha. A formal decision issued to the person named on 28 October 2010 that advised him of his right to seek a review of the decision with 21 days to the District Inspector and of his right to appeal the outcome of any such review to the Independent Agriculture Appeals Office. Payment under the Single Payment Scheme will issue within a week.

746 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

125. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway has not received their REP scheme payment; when payment will issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46816/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The EU Regulations governing REPS 4 and other area-based schemes provide that payments issue in two instal- ments. The first instalment of 75% may be paid once all administrative checks on all applications, as well as cross-checks against areas declared on Single Payment Scheme applications, have been completed. This process is underway and my objective is to make all payments for 2010 as soon as possible. The balancing payment of 25% can issue once all on-the-spot inspections for the year have taken place and these will be completed shortly.

126. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway has not been paid their single farm payment or their area based payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46823/10]

127. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of Waterford farmers who received direct farm payments and the amount provided in total; the number of outstanding payments to Waterford farmers still to be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46827/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): I can confirm that the balancing payments under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme began issuing on 1 December, in line with the very ambitious payments targets I set for my Department in early October. Payments under the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme have been ongoing since they commenced on 22 September. I am confident that, by year-end, payments to farmers nationally will have exceeded €1.35 billion under the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme (DAS). In relation to Waterford, the position under the Single Payment Scheme is that there were 2,420 eligible applicants. To date 1,805 applicants have been fully paid and 551 applicants partially paid. Total payments under the Scheme are in excess of €35.18 million. As regards the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme, the position is that 1,336 applicants have been paid over €2.87 million and there are a further 142 applicants awaiting payment, many of whom are currently not eligible for payment as they do not meet the minimum stocking requirement of 0.15 livestock units per hectare. I can confirm that every effort is being made to clear remaining cases for payment at the earliest possible date and, to this end, payment runs continue to be made on alternate days, between the two Schemes.

747 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

128. Deputy John Perry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Sligo will receive their single farm payments and area aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46832/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): An application under the Single Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas Scheme was received from the person named on the 23 March 2010. This application was selected for and was the subject of a Ground Eligibility and Animal Identification Inspection. The inspection process is complete and the results are now being processed. Under EU regulations governing the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme and the Single Payment Scheme all Ground Eligibility Inspections must be completed before any payment can issue to any applicant under either scheme, including those not selected for a Ground Eligibility Inspection. In the vast majority of cases that were inspected amendments have had to be made to the maps in order that the Land Parcel Identification System that is used for making payments to farmers is kept up-to-date. Processing of these changes is continuing with priority being given to applications that were the subject of a Ground Eligibility Inspection.

129. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will expedite payments of single farm payment and disadvantaged areas scheme payments in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46841/10]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): An application under the 2010 Single Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas Scheme was received from the person named on 5 May 2010. This application consisted of 11 land parcels, eight of which require re-digitisation. Payments under the Single Payment Scheme were made in respect of eligible land parcels on 18 October 2010 and 1 December 2010 respectively. An advance payment under the Dis- advantaged Areas Scheme was made on 21 September 2010. My Department is currently completing the re-digitisation of the remaining eight land parcels. Immediately this process is complete, provided no further errors are identified, the application will be processed in full with a view to payments due issuing shortly thereafter.

State Bodies 130. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46709/10]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I am presuming that the Deputy is referring to the State Bodies that come under the remit of my Department, which, as it happens, are all non-commercial bodies. In this respect, the position with regard to the Annual Reports for the Agencies under the aegis of my Department is set out in the table:

748 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

Agency Annual Report 2007 Annual Report 2008 Annual Report 2009

Rec’d Laid Rec’d Laid Rec’d Laid (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Enterprise Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Forfás Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IDA Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes National Standards Authority of Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No1 (NSAI) Shannon Development Company Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes InterTrade Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No2 Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Competition Authority Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes National Consumer Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Irish Auditing and Accounting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Supervisory Authority Health and Safety Authority Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Personal Injuries Assessment Board Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Labour Relations Commission Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes: 1 It is expected that the NSAI Annual Report 2009 will be laid before the Oireachtas shortly once the Irish translation is completed. 2 The North South Ministerial Council (NSMC) noted the 2009 Annual Report and Accounts for InterTrade Ireland at the Trade and Business Development Sectoral meeting held on 12th November 2010. Upon receipt of the Annual Report in hard copy format, it will be brought to Government for approval to lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas shortly thereafter.

In relation to the 35 City and County Enterprise Boards (CEBs), the 2009 Annual Reports for 27 of the Boards are with the Comptroller and Auditor General for consideration before they can be published. The Annual Reports for the other 8 Boards for 2009 have been published and laid before the Oireachtas, as have all the Reports for all CEBs for 2008 and 2007. In relation to the pay of the chief executives and employees of our Agencies, I can confirm that these comply with Government policy. In relation to the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Agencies, the Annual Reports for 12 of the Agencies in the earlier table contain statements indicating compliance with provisions of the Code. However, for the remaining Agency, the Competition Authority, its statement of compliance is contained in the Authority’s Financial Statements 2009, which were furnished to me on December 1st 2010, rather than in its Annual Report. The Authority, in compliance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 publishes its annual report within two months from the end of its financial year, but cannot publish its annual audited accounts until they have been examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General later in the year. Finally, the Deputy should note the separate reporting and remuneration arrangements that apply in relation to the North/South Body, InterTradeIreland (ITI). In this case the salary of the Chief Executive is approved by the respective Finance Departments, North and South, as well as by the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC) Secretariat. The pay scales of the Chief Executive and the employees of the ITI are linked to Northern Ireland Civil Service payscales.

Work Permits 131. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if 749 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

[Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.] a company can legally pay arrears of pay to a person whose work permit has expired without falling foul of work permit rules; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46857/10]

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise; Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): Under the Employment Permits Act 2006 in order to work in Ireland, a third country migrant worker must have a correct and valid employment permit or have some other form of permission from the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to reside and work in Ireland. A contract of employment between a third country migrant worker required to have a work permit and an employer, which is not covered by a valid work permit, is an illegal contract. In relation to illegal contracts, the Irish Courts have taken the view that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce such contracts. Accordingly, the National Employment Rights Auth- ority does not seek to recover money due to people working under illegal contracts. Notwith- standing the stance taken with regard to previous cases, it would, of course, be open to an individual to seek legal advice with a view to a possible civil action, based on the facts of his/her particular case. While outside of my Department’s remit, I understand also that in such instances, PRSI or PAYE contributions paid in respect of payment of wages under a contract found to be illegal would be refunded as no benefits can accrue to persons in such circumstances. Of course, in the event that the contract of employment is a legal contract then a third country national legally employed in the State has the same entitlements as other legally employed workers and may seek redress in the same manner, for example, by reference to a Rights Commissioner.

State Bodies 132. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46706/10]

Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Pat Carey): The details requested by the Deputy in relation to the most recent annual reports submitted to my Depart- ment by the State bodies/agencies funded from my Department’s Vote Group and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas are reflected in the Table below. In a small number of cases, 2009 Annual Reports have been received and arrangements to lay them before the Oireachtas are in hand. In relation to the pay of Chief Executives and employees of such bodies, the relevant Depart- ment of Finance circulars have been provided to the bodies, as has a copy of the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, which, inter alia, requires Chairpersons and Boards to implement Government policy in relation to pay in their bodies. There are particular complexities involved in compiling, auditing and consolidating the annual reports and accounts, and the efforts of both agencies to progress this work have been noted by the North South Ministerial Council on a number of occasions. The current position is that both agencies, in conjunction with the sponsor Departments North and South, are giving priority to bringing publication of the annual reports and accounts up to date.

750 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

With regard to Vote 24 Charitable Donations and Bequests, I have been advised that the 2009 Annual Report from the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests will be submitted to my Department shortly.

State Body/Agency Years covered by the most recent Annual Years covered by the Reports submitted most recent Annual Report laid before Oireachtas

Equality Authority 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007

Equality Tribunal 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007

Human Rights Commission 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007

National Disability Authority 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007

Family Support Agency 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006

Dormant Accounts Board 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007

Western Development Commission 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006

Údarás na Gaeltachta 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007

An Coimisinéir Teanga 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007

Waterways Ireland 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006

An Foras Teanga (comprising Foras na Draft Annual Reports for 2007-09 2006 Gaeilge and Ulster-Scots Agency) submitted* 2005 2004

Office of the Commissioners of Charitable 2008 2008 Donations and Bequests 2007 2007 2006 2006 *Awaiting clearance of Annual Accounts 2007-09 by C&AGs.

751 Questions— 9 December 2010. Written Answers

National Drugs Strategy 133. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of calls to the dial to stop drug dealing hotline in Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46826/10]

Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Pat Carey): The Dial to Stop Drug Dealing campaign ran in three phases — across 15 Local and Regional Drugs Task Force areas — in 2008 and 2009. The South East Regional Drugs Task Force (RDTF), which covers County Waterford, ran its campaign in March 2009. I relaunched the campaign on 6 October last with a two week national promotional campaign, followed by local campaigns at Drugs Task Force level. The South East RDTF again opted to participate and its campaign ran in October and November 2010. Calls received have been spread right across the country, including areas that that have not run a campaign. Since the phone line opened in September 2008, a total number of 8,684 calls have been made to date to the phone line, with 2,485 reports generated to the Gardaí.Of these, 52 reports refer to Waterford from March 2009 to August 2010 and since the relaunch of the campaign, 7 reports have been received up to the end of November. I believe very strongly in the notion that communities should be empowered and should feel enabled to make a stand in a way that they need never fear will impact negatively on them. A full evaluation of the current phase of the Dial to Stop Drug Dealing campaign will be carried out on its completion at the end of the year.

State Bodies 134. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Defence if he has received an annual report for each of the past three years from the chairman of all State bodies under the auspices of his Department; if the pay of chief executives and employees of such bodies is fully in accordance with Government policy; if he will list any such bodies where this requirement under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies has not been met or no report has been received; if he will provide full details of such issues in such reports and if these reports will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46707/10]

Minister for Defence (Deputy Tony Killeen): The agencies associated with the Department are the Civil Defence Board, the Army Pensions Board and the Board of Coiste an Asgard. The Civil Defence Board annual reports for the years 2007 and 2008 have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The 2009 Report will be laid shortly, after the Comptroller & Audi- tor General has reviewed the Annual Accounts. The Chief Executive Officer of the Civil Defence Board is a serving civil servant at principal officer grade. The arrangements that apply to the CEO and the staff of this agency in respect salary, pension and other expenses are the same as for all civil service staff. The Army Pensions Board and the Board of Coiste an Asgard do not have a Chief Execu- tive Officer.

752