11 o’clockPrelude
Leaders’ Questions
Ceisteanna — Questions
Programmes for Government
Freedom of Information
Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 32
Order of Business
Sunbeds Regulation (No. 2) Bill 2010: First Stage
Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions: Motion
Presentation of Further Revised Estimates: Motion
UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime: Motion
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Order for Second Stage
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Second Stage
Message from Select Committee
Priority Questions
Ministerial Meetings
Industrial Development
Work Permits
Job Losses
Other Questions
Departmental Agencies
Printing Contracts
Loan Guarantees
Consumer Rights
EU Services Directive
Adjournment Debate Matters
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Second Stage (Resumed)
Private Members’ Business
Banking Reports: Motion
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Second Stage (Resumed)
Messages from Select Committees
Adjournment Debate
Industrial Development
Hospital Services
Flood Relief
Written Answers
Trade Relations
Enterprise Support Services
Employment Support Services
Enterprise Support Services
Unemployment Levels
Departmental Expenditure
Retail Sector
Corporate Governance
Economic Competitiveness
Legislative Programme
Industrial Development
Business Regulation
Job Protection
Enterprise Support Services
Economic Competitiveness
Redundancy Payments
Prompt Payments System
Credit Supply Clearing Group
Corporate Governance
Grocery Industry
Small and Medium Enterprises
Job Creation
National Minimum Wage
Legislative Programme
Job Creation
Job Protection
Employment Rights
Business Regulation
Job Losses
INTERREG Funding
Departmental Expenditure
Job Losses
Insurance Industry
Enterprise Support Services
Legislative Programme
State Agencies
Corporate Governance
EU Directives
Economic Competitiveness
Redundancy Payments
Departmental Agencies
Redundancy Payments
Loan Guarantees
Tax Code
EU Directives
Departmental Agencies
Pension Provisions
Tax Code
Departmental Statistics
Flood Relief
Dormant Accounts Fund
Child Care Services
Departmental Schemes
Health Service Staff
Health Services
Hospital Services
Health Services
Services for People with Disabilities
Hospital Services
Medical Cards
Services for People with Disabilities
Hospital Staff
General Medical Services Scheme
Hospital Services
Grant Payments
Health Services
Hospital Waiting Lists
Services for People with Disabilities
Mental Health Services
Food Safety
Voluntary Health Insurance
Bonding Regulations
Citizenship Applications
Crime Levels
Juvenile Offenders
Visa Applications
Garda Vetting Services
Psychotropic Substances
Garda Deployment
Deportation Orders
Passport Offices
Human Rights Issues
Trade Relations
Travel Documentation
Tourism Industry
Departmental Reviews
Security of the Elderly
Community Development
Dormant Accounts Fund
Social Welfare Appeals
Social Welfare Benefits
Social Welfare Appeals
Social Welfare Benefits
Pension Provisions
Social Welfare Benefits
Enterprise Allowance Schemes
Social Welfare Appeals
Defence Forces Investigations
Tax Code
Farm Plan Scheme
Planning Issues
Foreshore Licences
National Parks and Wildlife Service
Social and Affordable Housing
Fisheries Protection
Telecommunications Services
Foreshore Licences
Grant Payments
Departmental Offices
Community Employment Schemes
Higher Education Grants
School Libraries
School Transport
Summer Works Scheme
School Libraries
Teaching Qualifications
School Curriculum
Special Educational Needs
Psychological Service
Special Educational Needs
School Enrolments
Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m. Paidir. Prayer.Deputy Enda Kenny: Last week saw the publication of the two preliminary reports into banking by Professor Patrick Honohan and by Mr. Klaus Regling and Mr. Max Watson. Both of these preliminary reports were always intended simply to point the way to a more detailed commission of investigation into what happened. Given the central findings of the reports that the decisions made by the Minister for Finance were a central feature leading to the crisis, why is it that the draft terms of reference for the commission of inquiry merely relate to the failures of bank managers, directors, auditors and regulators, and do not include the policy decisions of the Government? Why are those policy decisions excluded from the draft terms of reference for the commission of inquiry?
The Taoiseach: The draft terms of reference that have been put forward by the Government are in line with the recommendations as set out in the reports. The Regling and Watson report referred to those issues that can be amenable to fact finding and those issues of a policy and political nature which can be dealt with through the means of the committees that we have in the House. We have indicated our preparedness to do that.
The comprehensive nature of the reports has been welcomed by everybody and we are all grateful for the work that has been done and the professionalism with which the authors have gone about their business. They set it out as they see it. The draft proposals refer to the recommendations in the areas to which the reports refer.
Deputy Enda Kenny: The Taoiseach has always cited official advice given to him in respect of the policy decisions that were made. The draft terms of reference exclude the motivation behind those policy decisions and the official advice that was given. The preliminary reports make sharp criticisms of some Government policies, such as the dramatic growth in spending between 2004 and 2007, which was the current Taoiseach’s decision. The extension of tax reliefs at the height of the property bubble in 2006 was also his decision. He also exercised influence, as Minister for Finance, on the Financial Regulator in 2006 so that the proposed tightening of the quality of governance of bank directors was never actually implemented.
In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has always accepted responsibility for his decisions as Minister in whatever Department, and that he claimed to have relied on official advice for these policy decisions, would it not be important for him that we ascertain that through the commission of inquiry? The terms of reference for the commission of inquiry should cover this [382]period and should cover these matters, so that we can rectify any deficiencies. Was the Taoiseach, acting then as Minister for Finance, given faulty or inadequate information and advice by these officials on whose advice he claimed to have relied? If that is not the case, the nightmare scenario is to have the Taoiseach of the day giving evidence about his decisions as Minister for Finance which will be publicly contradicted by officials in the Department from whom he took his advice in the first place.
This is an important matter. Either there is a distinction here that is right or wrong. The officials either gave him advice or they did not. Is the Taoiseach prepared to extend the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry so that we can ascertain whether official advice was responsible for these reckless policy positions, or whether the official advice was not to take those positions, yet he still went ahead with them?
The Taoiseach: All political heads of Departments take full responsibility for their own decisions. Advice is given by people and we make our own decisions and our own judgments. These are political judgments and decisions that were made. I have sought to explain the rationale for the decisions, as I am entitled to do, given the position in which we found ourselves at the time. I have said that those decisions were based on advice that has subsequently been proven to be wrong, but that does not take away from the responsibility that I take for the decisions that I make. I have always made that clear, so any suggestions by the Deputy or anybody else that I do not take responsibility for decisions made is not correct. I have always accepted responsibility. That is the political and constitutional position.
The Deputy misrepresented the position on property tax incentives. I terminated 11 of those schemes after a full review.
Deputy Enda Kenny: After seven years.
Deputy James Reilly: After the damage was done.
The Taoiseach: I know the Deputy may be under a bit of pressure at the moment——
Deputy Michael Ring: The Taoiseach has the country under pressure, I can assure him.
Deputy Noel J. Coonan: The Taoiseach should look behind him.
The Taoiseach: At least I am sure we can keep things civil inside the House.
An Ceann Comhairle: Can Deputies allow the Taoiseach to conclude?
The Taoiseach: I terminated those property tax reliefs, which was the most radical arrangement by anybody in modern times, as far as I know. There were projects in the pipeline for which transitional arrangements were made and a reduction in eligibility was enforced to make sure that we did not have a surge of activity when we were getting rid of those reliefs, so that we would not be increasing property prices again. There is a valid macro-economic argument for those transitional arrangements. I want to emphasise no new projects were allowed after that.
Deputy Joan Burton: Yes there were. You did the mid-Shannon one.
[383]An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Burton, could we have the Taoiseach without interruption?
The Taoiseach: If I may, a cost benefit analysis was done on that matter and it has to be renewed or looked at every three years, which is not the case with previous tax reliefs.
Deputy Terence Flanagan: And all the zombie hotels.
The Taoiseach: I am sure Ruairí will be able to explain the cost benefit analysis of the holiday home and other tax reliefs he introduced, particularly for the towns that were not on the seaside.
Deputy Pádraic McCormack: The Taoiseach is in great form this morning.
The Taoiseach: If we could revert to the question at hand, I have explained to the Deputy that the draft terms we set out are on the basis of the recommendations in the report itself. Policy decisions have been taken, which we are quite prepared to deal with in committee or in any other way they can be dealt with consistent with making sure we deal with these matters comprehensively and in a proper way.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: We spent all day yesterday on a motion proposed by the Taoiseach that he should keep his job and that his Ministers should keep theirs. This morning I want to ask him about the concerns of people who have already lost their jobs and people who are concerned about losing their jobs. Earlier this month, the live register figures were published and they tell us that for the 12th successive month the number of people on the live register is more than 400,000, with the most recent figure at 438,000. Another set of figures was published yesterday by the Central Statistics Office, which tell us more about the bad situation in the country with job losses and unemployment. A total of 41% of those now out of work are classified as long-term unemployed; in other words, they have been out of work for more than 12 months. The figures published yesterday tell us that 33% of young men in the workforce aged between 20 and 24 are out of work; one in three young men is on the dole. The CSO tells us that the number of people in employment fell by 108,000 in the past 12 months and the rate of unemployment in Ireland is now 3.1% higher than the EU average.
Given all of this information, why is unemployment such a low priority for the Government? What can the Taoiseach say to the people who are out of work about when they are likely to get a job again? What specific steps are being taken by the Government to get people back to work?
The Taoiseach: Those who are out of work are not a low priority for this or any other Government. With regard to the specific steps taken, compared to some years ago we have considerably increased training and other placements for people who are unemployed. A consistent effort is being made to assist those who are unemployed. With regard to the prospects for renewed employment growth, jobs are not created in a vacuum, they are created on the basis of making our economy more competitive and being able to sell more goods and services in what has been a depressed marketplace. As the world pulls out of recession this open economy must position itself to deal with it.
It is true that we have seen from the adjustment for unemployment, based on the quarterly national household survey, that there are 270,000 on the live register and a further 75,000 people in part-time employment who also receive benefits. Unfortunately, unemployment rates have risen and 5% of our population is regarded as long-term unemployed. We have to continue to work and come forward with whatever initiatives we can, in addition to what we already do, to assist them. The best way in which jobs can be created in this country will be to [384]pursue the strategy we are pursuing. It is estimated that there will be net employment creation here next year on the basis of the strategy we are providing at present.
There is an idea that it is possible to deal with the situation and return to the very low unemployment we saw before this crisis began, but it is not possible. It is also clear that were we to have taken some of the strategies suggested by the Labour Party in the midst of the crisis we would be speaking about a far worse situation. The important point for us to make is that we are committed to making sure that we find a greater degree of job creation in our economy based on making it more competitive, getting our public finances back in order and supporting enterprise to the greatest extent we possible can.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: That is hopelessly depressing for people who are out of work. Effectively what the Taoiseach stated is that when everything else is fixed people might get back into work. The Government keeps telling us that we have turned the corner. From the Taoiseach’s reply, it seems that as far as people who are out of work are concerned the only turning the Government has done is turning its back on them.
The Taoiseach mentioned the Labour Party’s proposals. We have been advocating several proposals to the Taoiseach on actively getting people back to work. We proposed a strategic investment bank which would get our economy moving again but he has not done anything about that. We proposed a jobs fund to actively get people back into employment.
Deputy Noel Dempsey: It is easy to propose from over there.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The document Just the Job contained a set of proposals to reactivate the labour market. We have produced a number of sectoral proposals. The Taoiseach stated the Government has more people in training now than before. It has taken up a couple of the ideas we put forward but the numbers of places in those training measures have been increased by only a very small amount, a couple of hundred, when 250,000 people have lost their jobs over the course of the past two years.
The Taoiseach keeps speaking about the various economic measures the Government is taking. The one area which it is not dealing with——
An Ceann Comhairle: A question please.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: ——is the problem of people who are out of work. The figures are creeping up to half the people out of work being out of work on a long-term basis. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past when people were out of work for a long period of time and found it harder to get back into the workforce and the labour market. In particular, I want to ask the Taoiseach what he will do about the number of young people out of work. It is not socially sustainable to have that number of young men on the dole; one in three of the labour force between the ages of 20 and 24 is on the dole. We cannot have that. The Taoiseach has been stating that when everything else is fixed in the economy from somewhere around the corner the Government has turned it will be able to drag people back into employment, but that does not work. The Taoiseach needs to give priority to this but he is not doing so. It is the last thing on the list. The Taoiseach is pursuing a residual theory of employment, that when everything else happens employment will follow. He needs to actively pursue policies that will get people back into employment.
We are coming towards the end of this Dáil session. At the very least before we come back in the autumn, will the Government produce a specific strategy aimed at getting people back [385]to work, in particular addressing the needs of the growing number of people who are long-term employed and the huge number of young people who are out of work?
The Taoiseach: I do not accept the characterisation by the Deputy of what is the Government’s strategy or policy. We have many activation programmes in place. In recent weeks, €40 million was announced in respect of the Leader fund which is to be devoted to creating more jobs in rural communities. Last week, a €20 million activation fund was announced, which is about trying to find ways and means in which we can further assist the young unemployed. We have significant funding for FÁS, which provides many training and other job placement schemes. Some 144,000 people will this year benefit from those schemes.
There is also, as the Deputy will be aware, much greater effort being made in regard to supporting employment and part-time employment. Whether it is the social welfare budget; the training budget of FÁS, the State training agency; the activation fund, which is an effort to involve the private sector; the €40 million for the Leader programme for providing jobs for young communities; the increased numbers we have on back to school and education schemes and the changes we have had there; in every facet of our activities we have sought to arrange for a greater degree of flexibility to accommodate a greater cohort of people who are currently inactive in the labour market and are not part of the workforce. We are also seeking, as would any Government, despite the very tight financial situation, to apply, to the greatest extent possible, all of the resources we can to this area. We have to continue to look at it. I will look at all areas to see in what way we can ensure that this happens.
In respect of those who are now in viable but vulnerable employment, those who require further training and reskilling, those who are being encouraged to stay in education, those who are applying for FÁS programmes and all of the other areas of activities, it is not correct to say that there is a laissez-faire approach. On the contrary. We have learnt, from the various social partnership programmes down the years, about how we have been able to model and adapt our programmes to best effect. We saw during the better times that long-term unemployment was reduced considerably. We will work on these activation programmes to see it what way we can assist. No one is more conscious of the fact, as we all are as public representatives, of people in our communities who want to find a way forward and a way of contributing who are currently not in full employment. I can assure the Deputy that we will continue to see, in whatever way we can, how we can deal with that matter which I recognise as a problem in our society at the current time.
1. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress on the implementation of the Agreed Programme for Government 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22702/10]
2. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date regarding the implementation of the Renewed Programme for Government, with particular regard to those areas for which he has responsibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23282/10]
3. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the Programme for Government 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24330/10]
[386]4. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress on the implementation of the Agreed Programme for Government 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25056/10]
The Taoiseach: I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
As Deputies are aware, our initial programme for Government made clear that its delivery was based on a growth rate of 4.5% annually. The renewed programme for Government takes account of the very much changed economic circumstances and of progress to date in implementing the programme and sets out the priority issues on which Government is focusing for the period ahead. I am confident it will serve us well. It is the responsibility of each individual Minister to ensure that the commitments in the renewed programme that fall with their particular portfolio are sought to be implemented.
We all have to adapt to changed economic circumstances. Just as businesses and families are adapting to the new reality, the Government has to do so too. The renewed programme will direct efforts on our behalf in dealing with national and international issues which are fundamental to our well-being and development. While the international economic environment remains uncertain, there is growing evidence of stabilisation of the Irish economy, reflecting the decisive action take in the 2010 budget and our commitment to further adjustments in 2011 and subsequent years.
We are focusing on implementation in order to try to deliver measures which will stimulate sustainable economic recovery and job creation in line with the Government’s smart economy framework. The Department of the Taoiseach derives its mandate from my role as Head of Government. It is involved in some degree in supporting implementation of many aspects of the work of Government and provides support to me as Taoiseach and to the Government through the Government secretariat, the Cabinet committee system and its involvement in key policy areas and initiatives.
Deputy Enda Kenny: This day last week the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, who is rarely here and is not here now, said that legislation on the Dublin mayoralty, the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill would be passed by the House before the summer recess. One day later the Chief Whip released the list of legislation that will be passed before the summer recess and none of the three Bills were on it. It might have caused some palpitations somewhere along the line. I ask the Taoiseach to clarify the position regarding the Dublin mayoralty legislation, the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill.
An Ceann Comhairle: I am not sure that question is covered under this group.
Deputy Enda Kenny: It is part of the revised programme for Government. Is it expected that the three Bills to which I referred will be passed before the summer recess?
The Taoiseach: The statement by Deputy Hogan last week was unfortunately untrue and incorrect. On the Bills to which the Deputy referred, on all occasion the Chief Whip is constantly providing information for colleagues and other Whips in the House. It is not a question of suggesting that those Bills will not be passed. The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill is scheduled to be debated in the Seanad today.
Deputy Enda Kenny: There are dogs barking all over the place.
The Taoiseach: Let us hope they listen to their master.
[387]Deputy Enda Kenny: There is wildlife here too.
The Taoiseach: Work is proceeding on the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill will come before the Dáil as soon as Committee Stage is completed. Bills have been referred to committees and we need to start putting some time-frames on the consideration of Bills in committees because some of them are doing work other than legislative work. Leaders rightly complain in this House that Bills are not returning to the House quickly enough. When one checks the situation it appears that a lot of other activity is going on in committee which——
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: We may need to change some of the Chairmen.
The Taoiseach: I would like to get some co-operation from Opposition Chairmen or spokespersons and for them to be available on some occasions. Deputies are busy and have other commitments but we need to start putting some time limits in place because once we refer Bills to committees it appears that the committees, without referring back to Government, decide how long it will take them to consider Committee Stage. That is not good practice. There is a lot of legislation we would like to have considered here.
Deputy Enda Kenny: I agree with the Taoiseach that the problem is that the list of legislation which is published always states dates cannot be expected or are unknown. I often thought that there is need for greater clarity on when these things are likely to come to fruition in the first place. I am sure it is very frustrating for Government Members to be speaking about Bills which they do not expect to be published until 2011 or 2012. I am not sure it is possible to get a sharper focus on that but it would be helpful. From the Taoiseach’s reply, with the number of days we have left in this session, it is not clear if any of the three Bills to which I referred will be passed.
The revised programme for Government referred to three referendums over the lifetime of the Government. One concerns children’s rights and another is to broaden the reference to the role of women in the home to one which recognises the role of the first parent in the home. There is also a proposal to support a referendum which is necessary to consider the establishment of a court of civil appeal. They are due to be taken during the lifetime of the Government. Given that it has a maximum of 100 weeks and most work has been done on the referendum on children’s rights to date, does the Taoiseach think any of them will be held or is it likely that the Government will push ahead with the referendum on children’s rights this year?
The Taoiseach: Making predictions can be difficult in any situation. The work which has been done by the committee is being considered by the Government and Ministers and will be considered by the Cabinet committee. Reports have been issued in the past few weeks and debates have taken place. We are trying to bring forward legislation before the end of the session. We are working on these issues, specifically on the children’s rights referendum, which is a matter of priority.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The programme for Government and the revised programme for Government contain a number of interesting ideas. On 1 May the Government introduced the carbon levy on home heating oil. There was, however, a commitment in the programme for Government that relief would be provided to families and households on low incomes in conjunction with the levy. I ask the Taoiseach when this relief will be provided because it was not introduced in conjunction with the levy. A commitment to publish a fuel poverty strategy by the end of 2009 has not been met. When will we see this strategy?
[388]The programme for Government commits to the establishment of an independent electoral commission to do all kinds of things. We have not heard anything about this proposal for some time. When will the commission be established? There was also a commitment on the banning of corporate donations to political parties. When are we likely to see legislation on that issue?
The Taoiseach: The best way of getting up-to-date information on individual aspects of the programme for Government is through the line Ministers who have primary responsibility for driving them. I say this as a general remark because there is no point in using Taoiseach’s Questions as a means of covering all these areas in a compendium fashion.
In regard to the carbon tax, schemes are in place from October to April in respect of devising measures to assist people with their fuel needs. I understand that will be the system under which we will operate alleviating measures for the tax. On the fuel poverty plan, a direct question to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will ascertain the up-to-date position. Work is ongoing in regard to the electoral commission in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. A timeframe has not been put on this commitment but we are working through the issues arising.
I recommend that to get accurate information in response to parliamentary questions, which is the purpose of Question Time, it is best to seek the required level of detail from the responsible line Ministers.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I appreciate that line Ministers will be able to provide detailed information on these matters but I expected that they would have come to the Taoiseach’s attention, at least in a general way, if they had been progressed. This would have enabled him to give an indication of the position in respect of them.
I am disappointed with the Taoiseach’s reply on fuel poverty. He stated that alleviation measures for low income households will be part and parcel of the normal fuel allowance arrangements which apply from October to April. There was a commitment to introduce a separate measure to alleviate the additional costs which would be borne by low income households as a result of the increase in the price of home heating oil. That has not happened, however, and the Taoiseach is now stating they will have to wait until the normal fuel allowance is introduced at the end of the year. That is not satisfactory.
The Taoiseach made no mention of the legislation on corporate donations and whether it has come to his attention. On a more general point, which does not readily pertain to line Ministers, the Government made a commitment on the introduction of a legislative basis for a more open and transparent system for appointments to public bodies, including procedures for the advertising of vacancies, inviting applications from the public and creating panels of suitable people for appointment to various public bodies.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is deviating from the subject matter of the question.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: No, I am not. It is in the programme for Government.
An Ceann Comhairle: It is a very detailed question.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I appreciate that but it is in the programme for Government. I am asking the Taoiseach about it because it is a general provision which is not the responsibility of any individual Department and I would like him to tell us what has happened to it.
[389]With regard to the idea by the Minister for Health and Children, which she came up with as long ago as 2005, to develop co-located private hospitals on the grounds of public hospitals in order to fast-track the provision of hospital beds, none of them have materialised.
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to submit a parliamentary question to the relevant line Minister.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I ask the Taoiseach the current position on the proposal for co-location. I am aware the revised programme for Government makes reference to it but has it been dropped?
The Taoiseach: As the Deputy will be aware, financial issues arise in regard to some of the health aspects but a question to the relevant Minister will produce detailed information.
On the question of public bodies, we are investigating prospective reforms, including for example the TELAC system for public appointments. We are trying to bring more structure to the filling of panels of people who are suitable for public appointment. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are prepared to serve on State bodies and public boards because of the level of controversy that surrounds them from time to time. Such controversies are justified in certain circumstances and people have to be accountable during their tenure, even if they are serving in a non-executive capacity. I do not claim it is a general problem but it is a trend and we need to work to ensure people of capacity and suitability are available to sit on various bodies and boards against a background of rationalisation.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I understand that TELAC pertains to top-level appointments of permanent staff, such as chief executives. Can I take it from what the Taoiseach is saying that it is now intended to give TELAC a role in the identification of personnel who might be appointed as members of State boards or non-executive directors of State companies?
The Taoiseach: The intention is to enhance the TELAC procedures to deal with public service reform issues and provide greater mobility for senior public servants, as well as to increase choice in respect of these appointments. I also have ideas for board procedures, whereby public service reforms can be progressed on the basis of a management board across the service.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Deputy Gilmore referred to some of the matters I wish to address in regard to the health heading in the revised programme for Government. However, I will take a different line of inquiry and, as my question will be general rather than requiring the level of detail that a Minister can best offer, I hope the Taoiseach will be able to assist me. Under the heading of health, the revised programme commits to what I have previously described as a totally ill-conceived and discredited private hospital co-location scheme limited to projects already——
An Ceann Comhairle: It would be more appropriate to raise this issue with the line Minister by means of a parliamentary question.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I ask the Ceann Comhairle to have a little respect and allow me at least to finish my first sentence. As I was about to indicate, the commitment is limited to projects already committed to under existing contractual agreements. What is the position of the co-location scheme, which did not present during the Taoiseach’s previous capacity as Minister for Health in the way it has under the stewardship of the current Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney? On a number of occasions, the Taoiseach confirmed the state[390]ment of the Minister that the purpose and intent of the scheme is to free up beds in the public hospital system by opening up beds in associated private, co-located facilities.
In the recent period of cutbacks, an estimated 1,000 beds have been closed in the public hospital system as a result of patients being moved from long-term care. This should have allowed for these beds——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is speaking in significant detail.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: This is relevant to what is stated in the programme for Government. The very raison d’être behind the proposition in the programme is that the scheme will free up beds in the public hospital system. Has the Taoiseach noted that patients being moved out of long-term care in our public health system has resulted not in beds being freed up for further patient access but in the beds in question being closed? The figures I cite are not mine but information proffered by health professionals in the hospital system which shows that 1,000 beds have been lost as a result of cutbacks in that regard.
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to submit a parliamentary question on the matter.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The very purpose, allegedly, of proceeding with co-location was to provide additional bed capacity in the public hospital system. If that is not now a realisable expectation, and clearly it is not happening in any shape or form with beds being closed on a continuous basis, why would one proceed with the scheme? Does the Taoiseach not accept that it is fair for an Opposition spokesperson on health to conclude that our fear all along that this was yet another sop to the private, for-profit health business was indeed the basis of the proposition in the first place? I ask the Taoiseach to comment on this and indicate where he believes the commitment in that regard in the programme for Government is being met.
On the section of the programme for Government on enhancing democracy and electoral reform and the establishment of an independent electoral commission which, I understand, is to incorporate the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission with enhanced powers of inspection, several of the points in the section indicate measures that can be achieved within a 12 month period. Is it not fair and reasonable, if these are worthwhile objectives and some of them certainly are worthwhile, that they would be introduced now in order that some, if not at all, of them would be in place by the time the next general election takes place, assuming the Government’s term runs its course? When is it intended to proceed with the establishment of the independent electoral commission, against the stated intent of the measures incorporated in the agreed programme for Government?
The Taoiseach: There is a dynamic in health policy to try to move the hospital based system, the traditional way in which we have provided care in the past apart from the general practitioner system, into the community to a much greater extent. That is fundamentally what we are trying to do. One also has a much greater degree of day case surgery than was the case ten, 15 or 20 years ago because current procedures make it possible to have people come to hospital, have a procedure done and return home. Day cases are an increasing part of the caseload in the system. This is welcome because it reflects advances in surgical procedures and helps, from the perspective of cost-effectiveness and the sustainability of budgets, to ensure people secure access to health care within the budgets available to us.
Over many years, we have built a mixed system of public and private health care in which there are designated beds for private patients in public hospitals. The idea of the mixed system [391]was to ensure we had a good consultant staff. We now have new contracts with public only consultants following reforms introduced in this area.
The basic point of the co-location scheme was that one of the best ways to deal with the situation would be through developing private beds co-located with the public hospitals. One would then re-designate private beds in public hospitals as public beds. That would be the quickest approach and we saw what role this type of approach played in providing sufficient nursing home places. If we had not introduced the measures we did on nursing home provision, where private nursing homes play a role in the provision of care for public patients, it is clear from the procedures we have that we would not have provided sufficient places through the traditional public procurement route when one considers the number of public beds we have for nursing home care, which we mentioned in terms of the elderly, as against what the private sector was able to produce and ramp up very quickly. Issues arose in this regard but as a means of dealing with the issue, there is no question that there can be a role for private sector investment in the provision of public care and public facilities generally. We have seen this in respect of other infrastructure, whether physical, educational or in the health area, and I do not see a reason for anyone to have an ideological objection to it.
Financing issues have arisen because of the changed economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. The basic point, however, is that as in the case of care for the elderly, an effort is being made to keep people as close to home for as long as possible, consistent with their health needs, and to bring people from various disciplines into the community rather than taking the traditional approach to providing care in which an elderly person, beyond GP requirements, was brought straight into a district hospital or nursing home unit in the locality.
Reforms are taking place and changes are being made in the way care is being delivered. The impression I get from some of the arguments I hear is that people see the position as static and it is simply a case of providing more beds. Even with the current bed complement, we have a greater throughput in our hospitals than we had previously. This is because things are being done more effectively. If we were to stick to traditional models of health care delivery, quite apart from the crisis we are trying to contend with, we would not have the funds in any event to deal with the issue in that way.
Notwithstanding the debate on the issues, we all recognise that we have to lead change in these areas if we are to provide for the future health care needs of the population as society ages. This is a real challenge facing us, whether in terms of pension provision, health care needs or in other areas.
Specific questions on specific projects are best put to the line Minister. I have set out the health policy framework to which we are trying to work and which I believe to be necessary if we are to deal with the circumstances that are arising with the budgets the taxpayer will provide for the foreseeable future. That is how I see the matter.
The other question was on the electoral commission. Work on that is ongoing within the line Department. It is a programme for Government commitment that will need to be developed during the course of the remainder of the term of the Government in the coming two years. It is an issue that is being worked on.
An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ó Caoláin for a brief supplementary question. We need to move on as we have spent enough time on these questions.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: In his response the Taoiseach indicated he did not understand why people would have ideological objections to the current two-tier public-private care delivery systems within our acute hospital network. I certainly do. I do not only object to it in ideological terms because it perpetuates inequality of treatment and care provision on the basis [392]of ability to pay, which is the wrong basis. Would the Taoiseach not accept that it should be on the basis of need alone? We will clearly differ on the matter and I will not dwell on it.
I ask the Taoiseach to note that a number of vacant beds have been created within the public health care system by moving people out of longer-term care facilitation. However, instead of freeing up those beds for the need and demand that exists they have been closed. Yet, allegedly the raison d’être behind the co-location system was to free up beds in the public hospital system. Beds have been freed up in the public hospital system without the co-location situation presenting and yet they are not being made available and are being closed — some 1,000 of them.
An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Deputy have a question?
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The logic of this is that the co-location proposition does not stand, on the basis of the current practice. I am sure I am not unique among Deputies here and I am sure it affects the Taoiseach in his constituency. A significant volume of people present on a continuum who are concerned for family members who cannot get access to procedures. These people have presented on dates given to them for specific procedures to be performed but have been sent home because a bed could not be secured. That has happened in hospitals here in Dublin. It happened to at least two people from my constituency last week.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is going into far too much detail.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I can only make the points as best I can. I am trying to represent people’s concerns that I know to be real and valid. I ask the Taoiseach to note that there are real problems within our acute hospital network in our health system. I appeal to him to take greater note of that fact in the interest of the right of people to access to care.
My last question is on the independent electoral commission. Among some of the points indicated in the entire proposition was that it would decide constituency boundaries, administer voter registration, run voter education programmes and advise on ways to improve the level of women’s participation in political life. These are all fine and important developments that the independent electoral commission could undertake. It is part of the programme for Government dated 10 October 2009, which I have before me. When does the Government intend to establish this body? Are these not measures that would be important in terms of improving voter participation in the first instance and women’s participation in public life? Each of these is an important objective and I would like to know how serious is the Government’s intention to live up to that commitment in the revised programme.
An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Taoiseach briefly as we need to move on.
The Taoiseach: Let me make the point about the health issue again. The co-location issue is about re-designating private beds in public hospitals into public beds and in turn providing private beds co-located with the public hospital facility as the best way of working together and keeping consultants all on site. That is about the re-designation of private beds. The issue the Deputy is raising is different. It is about the number of public beds we are providing for the elderly within our hospital system given that there is a policy to move people, under the fair care system etc., back into the community within the homes and supporting people in their homes for longer. The traditional system in the past was that as soon as a person became somewhat infirm — we know there are different degrees of dependency which are set out in the various regulations in terms of people’s eligibility for assistance etc. — he or she would have gone straight into the hospital system.
[393]Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The freed-up beds could be used by everybody.
The Taoiseach: I understand the point the Deputy is making. It is within the question of trying to work within budgets. These are realities we must face. We are borrowing €400 million a week more than we are earning as a country. Of course we need to protect our people to the greatest extent we can. We are spending significant money. We are spending €16 billion this year on the health service and introducing changes and reforms. Everyone is saying changes are needed and are giving out about the health service. In fairness I know many people — as does the Deputy — who come back to us outlining that they have had very good treatment in the service. They tell us how well and professionally they were treated. They represent a far greater proportion of the representations I meet than those who met with problems. In fairness to those who work in the health service, let us stop characterising it as if it is a totally dysfunctional service that is not providing assistance for anybody.
Regarding my point that there should not be ideological objections, more than 1 million people have decided to have private health cover through VHI, Aviva and Quinn. People also make those choices. One’s entitlement is not based on paying for it. A person who is sick can be brought into a hospital anywhere in the country and be treated. However, we sometimes convey the impression that it is otherwise but it is not. Where that happens I have been the first to say so. That cannot be a basis on which health care is provided and is not under our laws. In the past people have pointed up instances where a consultant’s public-private mix has not been what it should have been contractually. There are many others who are conscientious in respect of these matters and do more than what they would be required to do contractually.
As far as I am concerned there is too much of everyone dumping on the health service as if it cannot provide anything. It is providing excellent service for very many people day in, day out, week in, week out. Reforms are being undertaken, some of which are succeeding. With others we are not getting the outcomes we would expect and we need to continue to work on that. In fairness, on the basis of the agreements which hopefully will be confirmed today in the ICTU we will have the prospect of working with people to transform the services. We cannot continue on the basis of status quo plus. In the foreseeable future no government will have that capacity to operate.
These are the facts that we must face up to. We can work together to try to find solutions to these problems on the basis that we are all committed to doing the best we can with what the taxpayer is in a position to provide or we can go on with what I regard as a somewhat false debate about decrying the changes that are taking place and still calling for changes. If we need reforms, we need reforms. We cannot be going on about the status quo ante. There is plenty of opportunity for people to explore from a political point of view and it is clear that is the case in some respects. If we are going to be straight down the middle with everybody about it, that is where it is at. We need to work with people on that basis.
There is a commitment in the programme for Government on the electoral commission. We intend to proceed with it. We do not require it for constituency reviews, which as the Deputy knows are settled for the next general election under the existing arrangements. There are reforms that can be put in place during the course of the term of the Government for the future, which will seek to improve advocacy, etc., in regard to some of the issues the Deputy also raised. These are issues that are being followed up and dealt with.
There are major priorities for Government regarding the economic situation and banking, which are rightly taking up much of our legislative and other time. These are the issues at the foundation of the crisis with which we are contending.
An Ceann Comhairle: I will allow a brief supplementary question.
[394]Deputy Enda Kenny: I agree with the Taoiseach’s comment that we cannot continue with the status quo. In respect of the programme for Government and the way the Government is approaching the matter, over the next ten to 15 years we will see one of the single greatest demographic changes in the history of the country, with at least 700,000 people over 70 years old requiring the kind of help, attention and community care spoken of by the Taoiseach. The startling reality is that income from all taxation sources will be completely inadequate on current projections to meet that need.
An Ceann Comhairle: I said it should be a brief supplementary question.
Deputy Enda Kenny: In the context of the Taoiseach stating we cannot continue with the status quo, is the Government focusing on the extent and consequence of the demographic change which will become a reality inside the next decade?
The Taoiseach: We are doing so, whether it is by acting on a new pensions framework to accommodate the new reality, better longer-term planning, consideration of the fiscal policy framework or issues pertaining to banking. These are valid points on their own but we must have an intelligent debate on them. There is too much black and white argument, as if it is all right on one side and all wrong on the other. People are far more intelligent and we should give them a little more credit for the discernment they have about the complexity of some of these issues.
An Ceann Comhairle: We have limited time of just five minutes to discuss the next group of questions.
5. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of Freedom of Information requests received by his Department during May 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22703/10]
6. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act received by his Department in May 2010; the number acceded to; the number refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24331/10]
The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
Nine requests were received in my Department during May 2010. One was granted, three were partially granted and five are currently being processed. All freedom of information requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. I have no role in processing requests.
Deputy Enda Kenny: This question is not directly related to the Taoiseach’s Department but concerns freedom of information requests. I note the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Bernard Allen, made the point recently that the HSE, in transmitting information to the committee, would have legal problems. Giving the same information under freedom of information rules to an individual citizen would not be a problem. Given the historic importance associated with the public accounts committee in all Governments, it should be possible for the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to seek information in regard to an issue under Freedom of Information Acts.
We have put forward a view that the Act should be amended in this regard, which would be easy to achieve. Does the Taoiseach agree that the public accounts committee, which has for [395]years been the most well regarded committee in the Houses and is completely independent, should not have a standing of lesser importance than any citizen in respect of the Freedom of Information Acts?
An Ceann Comhairle: It is really a matter for the line Minister.
The Taoiseach: For a considered reply it would be best to put down a question to the line Minister in the Department of Finance outlining the considerations that need to come into play. I do not have sufficient knowledge to give a considered reply at this point.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Notifications of freedom of information requests with regard to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas indicate if the request has been received but there is no identification of where the request comes from. I do not know if it is the same across the board. Freedom of information is a two-way street and what is the Taoiseach’s view in that regard? If freedom of information is to be given with regard to any matter here or an external issue, surely the identification of those people inquiring and the purpose of the information should also be offered in the exchange. That is not currently the case.
The Taoiseach: Sometimes there can be a statement of the obvious. I do not know the answer to the question. When freedom of information requests are received, the purpose is to give objective information. Until a time when they are deemed eligible, there is no need for further information. Perhaps it is just the way the information is given out. I will make inquiries.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the case he won recently in the High Court, where the Information Commissioner and Ombudsman had ordered the release of a document containing information on a 2003 Cabinet discussion on greenhouse gas emissions. The Information Commissioner ordered the document released and the Taoiseach appealed that decision by the Information Commissioner to the High Court. I note the Taoiseach was successful in that appeal to the High Court.
The regime concerning access to information about environmental matters is governed by the Aarhus Convention, which was signed by Ireland in 1998 but never ratified. It has been a matter of concern, particularly to environmental organisations and people with an interest in the environment, that Ireland never ratified the Aarhus Convention. I am surprised that three years into the life of this Government the Aarhus Convention has not yet been ratified. In the revised programme for Government it is stated that the parties would ensure that Ireland can ratify the Aarhus Convention by March 2010, which has come and gone. When will Ireland ratify the Aarhus Convention?
The Taoiseach: I am at a slight disadvantage but I understand some aspects of the convention have been ratified. I am not sure but I recall some documentation coming before us. I will check on the matter. With regard to the freedom of information aspect, it is true that on the Attorney General’s advice, the Department appealed the commissioner’s decision to the High Court and the case was delivered on 4 June. It upheld the Department’s appeal and in summary found that the commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the regulations are in conflict with the directive. The High Court has such jurisdiction and decided that the regulations are not in conflict with the directive.
With regard to the regulations governing this issue and the access to information on the environment regulation, SI 133 of 2007 transposed an EU directive on public access to environmental information. It came into force in 2007 and the regulations are in compliance with the directive. The High Court has jurisdiction to decide on that, rather than the commissioner, and [396]we wanted clarity on the point for future reference. The court found the regulations are not in conflict with the directives.
An Ceann Comhairle: Before coming to the Order of Business I propose to deal with a number of notices under Standing Order 32. I will call on Deputies in the order in which they submitted notices to my office.
Deputy James Bannon: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the doubling of long-term unemployment, which must be urgently tackled by the Government, with official figures showing that 112,600 people had been out of work for a year or more up to the end of March, 40% of the those on the dole, with Ireland’s unemployment rate of 12.3% standing at 3.1% above the EU average.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil to address the following matter of national importance, namely, the need for the Minister for Health and Children to explain her silence and inaction on the miscarriage misdiagnosis issue given that she has now admitted that she was aware of the case at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth, since August 2009 yet has failed to show that either she, her Department or the HSE considered the wider implications or the possibility that women in other hospitals may have had the same experience; and the need to explain why it was only after the matter received widespread publicity that the HSE ordered its current review of cases in the past five years.
Deputy Dan Neville: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the proposed closure of three psychiatric hospitals — St. Ita’s, St. Brendan’s and St. Senan’s — next February; the need to develop multidisciplinary-based psychiatric services in the community, as recommended as early as 1984; and the risk to patients in these hospitals, and to potential patients, who will not now have access to efficient, proper and community-based services.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the removal of all acute medical services from Louth County Hospital, Dundalk, over the next two weeks to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, when many essential services at the latter are already under threat of closure as a result of a shortage of staff, particularly junior doctors; the real danger that patient safety is being compromised, which could lead to facilities; and the need to postpone the transfer of these essential services at least until a proper, safe transfer plan is put in place. On Question Time, the Taoiseach referred to people dumping on the health service. The Government is dumping on people who are in need of that service at present. The transfer to which I refer should not happen until a proper and safe plan is put in place.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the need for the Government to allocate funding to reopen the respite house in Limerick, which is run by the Brothers of Charity, which caters for 63 families in the midwest and which closed this week as a result of the effect of cutbacks.
An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered the matters raised, they are not in order under Standing Order 32.
The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. a10, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 10, technical motion re further Revised Estimates [Votes 19, 27 and 38]; No. 11, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime and the Protocol thereto to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; and No. 5, Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m. and that Nos. a10, 10 and 11 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 10 shall be taken forthwith. Private Members’ business shall be No. 81, motion re banking reports, which shall be taken at 5.30 p.m. and which shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m.
An Ceann Comhairle: There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed?
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Before agreeing to the proposal, I wish to ask the Taoiseach if he will accommodate Members by allowing them to make statements and ask questions in respect of the issue relating to the misdiagnosis of miscarriages. As indicated earlier and also yesterday, this is a matter that demands serious address on the floor of the House. In reply to a parliamentary question I tabled yesterday, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, acknowledged and admitted that she was aware of this matter, and the specific case of Ms Melissa Redmond, as long ago as August 2009. However, no action was taken by her, her Department or the HSE until Ms Redmond went public.
This is an extremely serious issue which cannot be ignored and which will not go away.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot develop the point further in respect of this matter.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I appeal to the Taoiseach to provide the necessary time in order that this matter might be addressed in the Dáil. Many women, and not just the small number who were fortunate enough to be able to proceed with the births of their children, are in anguish as a result of this issue.
An Ceann Comhairle: This matter is completely out of order on the Order of Business. It has nothing to do with the proposal before the House.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: There are, perhaps, countless numbers of women who are in great distress as a result of their not knowing whether they had viable pregnancies.
An Ceann Comhairle: This matter is under consideration for inclusion on tonight’s Adjournment debate. The Deputy is now engaging in a Second Stage speech on the Order of Business in respect of it.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The House is due to sit later than 8.30 p.m. However, in light of the importance and seriousness of the matter, will the Taoiseach consider extending the sitting even further in order to provide Members with an opportunity to discuss this matter? I do not mind at what time of the day or night we address this matter, but address it we must. I appeal to the Taoiseach to indicate whether he would be prepared to accommodate the debate I am seeking either late tonight or tomorrow.
An Ceann Comhairle: This matter is under consideration for tonight’s Adjournment debate.
[398]Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I am asking a fair question. The Taoiseach has made a proposition and I am asking what is his reply to my counter proposal.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I support Deputy Ó Caoláin in his call for time to be made available for a debate on this matter.
An Ceann Comhairle: I must advise the Deputy that this matter is under consideration for tonight’s Adjournment debate. A decision has not yet been made as to whether it will be taken.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: The Ceann Comhairle allowed Deputy Ó Caoláin to utter at least one sentence before interrupting him. Perhaps he might grant me the same latitude.
An Ceann Comhairle: That is fine but the problem is that this matter is not in order on the Order of Business.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: Would it be possible for the Ceann Comhairle to afford me the same treatment as that meted out other Members?
An Ceann Comhairle: Yes. However, two wrongs do not make a right.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I am merely seeking to support Deputy Ó Caoláin’s request for a debate on the matter. All we have been offered on this issue is an internal inquiry on the part of the HSE, which would be entirely unsatisfactory. There is a need for an independent inquiry. This was a matter of life and death whereby babies would not have been born if their mothers had not had the instinct to seek a second opinion. It is not satisfactory that the HSE will be carrying out an internal inquiry. This is an extremely serious matter and I do not believe the Minister for Health and Children realises that. We need a Minister for Health and Children who is capable of dealing with the major issues that might arise in respect of his or her portfolio. The current Minister has failed to respond. I urge the Taoiseach to respond on the Government’s behalf.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: The Minister has responded. She does not care. What she has done is called dumping on the health service.
An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps the Taoiseach will make a brief reply. This matter is under consideration for tonight’s Adjournment debate.
The Taoiseach: I am guided by the Chair in respect of these matters. There are various means and procedures which Members can employ in order to raise matters in the House. The ordering of business at any time is a matter for discussion between the whips. I am of the same opinion as the Chair in respect of this issue.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: We are seeking a debate on the matter. The Taoiseach has not indicated whether we will be facilitated.
An Ceann Comhairle: As already stated, this matter has been raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin for discussion on tonight’s Adjournment debate.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Would the Taoiseach not——
Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister for Health and Children will not be in the House to discuss it on the Adjournment.
[399]Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: A debate will not take place. A previously prepared reply will be read into the record.
An Ceann Comhairle: That is a beginning.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Ceann Comhairle we should not have——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is completely out of order. He must find another way to raise this matter. I have indicated that serious consideration is being given to include it for discussion on the Adjournment.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: All that will happen on the Adjournment will be that a scripted reply, which will not address the issues that have arisen, will be delivered by someone other than the Minister for Health and Children.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn: It has probably been written already.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I appeal to the Taoiseach in respect of this matter, which should not be an issue of aggravation across the Chamber. I have no doubt that he is just as concerned about it as other Members. As already stated, this matter relates not only to those women who had fortunate outcomes because intuition or whatever encouraged them to seek further scans.
An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot develop the point on the Order of Business. The Deputy is completely out of order.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We are concerned with regard to the many more women who followed the direction given to them in hospitals that they should proceed to have D&Cs and who may have terminated viable pregnancies as a result. This is a terrible situation and it requires to be addressed in the House. I do not want the House to divide on this matter.
An Ceann Comhairle: I would appreciate some co-operation from the Deputy. He is completely out of order.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Taoiseach indicate his intent in respect of the matter?
The Taoiseach: I have already indicated that there are a number of ways in which matters that are of concern to Members can be raised in the House. As the Deputy is aware, there are ongoing discussions between the whips regarding how business should be ordered. He will also be aware that those discussions can provide opportunities for certain matters to be discussed in instances where agreement can be reached. I cannot——
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I propose that we sit until midnight in order to discuss the matter.
The Taoiseach: I am still on my feet. The Deputy should not interrupt.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ó Caoláin is out of order.
The Taoiseach: I have outlined the position. I am not seeking to divide the House on this matter either. However, it is not possible to raise the issue now and change the Order of Business in order that the House might sit beyond 10.30 p.m. There are other means by which the Deputy can raise this matter, today, tomorrow and in the future.
[400]An Ceann Comhairle: I must put the question.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I raised the matter last week and I am raising it again now. I propose that the Dáil should sit until midnight in order to discuss this matter.
An Ceann Comhairle: I have already indicated to the Deputy that this matter is being considered for inclusion on the Adjournment.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Surely it is in order to propose that the House sit until midnight.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is out of order.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Am I not entitled to propose an amendment to the Order of Business?
Deputy Arthur Morgan: A Deputy can propose an amendment to the Order of Business.
An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed?
Deputy Arthur Morgan: Deputy Ó Caoláin has put forward an amendment to that proposal.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Until what time is it proposed that the House will sit? I would like to see the time extended and for the House to sit beyond 8.30 p.m.
An Ceann Comhairle: This is a matter for discussion by the Whips. The Deputy’s Whip is also involved in these matters. Is the proposal agreed to?
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: A decision on the matter is being made on the floor of the House.
An Ceann Comhairle: I have advised the Deputy that the matter he has raised is being considered for discussion on the Adjournment at which time, if chosen, he will have ample opportunity to articulate his points.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: That is not satisfactory.
An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed?
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: No.
Question, “That the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. be agreed to,” put and declared carried.
An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a10, 10 and 11, without debate, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members’ business agreed? Agreed. I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.
Deputy Enda Kenny: Yesterday the long awaited Saville report was published. Those of us who can recall the events of 38 years ago will remember the darkness, pain, anger and sense of conflict and personal loss to those involved. The subsequent Widgery report is now discredited. The publication yesterday of the Saville report brings conclusion to one of the darkest and saddest sagas in Irish life during the past 100 years. I believe Lord Saville should be congratulated on the clarity of his report which sets out in clear and graphic terms that the 14 people shot dead by British forces 38 years ago were innocent. This clarification will I believe [401]bring some measure of closure and belated justice and comfort to the bereaved families involved.
I welcome the open and clear statement of apology and sorrow issued yesterday by the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron. The House should set aside time next week to allow Members an opportunity to debate an agreed motion of solidarity with the victims and families arising from the publication of the Saville report. I do not expect there will be any disunity, disharmony or lack of agreement in regard to such a motion which would also bring a measure of finality and closure to this matter in the Republic. Perhaps the Taoiseach will undertake to have his Whip draft an agreed motion in this regard, which Fine Gael will be happy to support and debate next week.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I support Deputy Kenny’s proposal which, I believe, would be a good way of this House responding to the publication of the Saville report. I, too, welcome the publication of that report, in particular the clear statements made therein concerning the innocence of those who were shot in Derry on Bloody Sunday, the admission and acknowledgement that the actions of the British Army on that day were totally wrong and, the statement made yesterday by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons, which expressed in sincere terms his sorrow and the sorrow of his Government and country for what happened on Bloody Sunday. I hope that publication of that report — this was evident from the scenes we saw yesterday from Derry — lifts a cloud not alone for the families of those killed on Bloody Sunday but for the city of Derry.
I understand from the Labour Party Whip that it is intended there will be some discussion of the report in the House next week. However, as suggested by Deputy Kenny, it would be a good idea if agreement could be reached — I am sure it can be — on an all-party motion in this regard. It should be possible to agree a motion which would allow the House to speak with unanimity on this subject. It would be desirable, in terms of the political response from the Republic of Ireland, that we speak with unanimity.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I concur with the sentiments expressed. I welcome the publication of the Saville report. I am on record in welcoming yesterday in this House the Taoiseach’s indication that he and the Government will accommodate an opportunity in the coming week to address the Saville report. I concur with the proposition that an all-party motion be the focus of that particular debate.
While praise is unquestionably due to the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, in terms of his remarks in Westminster yesterday, which were welcome all these years later, the Taoiseach’s comments yesterday were also welcome, thoughtful and appropriate. I suggest that in accommodating this opportunity in the coming week, we extend an invitation to representatives of the families of the victims of 30 January 1972 in Derry to attend the Visitors Gallery for the purpose of being witness to the opportunity which the Government will host to address this matter.
The Taoiseach: I am happy to accommodate such a response by the House to the Saville report, which is an important report in terms of the victims having been declared innocent. The purpose of the campaign for the new inquiry was to achieve this and was supported by all sides of the House. The findings of the report, the reaction of the people of Derry and the honest words of the British Prime Minister in Westminster will serve to significantly advance the cause of healing and reconciliation. I am aware that the families have a range of opinions in regard to where matters go from here. This is a deeply personal matter for them.
I spoke yesterday with some representatives of the families involved and will have an opportunity to meet with and listen to other representatives of the families later today. The Saville [402]report is a massive publication. It will take some time for all those concerned to read, analyse and reflect on its findings. This includes the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland who must consider whether further investigations or prosecutions are to be proceeded with. We now have a thoroughly reformed and democratically accountable policing and justice system in Northern Ireland which must be allowed to discharge its responsibilities without interference and in accordance with the law.
I am happy to arrange for the taking of a series of statements on this matter by way of agreed motion and to enable those who wish to attend to do so.
Deputy Enda Kenny: I thank the Taoiseach.
Deputy Seán Power: Last weekend, Lt. General Dermot Earley, chief of staff of our Defence Forces retired.
I am sure my colleagues from Kildare and all Members of the House would like to wish his successor, Major General Seán McCann, good luck in his new role. It is appropriate that we acknowledge the enormous dedication and commitment shown by Lieutenant General Dermot Earley during a long and distinguished career in the Defence Forces. I wish Dermot Earley and his wife, Mary, well as he battles with serious illness.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): I join Deputy Seán Power in complimenting Dermot Earley, a county man of my own, on his contribution to the Defence Forces and wish him and his family well. Our prayers are with them at this time.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I join Deputies Power and Finneran in acknowledging the huge work done by the former Chief of Staff, Dermot Earley, for the Defence Forces and I wish him and his family well as he battles with a serious illness. Everyone who met and knew Dermot Earley will acknowledge his warm personality. We all send him our good wishes and I do so on behalf of the Labour Party. There were a few occasions when I, as a Galway man, wished he was not quite as effective in the Roscommon jersey, but that is for another day.
The Taoiseach: I join with Deputies in wishing Lieutenant General Earley well in his retirement. I recently had the privilege of presenting him with the Distinguished Service Medal. I am sure we all agree that he led the Defence Forces in an exemplary fashion and send our best wishes to him and his family.
Deputy Enda Kenny: I agree with those comments. Dermot Earley was born in Castlebar. My brother marked him at mid-field when Roscommon played Mayo in the 1979 Connacht final. Dermot Earley was one of the most iconic Chiefs of Staff since General Michael Collins, and gave outstanding service to his country. I wish him and his wife, Mary, every success and I hope he is able to deal with his illness. He was an outstanding personality, a wonderful role model for any young person and someone of whom we could be intensely proud when he donned the green uniform on behalf of the Irish Army at home or abroad. I wish him well.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: On my own behalf and on behalf of Sinn Féin Deputies, I wish to associate with the good wishes to Dermot Earley in facing the challenges of his life. I acknowledge his role in the Defence Forces. Before he became a senior officer he was a household name as a footballing star in Deputy Finneran’s home county of Roscommon, where he [403]made quite an impact. His is a name I remember from watching Gaelic games throughout those years. We wish him well.
An Ceann Comhairle: On my own behalf and on behalf of all Members of the House, I join in the good wishes to Dermot Earley and to his wife and family.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: What is the Government’s proposal for this year’s summer recess? How long is it intended that this session will continue? The Chief Whip has circulated information on Bills the Government hopes to take in the House before we rise for the summer. I notice the list does not include legislation in respect of management companies, which is something the Labour Party has sought urgently. Neither does it include the legislation we were told would have to be passed in order for Ireland to participate in the EU Stabilisation Fund. Is it intended that those Bills will be dealt with before the summer recess?
What are the Government’s intentions with regard to the three by-elections, one of which has been outstanding for more than a year? When I was in Donegal last week, a number of people told me they had it on good authority that the Government intended to hold the Donegal South West by-election in October. What are the Government’s intentions with regard to the three by-elections and does it intend to move the writs for them?
The Taoiseach: I am sorry to disappoint the Deputy. He does not have that information on good authority.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Does anyone have it?
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: It will not be October, then?
The Taoiseach: I simply make the point that the Deputy does not have it on good authority.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Are we close?
The Taoiseach: With regard to legislation, the Multi-Units Development Bill was in the Dáil last week. I am not sure whether it will be completed before the end of the session. The Dáil term has been set out since last October. We were due to rise on 8 July. There is much work to be done between now and then and I ask for the co-operation of everyone in the House to achieve it.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Government Whip’s office has circulated a list of Bills it is hoped will be taken before the House rises for the summer recess. It includes the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, with which we are dealing, the Carbon Fund Bill, the Údarás na Gaeltachta Bill, a headshops Bill, a prescriptions Bill, a roads Bill, the Health (Amendment) Bill and the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. There is no mention of the local government (Dublin mayor and regional authority) Bill, which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government indicated would be in situ to accommodate the election of a Mayor of Dublin this year. If it is the Government’s intention to proceed with that election this year, why is that facilitating legislation not being dealt with before the summer recess? Is it the case that the Government does not intend to proceed with the election in 2010?
Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The Minister has indicated that the election of the Mayor of Dublin would take place in the autumn. It is bizarre that the legislation has not been brought before the House. When will we see the legislation? I understand from the Chief Whip that we will not see it before 8 July. Could it be that the legislation will be debated in Dáil Éireann while we are campaigning on the doorsteps? The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local [404]Government also indicated that the White Paper on local government would be launched about the same time as the legislation was being introduced in the House. What is the Government’s intention regarding legislation for the election of the Mayor of Dublin and the White Paper on local government? It is two and a half years since the publication of the Green Paper.
The Taoiseach: The Bill has not been published. It has been approved for priority drafting. The legislation must be passed before the election can take place, and it is on that we are currently working.
A committee is finalising proposals for consideration by Government for inclusion in a White Paper on local government.
Deputy Emmet Stagg: We thought the Greens were not coming into the House because they were getting ready for the election.
The Taoiseach: I think it is because they heard Deputy Stagg was here.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: In light of the fact that an independent report by Teagasc has stated clearly that farm incomes have decreased by 40%, can the Taoiseach ensure time is given for a debate on agriculture?
An Ceann Comhairle: There is no promised legislation in this area. The Deputy is out of order.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: I am asking for a debate on agriculture before the Dáil rises for the summer.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should table a parliamentary question.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: We could not have a debate on a parliamentary question.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy could raise it on the Adjournment.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: I am asking that time be allocated for a debate. I would also like to ask about the winding down of the hospital in Dundalk——
An Ceann Comhairle: No, this is out of order on the Order of Business.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn: He is asking about your constituency, a Cheann Comhairle.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: ——at a time when the hospitals in Drogheda and Cavan cannot deal with the problems in the region.
An Ceann Comhairle: It is not promised legislation.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: The Ceann Comhairle is well aware of the problems in his constituency. When will the health information Bill——
An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputy try to find an alternative way of raising the matter?
Deputy Seymour Crawford: Sorry, I am asking a direct question.
An Ceann Comhairle: It is not in order on the Order of Business.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: It is in order to ask about the health information Bill.
[405]An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry. Please do not elaborate.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: If the Ceann Comhairle would listen, we would have some chance of getting on with the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach: A bit of fairness, a Cheann Comhairle.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: The health information Bill is extremely important because we are not getting the true facts at present. We need to be able to get them. I would also like to ask about the Bill that will give people eligibility for health and personal social services. When will that be before the House?
The Taoiseach: I told the Deputy last week that there is no date for the second Bill he mentioned. We are hoping to deal this year with the first Bill he mentioned.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Can the Taoiseach give the House an indication of the current position on the Bill that has been promised to protect families that have fallen into arrears with their mortgages? The Bill in question was promised during the debate on NAMA. The Taoiseach has previously indicated to the House that negotiations are taking place with the various lending agencies. Has a Bill come before the Cabinet? Have discussions taken place at Cabinet level? What form is the legislative proposal likely to take?
The Taoiseach: There is no promised legislation in this area.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but legislation was clearly promised by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance in response to the promptings of the Opposition during a debate in this House. The debate took place last November, to the best of my recollection. I can get the precise date.
The Taoiseach: Action, rather than legislation, was promised.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Legislation was promised.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: In response to amendments proposed by the Opposition during the Committee Stage debate on the NAMA Bill, the Taoiseach and the Minister promised, in good faith, that legislation would be introduced at a later date to address this issue.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I am informed by the lending institutions——
An Ceann Comhairle: I advise the Deputy to table a parliamentary question on the matter to the line Minister.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his assistance. I do not mean any disrespect to him when I say that such a question would not be answered.
An Ceann Comhairle: That would be the quickest way to get clarity on this matter.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I ask the Taoiseach to give a direct response to my question about legislation that was promised in this House.
[406]An Ceann Comhairle: It is clear that there is disagreement on the question of whether such legislation was promised.
An Ceann Comhairle: I suggest that the Deputy should submit a parliamentary question.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but if we start to go back over that old nonsense all over again, we will be wasting our time in this House.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, please.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Can I ask the Taoiseach to indicate——
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask for the Deputy’s co-operation.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The last time I raised this matter on the Order of Business, the Taoiseach indicated to me——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has been advised that no legislation is promised in this area at this time. He should submit a parliamentary question to the line Minister.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Taoiseach answered a question on this matter on the Order of Business in the House in the last three months.
The Taoiseach: To be helpful to the Deputy, I remind him that a review group has been established to examine these issues generally, drawing on the work of the Law Reform Commission. The review group is due to produce its recommendations on these issues over the summer. In fairness to the Deputy, it is true that our bankruptcy laws and legal processes may need to be modernised. We will see what the position is when those recommendations are made.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I thank the Taoiseach. That is much better.
Deputy Liz McManus: I would like to ask about two legislative proposals. It was previously indicated that we would see the geothermal energy Bill in February, but it has not yet been published. I would be grateful if the Taoiseach could tell us when exactly it is expected. There was an understanding that the climate change Bill would be published in June, but there is no sign of it. It has been suggested that the heads of the Bill are being prepared. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the heads of the Bill are published before the end of this session, at the very least?
Deputy Emmet Stagg: The Greens again.
The Taoiseach: The geothermal Bill will probably be published later this year. Discussions on the climate change Bill are continuing. The Cabinet sub-committee on that issue will meet shortly. We will bring forward the legislation as soon as the issues are resolved and dealt with.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn: When will the Government publish the Bill that will put on a statutory basis the operation of the two existing community national schools in north Dublin and the three new schools that will open in September for the next academic year?
The Taoiseach: We expect that the patronage Bill should be published in this session.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Do I take it that the Bill will be published, but probably not debated, in this session?
[407]The Taoiseach: Correct. I think that is the position.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Given that the inspector of mental hospitals said on “Morning Ireland” this morning that three of the most significant old institutions should be closed, are we likely to see the mental capacity Bill in this session?
The Taoiseach: It was hoped that the Bill would be published in this session, but we will have to wait and see. The workload is piling up as we wait for legislation to be completed. It is due in this session.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: It is such an important Bill for people who cannot speak for themselves.
The Taoiseach: Yes. I understand that the changes mentioned by Mr. Kane this morning relate to next February. We will need time to consider these issues.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: One of the Bills on the list of legislation that was expected to be dealt with in this session was a Bill dealing with head shops. Can the Taoiseach clarify whether the legislation in question is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s Bill on psychotic drugs? If that is the case, can I urge that the Bill in question be dealt with as quickly as possible? A drug on the market that is known as “whack” is causing serious psychotic instances. I understand that approximately 40 people have had to attend hospital accident and emergency units because of the effects of this drug. That number has probably increased by now. It is vital that it be banned as soon as possible. I urge the Government to bring the legislation in question forward as quickly as possible. We will certainly facilitate its passage.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach: The Government intends to introduce the legislation in question in this session.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: Will it be completed in this session?
The Taoiseach: Yes. The intention is to complete it in this session. We need the co-operation of all Deputies in that regard.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I move:
An Ceann Comhairle: Is the Bill opposed?
Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): No.
An Ceann Comhairle: Since this is a Private Members’ Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members’ time.
Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I move: “That the Bill be taken in Private Members’ time.”
Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): I move:
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): I move:
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): I move:
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): I move: “That Second Stage be taken now.”
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”
Ba mhaith liom a rá ar dtús báire go n-aithním go maith na riachtanais atá ag na daoine atá dífhostaithe faoi láthair. Tuigim go bhfuil go leor dreamanna ag brath ar an mbuiséid leasa shóisialaigh — daoine le míchumas, cúramóirí agus pinsinéirí ina measc. Ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú don Teach go ndéanfaidh an Rialtas ár seacht ndícheall chun aire a thabhairt do na daoine leochaileacha sa tír.
As Minister for Social Protection I am conscious of the needs of unemployed people. I also fully understand that a wide range of other groups — such as people with disabilities, carers and pensioners — depend on the welfare budget for vital support. I assure the House that the Government, in the context of a tough budgetary environment, will continue to do its utmost to protect the most vulnerable people in Irish society.
The Government is proud of its unrivalled record in increasing social welfare payments. In the past 12 years, we have increased pension rates by about 120%, unemployment benefits by almost 130% and child benefits by 330%. The cost of living has increased by about 40% over the same period. We have extended coverage, removed barriers and increased entitlements such that the level and extent of social support payments has been transformed beyond recognition. In a continuation of the trend of recent years, and as a re-affirmation of the Government’s commitment to all those in need of support, €20.9 billion will be spent by the Government in 2010 on social welfare provision —€500 million or 2.45% more than 2009.
Unemployment among the young is a particular concern for the Government. We want to encourage them to stay close to the labour market while providing a rate of assistance that compares well with other jurisdictions, particularly the UK and the counties of Northern Ireland. The Minister for Finance announced in his budget statement the introduction of certain targeted changes to jobseeker’s allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. Specifically, he announced that the rate would be reduced to €150 per week where job offers or activation measures are refused. Sections 17 and 18 of this Bill provide for these changes.
In order to provide an incentive for participation in training and education programmes and programmes provided under the national employment action plan, NEAP, the rates of jobseeker’s allowance and supplementary welfare allowance are being reduced for people who, without good cause, refuse to participate in courses of training arranged by the Department or FÁS or in any NEAP process. When commenced, these measures will work in tandem with the integration of FÁS functions into my Department, along with other initiatives such as customer profiling, as part of a strong focus on employment. The Government’s aim is to ensure that despite the high number currently on the live register, long-term systemic unemployment and welfare dependency will not be allowed to take hold.
[410]Under the measure, a penalty of €46 will be applied to a person’s headline rate of jobseeker’s allowance or supplementary welfare allowance if he or she refuses or fails to avail of a suitable activation measure. Penalty rates of €35 and €25, respectively, will apply in the case of younger job-seekers already on reduced rates of €150 and €100 per week. The application of this measure to those under 25 may appear harsh. However, clear evidence is emerging that the reduced rates have been successful in providing an incentive for young people to take up training and education. I want to ensure that the small but significant cohort who refuse these opportunities cannot continue to remain outside the activation process. It is essential that these young people avail of training and employment opportunities; therefore, we are increasing the financial incentive for them to do so.
In keeping with focus on activation, I emphasise to the House that these rates will apply only where the primary social welfare payment is an unemployment benefit. No other schemes are under the scope of these provisions. In addition, only primary payments are affected — rates for child and adult dependants, where payable, remain unchanged if a claimant is subject to a penalty rate. I am also introducing a new provision for full disallowance where an unemployed person has refused an offer of suitable employment. This provision is intended to strengthen the existing legislative provision under which full disallowance may be imposed if the recipient is not genuinely seeking work. This will not alter the position of the majority of jobseeker’s allowance recipients.
As I mentioned previously, the Bill provides for changes to the one-parent family payment. The Government believes that the current arrangements, under which a lone parent can receive one-parent family payments until his or her child is 18, or 22 if in full-time education, without any requirement for him or her to engage in employment, education or training, are not in the best interests of parents, children or society.
Despite improvements made to the one-parent family payment over the years and significant spending on supports to lone parents, a large proportion of lone parents and their children are still experiencing poverty. The child of a lone parent is four times more likely to be in consistent poverty than the population overall. In general, the best route out of poverty is through employment. We recognise that work, especially full-time work, may not be an option for parents of young children. However, we believe that supporting parents in participating in the labour market once their children have reached an appropriate age will improve their own economic situations and their social well-being, as well as that of their families.
The Department has undertaken a comprehensive review of the one-parent family payment and developed proposals which are designed to prevent long-term dependence on welfare and facilitate financial independence; recognise parental choice in the care of young children, but with the expectation that parents will not remain outside of the labour force indefinitely; and include an expectation of participation in education, training and employment, with supports provided in this regard. To meet these social policy objectives, I am introducing the changes outlined to the one-parent family payment in section 24 of the Bill.
For new recipients, from 2011, it is proposed that the one-parent family payment will be made until the youngest child reaches the age of 13. The majority of new recipients of the payment are parents of newborn babies; therefore, the changes in the payment from next year will not affect them until 2024, when their youngest children reach their 13th birthdays. For existing recipients there will be a tapered six-year phasing out period to enable them to access education and training and prepare them for their return to the labour market. Therefore, the cut-off point of 13 years will come into effect only for existing recipients six years from now, [411]in 2016. For existing recipients, the cut-off point of 18 years will remain for 2011 and 2012. In 2013 it will be 17 years, in 2014, 16 years, in 2015, 15 years and in 2016, 13 years.
There is also a special provision for existing one-parent family payment recipients whose children are in full-time education. In this case, payment will continue until the end of the 2012-13 academic year or until the child reaches the age of 22, whichever is the earlier. To encourage participation in education and employment, from the enactment of the Bill to the end of 2016, an existing recipient who leaves the scheme to take up employment or a course of education will be allowed back on the scheme under the new age conditions of the six-year phasing out period if he or she subsequently loses his or her job or the course finishes. If a parent is still in need of income support when the youngest child reaches the age of 13, he or she may be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance or another appropriate income support payment — or, if in employment, family income supplement.
Under the reformed scheme there will be a special provision for families with children for whom domiciliary care allowance is paid. They will receive one-parent family payments until their children reach 16, at which point the children can claim disability allowance in their own right. There is also a special provision for married or cohabiting persons who are recently bereaved and who have children aged 13 or older. They will receive payments for up to two years, or until the youngest children reach the age of 18, to enable them to come to terms with their changed circumstances.
The Government is conscious that many lone parents will need access to education, training and enabling services such as child care provision in order to acquire the skills they will need to gain employment. A wide range of education and training opportunities are available through my Department, the Department of Education and Skills and FÁS for lone parents to strengthen their qualifications and skills base and thus maximise their chances of gaining employment.
With regard to child care, the Government invested some €1 billion over the past decade in developing a child care infrastructure. As a result of this, some 65,000 child care places will be in place this year. A revised community child care subvention scheme is due to be introduced in September 2010. This new scheme will have a labour activation focus and will strengthen child care supports available to lone parents. Importantly for lone parents, after-school services and homework clubs will be included in the services provided.
Internationally, there is a general movement away from long-term and passive income support. For example, in the United Kingdom lone parents are required to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of ten. From October 2010, the minimum age will be further reduced to seven. In Norway, Sweden, Germany and Italy there is a work obligation when the youngest child is aged three. In the 2006 Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, it was initially proposed that a parental allowance would continue until the youngest child reached the age of seven years. However, 13 years is considered to be a more appropriate age for this change as the need for child care will lessen from that age. This change to the one-parent family payment will bring Ireland’s support for lone parents more in line with international provisions where countries achieving the best outcomes in terms of tackling child poverty are those combining strategies aimed at facilitating access to employment and enabling services with income support.
I will outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 3 sets out the rules to determine with whom a child normally resides for the purposes of social welfare payments with the exception of child benefit. Section 4 provides for an amendment to the definition of spouse to include [412]different sex co-habiting couples as spouse for the purpose of farm assist and pre-retirement allowance. Section 5 provides for the inclusion of health contributions in the definition of contributions for the purposes of the four year limit on the return of contributions. Section 6 confers power to make regulations to provide for the conditions under which a person is regarded as being incapable of work for the purposes of qualification for the payment of illness benefit.
Section 7 corrects an omission from the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2009 and provides for the restoration of the full rate of payment for recipients of incapacity supplement aged 66 and over. Sections 8, 10 and 12 clarify the provisions in respect of the assessment of means where jobseeker’s allowance — section 8 — pre-retirement allowance — section 10 — and farm assist — section 12 — are in payment and the claimant’s spouse or partner is in receipt of family income supplement.
Section 9 provides for a number of technical amendments to section 142 to ensure consistency in treatment with regard to the increase payable for a qualified adult. It also provides for the deletion of obsolete provisions. Section 11 provides for a technical amendment to section 211 of the Act to delete an obsolete provision on disability allowance. Section 13 amends section 220 of the principal Act and sets out the rules to determine with whom a child normally resides for the purposes of entitlement to child benefit. Section 14 provides for an amendment to section 320, which deals with decisions of appeals officers. Section 15 removes the limitation on the scope of the appeals process and provides that the Minister has the power to appeal a decision of the chief appeals officer to the High Court on a point of law. Section 16 is a technical amendment to table 2 of Schedule 3 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to remove obsolete references.
Sections 17 and 18 provide for the payment of a reduced rate of jobseeker’s allowance or supplementary welfare allowance where the person refuses to participate in an appropriate course of training or to participate in a programme under the national employment action plan. Section 17 also provides for a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker’s allowance where the person refuses an offer of suitable employment. Section 19 clarifies the circumstances in which the reduced rate of jobseeker’s allowance is payable in the case of 18 to 21 year olds.
Section 20 allows the Minister to appoint persons other than serving staff to be appeals officers. This section will allow for the employment of retired appeals officers as appeals officers, on a temporary basis, to clear backlogs in the social welfare appeals office. Section 21 provides that the chief appeals officer and the deputy chief appeals officer must be officers of the Minister. Section 22 provides for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Act including the deletion of references to the early child care supplement where they appear in the Act. Early child care supplement ceased to be payable on 1 December 2009.
Section 23 provides for the publication of the names, addresses, fines and other penalties of persons who have been convicted of offences under social welfare legislation. Section 24 provides for the reduction, from 2011, of the qualifying age for receipt of one-parent family payment to when the youngest child reaches age 13 and also provides for various transitional provisions for current recipients of the payment. Section 25 amends the provisions on domiciliary care allowance to ensure that the operational practice is correctly reflected.
I will be tabling a number of amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. I will be introducing an amendment to provide for the transfer of the rural social scheme and the community services programme to me as Minister for Social Protection. I will also introduce an amendment to endow me as Minister for Social Protection with the necessary statutory powers on the [413]employment services and community services programme of FÁS and to subsequently transfer the related funding.
One of the priorities I have been given in my Department is to place a particular focus on job activation. The new Department brings a joined-up approach to examining job activation in its wider context with income support. The biggest concern in many households around the country is the issue of jobs. Job activation and the provision of meaningful work activity for unemployed people are a central part of the Taoiseach’s reasons for setting up the new Department of Social Protection. The amendments involving the work schemes and employment services moving into a single Department form part of our commitment to targeting the day-to-day needs of unemployed people.
Sections 17 and 18 provide for the payment of reduced rates of jobseeker’s allowance and supplementary welfare allowance in certain circumstances, as outlined above. I will introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to provide that the reduced rates will also apply to jobseeker’s benefit where the person refuses to participate in an appropriate course of training or to participate in a programme under the national employment action plan. I also provide for a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker’s benefit where a person refuses an offer of suitable employment. This mirrors the provision in Section 17 on entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance. I am also providing a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker’s benefit where the person is attending a full-time day course of study. This mirrors an existing disqualification for receipt of jobseeker’s allowance where a person is attending a full-time day course of study.
Section 23 provides for the publication of the names, addresses, fines and other penalties of persons who have been convicted of offences under social welfare legislation. Having given this matter further consideration, I have decided it is inappropriate to proceed with this provision and therefore I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to provide for the deletion of section 23. I will also table consequential amendments to the Long Title, collective citation and commencement provisions.
Molaim an Bille don Teach agus tá mé ag súil le bhur gcuid tuairimí a chloisteáil maidir leis na míreanna atá ann sa dá lá seo atá romhainn. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to an informed debate and to hearing the views of Members on the measures contained in the Bill over the next few days.
Deputy Olwyn Enright: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this item of legislation and I hope my contribution will be considered constructive. Fine Gael has concerns about this legislation. It will have an impact on the lives of thousands of people. I have difficulty with many aspects of this Bill, many of which concern practicality rather than principle. I hope the Minister will take this point on board.
I believe in the principle of activation but I do not believe the Minister is approaching this from the correct angle. My difficulty is with the proposed sweeping changes that will have a profound effect on people’s lives. They are being proposed without the backup of the necessary supports to implement the changes. These supports are vital if we are to lift people out of poverty and into meaningful employment. There is a key contradiction in the way the Minister is planning to implement some of the proposals. From my reading of the Bill, the two most significant proposed changes concern jobseeker’s allowance, the supplementary welfare allowance and the one parent family payment.
Jobseekers are to be given the option of a course, a job or training. With good cause, they can refuse to participate and their payment will remain the same. The one parent family recipi[414]ent, on the other hand, is cut off regardless of any factor once the youngest child reaches the age of 13. That is very different.
I strongly support the idea of activation, of assisting people to get back into work, education or training. That is the core solution to the problems we face. Fine Gael has stated consistently that the best way to address the enormous and spiralling social welfare bill is not to take money from the vulnerable but to get people back to work. The current Government has failed to tackle unemployment and set up a coherent job strategy. Instead, we will see the more vulnerable suffer further.
I welcome this and yet I question it. I welcome the Minister’s promise to introduce an amendment to deal with the huge backlogs in the social welfare appeals office. However, there are 439,000 people unemployed and I have a genuine difficulty with the Minister bringing in retired people to do that work. There are highly qualified unemployed people who could do it, given some training. I appreciate the work will be temporary but it might be the job experience these people need that would get them through an interview and get them a job. Instead, we will pay pensions to people while paying them to do this work. The Minister must examine this again. I appreciate there is a time issue, that we need to clear the backlog and that training takes time. At the same time, however, he might be able to bring in people further up the chain within the Department and then bring others in who would need less training to do other jobs. There are people in the Department who do not necessarily process these claims now but who have been in an office answering telephones and taking messages for years. They have quite an amount of experience and could move. I ask the Minister to look at that issue again.
It was made clear in two reports last week who was responsible for the mess the country is in but those people will not pay the price. Many, including the Taoiseach and some of the bankers, are still in their jobs while others have retired on pensions that most people would find nauseating to consider. With today’s Bill, however, as with the last Social Welfare Bill in December, we will make people who had no hand, act or part in the economic collapse of this country pay the price. I appreciate the Minister has had his brief for only a few months but why, in the past 13 years, did the Government not give attention to the idea of activating people when we had the work in which to place them? That was an opportunity squandered. Now, because we need to make savings or, as the Minister terms them, adjustments, social welfare recipients will pay the price.
There is also a contradiction in what the Minister said about the one parent family payment in that the Minister, Deputy Lenihan is quoted as stating that the Minister for Social Protection was making the payment changes to the one parent family payment to save money. I assume this was the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, but, at any rate, it was one of the Ministers named Lenihan. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, has come out since and said the opposite. There is some degree of confusion on that. I am concerned about that point and about social welfare recipients paying the price.
I wish to deal with the issue of one parent family payments. This group seems to be the only one singled out for activation without having opportunities given to them. I appreciate there was an expectation that changes would be made and, to be fair to this Minister, he bit the bullet that his three immediate predecessors failed to bite because this has been talked about repeatedly, for a long time. It is four years since the report on one parent families was published and in that time all we have had from the Government is commentary about the report. No work was done in those four years to facilitate the orderly provision of the range of supports needed to ensure that the people who will lose the payment will have the chance to participate in meaningful work, education or training. The Minister does not have any real plan to achieve this.
[415]Section 24 provides for the reduction of the qualifying age from April 2011, linked to when the youngest child reaches the age of 13. It provides for transitional arrangements up to 2016. Ironically, the date the Minister has chosen for this to take place is the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising, when we pledged to cherish all children of the nation equally. However, the transitional arrangements do not take account of the practical issues and only take account of age. They do not take account of issues such as transportation or child care. The Minister stated in his speech today that a new scheme for child care is promised from September. He promised a scheme to people who would be affected by the carbon tax but that did not come. We were promised a scheme to assist people who have difficulty with their mortgages and that has not come. We are obliged to pass this legislation in the coming weeks based on a promise which I find very difficult to do because the people I represent want to know what will happen.
I also have a difficulty regarding parents of children with special needs. There is a provision in regard to domiciliary care allowance but one can have a child with special needs who is not in receipt of domiciliary care allowance because of the type of need he or she has. This does not mean this child of 13 is suitable to be left at home alone. That point will have to be re-examined because there will be lone parents of a child with special needs, who, because of whatever type of need that child has — it may be purely behavioural — cannot be left to mind himself or herself after school finishes. Linking this to the domiciliary care allowance is not enough.
The transitional arrangements are dates and timelines and even in that they are unfair. As Deputy Shortall pointed out in the briefing, and as has been said to me by some people, these are designed almost to ensure that a person who is now in low income employment would be as well off to leave that job. If such people have a job that is not secure or is at risk of ending and they have not applied for, nor are in receipt of the one parent family payment, if they lose their job in the next few months or during these transitional arrangements they will not be eligible to apply if their child is aged 13. If they were in receipt of the payment now, however, and if the child is aged 12 years and 6 months, they will be eligible. That must be examined again. It was raised with the Minister’s officials that day but the Minister has not said there will be any amendments in its regard.
The real crunch of this issue concerns how the Minister will facilitate this group of people into meaningful work. I want to hear more from the Minister on this. It is the reason I oppose the Bill. I have no faith in the tangled web which is how I describe the education and training currently on offer. In any event, I wonder how the current system could cope with the additional people. When a child reaches the age of 13, the parent will lose the payment. That means that he or she must start the training prior to that, for example, if he or she wants to do a basic degree. I have no concept of what the Minister means by education or training in this regard. What type is he talking about? A FÁS course can be anything from a week in length to a year or more and then there are universities and institutes of technology. People will have different requirements and we have to be able to open their minds to the possibility of doing something more than they may have thought possible. I do not believe the system in place will allow them to do that.
If a person wants to do a basic degree that means leaving a child aged 10 years because the payment will be lost when the child is 13. Therefore, one must have used the three years prior to that to get the basic degree and have any hope of getting a job from it. Again, I imagine many parents would feel that leaving their child at home, aged 10, is not an option. Where will they get the money to have that child cared for while they are doing the education and training? There are basic infrastructural practicalities all over the place in this regard.
[416]Another basic point is that schools open at 9 a.m. When I had the education portfolio, and also in my constituency work, parents raised with me the fact that nobody is in charge of their children in school before that time. The school is not responsible and does not wish to know. There is a problem because a great number of FÁS courses start at 8.30 a.m. If the parents are going to have to leave before their children are in secondary school they will have to drop them off and that issue needs to be examined because schools will not take responsibility for them. I have spoken to headmasters and tried to reason with them, asking if somebody can do the job. They say they are not insured and that is the answer.
Sixty per cent of current one parent family payment recipients are already engaged in work and 80% are engaged in work, education or training. The Minister has not outlined any vision or plan as to how he hopes to achieve their activation. I do not believe the stick on its own will work. We need to work with these families and engage with them. They want the best outcome for themselves and they definitely want the best outcome for their children but they must be supported in that. Last week I asked the Minister’s officials how this would work in practical terms. They said that when the legislation was passed all the individuals in question would be written to, which is fair enough. When their youngest child reaches 10 years of age, the parents will be advised about what is available and they can get in touch with facilitators. They mentioned the pilot FÁS social inclusion model. In the first place, I have difficulty with the notion that we will base all of this on a social inclusion pilot, when we have not got results of the pilot. The Minister’s predecessor also thought facilitators were the answer to everything. For any problem I raised there were facilitators and they were the men and women to deal with it.
To be fair, any facilitator to whom I have spoken has been outstanding. They are very fair people and they are hard working. They try to go the extra mile to facilitate people and see how the rules can be examined to do this. They do a great job, but there are only 63 of them, while there are 439,000 people unemployed, over 100,000 on disability and illness benefit, and almost 90,000 one parent family payments. It is a physical impossibility to cover that, and I do not see how activation can happen, especially when there is around 20% who are not currently engaged in work, education or training and who will need a ferocious amount of help. How will it happen? That is the question that needs to be answered and that is my real concern. Payment cuts without that help is cruel to those people.
The discussion paper to which the Minister referred states quite clearly that activation is not simply focused on moving people into employment or low paid jobs. It states that activation encompasses interviews and advice meetings, education and training, and providing people with skills to enable them to achieve financial independence. I do not see the plan here on how we are going to do that. I want to see these men and women achieve their potential, and I do not want to see them dependent on welfare any more than the Minister, but I think they need to be fairly treated and properly helped, and I have a concern with how that is going to happen.
The Minister refers to other countries on this issue, and I have looked at other countries as well. We have a great tendency to pick out other countries as examples, without examining the whole system in other countries. When we look at the whole system in some of those countries, we see that they have the building blocks in place. They did not start with the cut and then work downwards. They started at the bottom and worked up and that is how we will have to approach this.
I have less difficulty with the changes proposed by the Minister to jobseeker’s allowance and to the supplementary welfare allowance, to some extent. I see the logic behind them, but I would question the emphasis. Where is the plan to create jobs for these young people? The [417]Minister’s predecessor had a plan for young people in 2008. Since that time, 84% of those who have lost their jobs are under 34, while 83,000 people under 25 are on the dole. This latter figure ignores the thousands who have left this country and they are not going off on their holidays. They are going because they feel there is nothing here for them. They cannot survive on the payment that they are getting and they do not feel they have the education or training opportunities.
The Minister probably got the submission that I received from the National Youth Council of Ireland, which voices some real concerns about the provisions. These are principally about the lack of availability of education and training places, as well as the failure of the Government to deliver on previous commitments, for which two examples are cited. Only 919 of the 2,000 work placements and only 752 of the 2,500 college places for jobseekers announced in April 2009 have been filled. The council rightly questions the effectiveness of FÁS courses. There are some great FÁS courses, but we need to examine this and be honest in our appraisal of what is being achieved.
The council submission refers to the Forfás report and it finds that many of the courses have lost focus and are of little use to young people in getting work, and that there are high drop-out rates. There is very little point in spending money putting people through courses if they are going to drop out half way through them, or if the courses are not relevant to their needs. We do not want to see people doing courses because they are told to do so. The statistics might look good, but we will not achieve anything. These concerns cannot be ignored as we go through the proposals, and I would like some more information on this. There will be amendments on FÁS on Committee Stage, and I welcome that because it will give us a little more clarity. At the moment, I see it as operating under three Ministers, but I do not see how it is intended to operate.
The changes are needed by the people who are unemployed. They are also needed by the employers who are struggling. The Minister’s officials pointed out that we do not need legislation for the employer PRSI incentive scheme but it would give us reassurance when debating this Bill if we knew that was in place. It is another promise given in last year’s budget, but we have not seen any action on it, besides press statements. If we knew that was in place, it would be one positive measure to which we could point as an example of something the Government has done to facilitate people in getting back to work. That is not there and I would like to see it in place before we proceed with this Bill. The Government promised €36 million for the initiative, so it is important that it be introduced without delay.
I would now like to go through a few specific sections of the Bill. In section 5, which deals with the refund of PRSI contributions, I want clarity on whether the people have a four year window within which they can claim a refund, or whether they can only claim a refund to the value of four years. During our briefing, the Minister’s representatives told us that it was not always appropriate to get a doctor’s certificate in certain instances, and swine flu was given as the big example. The amendment to section 6 seems reasonable in that respect but it is important that a certificate is provided in all but the most exceptional cases, particularly if we want to combat fraud. It is important that the section is not open to abuse, so I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister on that.
Section 7 corrects an omission from the second 2009 Act to provide for the restoration of the full rate of payment for recipients of the incapacity supplement aged 66 and over. How many people were affected by that omission? Sections 8, 10 and 12 contain the clarifying provisions on job seeker’s allowance, pre-retirements, the farm assist scheme and the payments to spouses or partners in receipt of family income supplement. Is the purpose of this provision to ensure that people get less? Is it just a clarifying provision?
[418]I brought up section 14 with the Minister’s officials. This deals with the power of the Minister to appeal to the High Court on a point of law, where he disagrees with the chief appeals officer. Can the Minister explain the purpose of this amendment a bit more? I appreciate that the Social Welfare Appeals Office is separate, even though it is still under the Department, but I would be concerned if situations were arising that the chief appeals officer was so out of step with legislation that he was not accurately interpreting the law and that the Minister was running to the High Court to correct mistakes that the officer was making. Is there a reason that this has suddenly come up? Has the Minister received advice that this is an issue that may be coming up?
We had a group before the joint committee a few weeks ago who spoke about the registration of people who died outside of Ireland. There is a requirement to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004. I do not know whether that can be done through this Bill. We had amendments to health legislation last year through a social welfare Bill, and there is a strong feeling that this registration needs to be done and people would like to see action.
The Minister is making some changes to the structures of the appeals office and other offices. I have a letter here containing a query about social welfare branch offices. Some of the particular difficulties on backlogs have arisen in respect of branch offices. There is much toing and froing, where issues that come into the branch office are passed elsewhere to be handled there and so on. Legislation was passed a few years ago that would allow branch offices to become deciding offices and authorise their own claim load, and that this would significantly speed things up. I do not know the Minister’s view on that, but it is something that could be considered. Difficulties in my own constituency have made me very aware of the difficulties people face when the backlogs are there.
The Minister stated that he was going to bring in amendments in respect of FÁS. I am concerned about the status of the Office for Social Inclusion. We had a long running battle in this House on the closure of the Combat Poverty Agency, or the “subsuming” of the office by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which is the polite way of putting it. The Minister’s Department is now called the Department of Social Protection, and I find it hard to visualise how that Department cannot have the Office for Social Inclusion in it. A commitment was made a few years ago that all decisions made by every Department would be poverty proofed.
Several years ago there was a commitment that all decisions taken by every Department would be poverty proofed and would be looked at with regard to the impact of poverty and how it would be likely to affect people. How will this happen in the Department of Social Protection? What role and communication will the Office for Social Inclusion have now? Will it be the same as it will have with the Departments of Education and Skills, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children or will it examine the Department’s enormous role in tackling poverty? That is its remit also but it is based in an entirely separate Department. Clarity on how that will work is very important.
Earlier, I briefly referred to the carbon tax. We were led to believe by last year’s budget that changes would be made or that there would be some sort of easing for people in vulnerable positions, particularly people dependent on certain social welfare payments, to cope with that carbon tax. It has been introduced on many fuels and will be fully in place in September. I expected something in the Bill to deal with this and I am very surprised that there is not. This is a particularly thorny issue in my constituency and in a number of other constituencies because people whose families have done so for generations have been prohibited from cutting turf. [419] There will be a scheme for one year with regard to this but that will not help people in the long term. Will the Minister examine this issue again?
The Minister has decided it is appropriate to proceed with section 23. Why? What is the reasoning for this? I cannot understand how the Minister could take a decision to make the big change of publishing names, addresses and fines and then pull back from it. It works effectively from a tax perspective. Are there more hard cases in the social welfare system? I question this change and I would like the Minister to answer on this.
Fraud does not necessarily need legislation but much more concentration and emphasis. I am concerned about a proposal or a pilot scheme to allow people to sign on by mobile phone. Perhaps the reports are inaccurate and this is a good opportunity for the Minister to clarify those reports. There are very genuine concerns about this. While I am all for technology and for using it in effective ways, perhaps the Minister could concentrate on using existing technology to make the Revenue Commissioners aware of what landlords are the ultimate recipients of rent supplements and such matters prior to considering allowing people to sign on to receive social welfare payments from wherever they are in the world. The Minister has not clarified it sufficiently for people to be reassured.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: I move amendment No. 1:
The Labour Party will oppose the Bill and will call a vote at the end of Second Stage. This is not because we are opposed to the principle of activation — we strongly support it — but because we have concerns about the Government’s motivation in bringing forward these proposals. It seems the sole motivation is to be seen to be tough with regard to welfare and to be seen to be doing something rather than putting in place a jobs plan and examining and tackling the real reasons people remain on welfare for long periods than being genuinely concerned about ensuring that as many people as possible can move from welfare to work. We must ask why the Government is doing this now and why action was not taken in recent years at times when it would have made sense to do so.
The Labour Party would support a Bill that was genuinely about activation but this Bill is not. I strongly believe in activation. Welfare should be for people who genuinely need it and there should be no place for those who see welfare simply as a way of life. People who abuse the welfare system, who exploit it, defraud it and who take it for granted, are a threat to its very existence. They are the enemy of the poor. The problem is that the Bill is not about activation; it is about cut-backs and the optics of doing something about long-term welfare recipients. How can one call it activation when in the first instance there are so few jobs of any description available? That is the big issue; the jobs are not there. The implication of comments made by the Minister on the Bill is that many people remain on welfare when they have job opportunities. The reality is that the vast majority of people on welfare do not want to be there. They want to be in work but the difficulty is that the jobs are not there. The Government has not produced a serious jobs plan and very little attention has been paid to job creation or [420]protection. That is the key issue the Government needs to address but it is not included in the Bill.
There is no provision for extra training or for extra after-school care for the children of lone parents. There is not even a commitment from the Minister on ring-fencing any money that might be saved for helping welfare claimants into work or training. That would be a sensible thing to do; if there are savings to be generated from these proposals they should at least be ring-fenced and ploughed back into providing good quality training opportunities for people who need to get off welfare but cannot do so because of a lack of education or adequate training.
Why is there a need to include a provision to disqualify jobseekers for refusing a job offer when there is already legislation to disqualify them if they are not genuinely seeking or available for work? Why is the Minister repeating this? Again, it seems to be more about the optics. Why is there a need to include a provision to reduce a jobseeker’s payment for refusing a training course, when there is already a provision in law to suspend the payment to a person in such circumstances? Is this about the Minister wanting to look tough rather than doing anything meaningful?
If the lone parent reforms are really about activation, why are qualified adults, and those on the non-contributory widow’s pension excluded from the proposals in the Bill? Or is it the case that they are next? A range of lone parent reforms was conceived by the late Mr. Seamus Brennan at a time when we had full employment and the economy was booming. That was the time to take action. With the right support services these proposals would have been appropriate then and the Labour Party cautiously welcomed them. However, now is the worst possible time to introduce those changes. We no longer have adequate levels of employment and a lone parent with huge family commitments is competing with 430,000 other unemployed people for work. That does not make any sense.
There is an underlying assumption that lone parents form a type of homogenous group. Nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of lone parents are at work and according to OPEN, of those on welfare 84% are working, looking for work, or undertaking training or an education course. The Minister needs to bear this in mind. There is a great hunger to get back into education or training to avail of any job opportunities and he should not speak in terms of the need to force people to do so.
Equally, there is a very strong case for the Minister to ensure that those people who are currently seeking training or employment are facilitated in doing that. It is his responsibility as part of the Government to ensure that the jobs are there in the first place for these people, something which it had completely failed to do in recent years.
Parents arrive at the status of lone parenthood in very different ways, which is another important point. Some arrive there through unexpected pregnancy, some through a relationship breakdown with a long-standing partner, some through formal separation or divorce, some through the death of a partner and some through abandonment by their partners. No other social group has a higher risk of consistent poverty. Lone parents are four times more likely than others to live in poverty and more than one third of children growing up in poverty in Ireland are growing up in one-parent families. The welfare system has not worked to combat this. Welfare reform is long overdue for this group. About that there is no doubt, but the Minister must go about it in the right way.
Lowering the qualifying age was meant to go hand-in-hand with better child care and training services, the introduction of a parental allowance to replace the one parent family payment and the ending of the ban on cohabitation. Where are these reforms? There is no sign of them [421]in this Bill. These proposals were clearly spelled out in the Government Green Paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents. I wonder if the current Minister has even read it. It would seem that he has chosen to do the dirty work of the former Minister, Deputy Hanafin, for her while tearing up the progressive work engaged in by his earlier predecessor, the late Séamus Brennan. The likelihood is that all that will happen is that an extra 12,000 lone parents will transfer to jobseeker payments over the next six years. This will inflate the live register figures by another 12,000 as people on one parent family payment are not counted at the current time. It is hard to know what the point of all that will be.
The income disregards that claimants previously enjoyed as lone parents when they took up a part-time job will no longer be permitted under jobseeker rules, which will be a huge impediment. It will mean that the single biggest effect of these changes is that they will deprive lone parents of the opportunity for part-time work. I put it to the Minister that he should consider the unintended consequences — I am being charitable to the Minister by calling them unintended — but there may be very serious unintended consequences to what he is now calling reforms which will work against the objective of getting people to move from welfare to work. Not only will lone parents have substantially less income, but they will be even more detached from the workforce. How can this possibly be described as activation?
For those who manage to find work, the main problem will undoubtedly be who will mind their children when they are at work. Most will not be able to afford to pay someone else to do it. What is a lone parent to do during their summer months when his or her child is off school? Teenagers are off school for three months in the summer. Is it now Government policy for 13 year olds to have no parental supervision and to be left to their own devices during the three months of their summer holidays? I would like the Minister to address that point in responding to the debate tomorrow. What arrangements will the Minister make if he will require their lone parents to get involved in training or employment? Just because a child is 13 does not mean he or she can look after himself or herself. Has the Government even considered the social consequences of this? There are huge implications for anti-social behaviour, drug abuse and, ironically, teenage pregnancy. Has the Minister really thought this through? It seems from his comments to date that very little thought has been given to the likely fall-out of his proposed changes.
As the research undertaken by the Vincentian partnership illustrates, it costs substantially more to raise a teenager than it does to raise a younger child. The withdrawal of one parent family payment will in many cases create an additional barrier to school completion and to third level education. If the teenage children of lone parents realise that their parents are in far more strained financial circumstances under the Minister’s new arrangements than they currently are, it will inevitably have a knock-on impact in terms of the ability of teenagers in poor lone parent families to remain in school. The pressure will undoubtedly grow on them to leave school early and try to find work. The pressures working against the possibility of them participating in third level education will be even greater.
Will the operational guidelines for the jobseekers allowance be amended to reflect that for some parents the cost of after school care will represent a poverty trap? What will happen in respect of difficult children? There is some provision in the Bill in respect of children who qualify for domiciliary care allowance and for recently bereaved families, which I welcome. However, there is no allowance made for children with, for example, ADHD, challenging behavioural patterns or physical or mental health difficulties. Parents of these children simply cannot be in two places at once. What arrangements will the Government put in place if a parent of a child in those circumstances is required to be at work to ensure adequate care and protection is provided for young people who are at risk?
[422]Allowances are made for lone parents who have suffered a recent bereavement, but why do they stop there? Why are other reasons for lone parenthood, such as abandonment or separation treated any differently? Do people in such circumstances not also need what the Minister describes as time to come to terms with their new status? It seems strange that the Minister is making a distinction between different categories of people who find themselves unexpectedly in a situation where they are lone parents. There would seem to be some element of discrimination and I would like the Minister to address that point. Do people who have been suddenly abandoned not need the same consideration as people who find themselves suddenly widowed? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Labour Party will seek to amend this legislation by insisting that the welfare of the child should be paramount in deciding on the availability of the lone parent for work. In all aspects of social policy the understanding was that this principle would underpin all social policy relating to children. It seems it does not apply in this case. I will table an amendment to give effect to that principle which should be accepted by all Departments. The welfare of the child should be paramount in deciding on the availability of a parent for work. It is how it works in other countries and how it should work here. It is beyond belief that the Minister has not included such a provision before presenting this Bill. It reveals the crude recklessness and devil-may-care attitude of the Government regarding the poor in our society.
Some of the underlying motivation which concerns me in this Bill is that it would seem that it is not about the welfare or protection of vulnerable people, rather, it is about the welfare and protection of the Government. It is designed to appeal to the prejudices of those sections of the public who believe all lone parents and all jobseekers are sponging off the State. I do not think the Minister should feed that view.
There is no reform of the real reasons some people spend so long on welfare, namely, the number of poverty traps in the welfare system. There is no improvement in the criteria for family income supplement, for example. One still cannot qualify for it if one is self-employed. The minimum hours rule is a huge impediment to qualification. This should be the Minister’s priority because it potentially offers a silver bullet for tackling the reasons people find it so difficult to move from welfare to work. He needs to investigate the problem, of which family income supplement is a significant element. Reform of this area could make all the difference to people taking up employment but, again, little or no consideration is being given to it.
There is no relaxation of the income disregards when taking up temporary work. The withdrawal rates for some people taking up temporary employment or short-term work projects are very high and can be in excess of the marginal rate of tax. The welfare system needs to be overhauled to build in flexibility. The Minister is nodding but he is not acting. The Bill does not provide the improvements that would allow people to re-enter on their old rates if they take up temporary employment.
Disgracefully, there is still no improvement to the qualifying criteria for mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement. How long do we have to wait for these? I despair at the many cases of people who do not qualify for mortgage interest supplement because the rules have not been updated since the mid-1990s. Reform of this supplement was promised by Easter 2009 and, subsequently, Easter 2010. This unforgivable delay is testimony to a Government that has put the interests of the banks ahead of ordinary people who are struggling.
What is the problem with changing rent supplement so that the qualifying criteria mirror the differential rent criteria of the relevant local authority? This improvement could be made overnight and it would make a huge difference to people on rent supplement by eliminating a long-standing poverty trap that causes welfare dependency. The Minister and everybody in this [423]House are aware of the poverty trap whereby it is not worthwhile for people on rent supplement to go to work. There are straightforward ways of eliminating this trap and if the Minister is serious about helping people to get off welfare, why is he not proposing them?
The previous Minister, Deputy Hanafin, promised changes to the back to education allowance so that more people could qualify but no such improvements have been mentioned by the present Minister.
The lack of reform in these areas is the real reason for welfare dependency and tackling these issues would take far more people off the dole than any of the reforms outlined in the Bill. A national training, education or work guarantee should be offered to every unemployed person under the age of 25. Does the Minister realise there are 74,000 such people? Why is he not taking specific action to address the problems they face?
There are several ways in which revenue could be raised without hurting the poor. On Committee Stage of the Bill I will be proposing a range of reforms which would accrue savings in the policy areas for which the Minister has responsibility. Almost one dozen changes could be made to raise revenue and eliminate the need to hit people at the lowest levels of income. I sincerely ask the Minister to consider some of these changes.
He could, for example, reduce the maximum tax-free pension pots allowable. He undertook to investigate this issue but the Bill does nothing about it. At present, rich people can have pension pots of almost €5.5 million. This is a ridiculous amount for which there is no justification. Why not reduce the limit to €2.5 million, which would still be higher than the maximum pension pot allowable in the UK? What about allowing the first €50,000 in employer contributions to a pension to be tax free and taxing the remainder as benefit in kind? At present, there is no limit to the tax-free contributions an employer can make. The Minister has spoken about limiting the maximum possible tax-free lump sums taken on retirement to €200,000 but there has been no action on it. He is responsible for pension policy and savings can be made in this area. There is no justification for allowing rich people to earn huge amounts in tax free payments from their pension contributions or pension lump sums. Why is the Minister not addressing this issue instead of hitting the very poorest?
Why not make insurance companies compensate the Department for illness or disability payments where they have admitted liability and where the value of social welfare entitlements is deducted from the gross claim settlement? Why are insurance companies being let off the hook? This is a way of saving money which would not hurt people.
Why is PRSI not charged on rental income, capital gains or share based remuneration and share options? Why not withhold payment of mortgage interest supplement until proof is provided that a bank has played its part in assisting somebody by giving a break on mortgage repayments or extending the term. Why does the Minister not insist that the banks help out rather than have the State step in and let them off the hook?
Why not increase penalties for social welfare fraud by both employers and welfare recipients or give greater scope to the Department to recover outstanding amounts? Data matching between the Courts Service and the Department could be improved.
Why are landlords who charge illegal supplements by forcing tenants to pay top up rents not blacklisted? Why are the landlords who refuse to pay tax on their rental income not being named?
The Minister is nodding along to my suggestions but there is no action.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I agree with much of what the Deputy says.
[424]Deputy Róisín Shortall: Why is he not doing something other than hitting people on the lowest incomes?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am doing something.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: These people find themselves in dreadful circumstances in many cases. Why are the savings being made on their backs rather than areas in which substantial revenue could be found among very rich people who are currently being let off the hook? Why does the Minister not do something about that instead of simply nodding along? I would like to see a Bill introduced which provides the changes that would create a fair tax and welfare system.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Is de réir a chéile a thógtar na caisleáin.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Labour Party will also be proposing amendments on the compulsory registration of fathers on birth certificates, which is in the clear interest of the child and would be of considerable assistance in combating social welfare fraud. This measure has been extensively discussed in the past year but it is not provided for in the Bill. I hope the Minister will support our amendments. My colleague, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, has been very vocal on the issue of parental equality.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights has completed its consideration of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 and has made amendments thereto.
34. Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the senior bankers and bank representatives that he has met with to discuss the lack of credit available to small business and the outcome of those meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24695/10]
35. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation if in view of his statement on 14 May 2010 in which he said he intended to summon top bankers for talks over the business credit crunch, he will list those bankers he has met to date; the response he has received; if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties still being experienced by many businesses in accessing credit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24634/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I propose to take Questions Nos. 34 and 35 together as they substantially address the same issues.
[425]I met separately with Allied Irish Banks, Anglo Irish Bank and Bank of Ireland during the week beginning 17 May 2010. These were private meetings held with each bank to discuss the availability of bank credit for businesses, especially small and medium sized enterprises. At the meetings, I raised concerns about the claims of many small businesses that some bankers were stonewalling loan requests and not providing credit to viable enterprises. I reminded the banks of the purpose of the recapitalisation package and the substantial investment of taxpayers’ money into the banks aimed at getting our economy moving again.
The message from the two main banks was that they were open for business and available to provide credit to viable businesses. They assured me they were fully committed to supporting businesses and would meet the requirements laid down for them in the recapitalisation package of 30 March 2010. They confirmed that they had submitted plans to the Department of Finance and credit review office on how they intended to meet their requirements and these plans are being reviewed.
Since my meetings, there has been considerable activity and announcements by the banks relating to supports available for the business sector, particularly small and medium sized enterprises. I welcome these activities and announcements. As I have stated in the past, however, the promises and activities of the banks must be matched with specific commitments and increased lending. All viable businesses must obtain appropriate access to bank credit.
The banks’ performance in meeting their obligations under the recapitalisation scheme will be closely monitored by Government. I want our banks, which have been rescued at enormous cost to the taxpayer, to act responsibly and in the best interests of small businesses in order that we can create jobs in the domestic economy and advance our recovery as a nation. I will meet with the banks in the future, as necessary, to ensure they are providing sufficient credit to the business sector.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: The reason I tabled a question on this matter is the ongoing concern expressed by many of those who run small and medium sized enterprises that they are not securing access to working capital. The Minister has made some efforts to meet representatives of the banks to impress on them the importance of extending credit to small businesses. Who attended these meetings? Did the Minister meet Richie Boucher, Mike Aynsley or Colm Doherty?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: While I do not propose to name individuals in the Chamber, I met the chairperson and senior executives of one of the leading banks, the chief executive officer of another leading bank and the chairman and chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: Exactly what was achieved by the meetings? What commitments did the Minister secure from the banks?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The Taoiseach, in a statement on banking at the annual general meeting of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, indicated the Government was not satisfied that banks were providing credit to small and medium sized businesses. The Government is particularly concerned about this issue because the SME sector provides employment for approximately 700,000 people in a workforce of 1.9 million. Our concern is that such businesses cannot survive if finance is not available to them.
We called representatives of the banks to a meeting on the basis of the recapitalisation and because the Government wants to continue to create jobs, as it is doing through the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and other efforts. The SME sector can only create further jobs if credit, the lifeblood of business, is available to them. We made clear to the banks that we were unhappy with the manner in which they were treating customers, pointed out that they had forgotten [426]loyalty and shunned people and noted that they were converting their credit terms from overdrafts into term loans, increasing the interest rate on such loans, calling on loan guarantees and closing down businesses. Our general view was that the position was highly unsatisfactory.
In the circumstances, two important matters emerged from the meeting. Allied Irish Banks gave a commitment that it will, over the course of the rest of the year, make available a sum of €500 million for loans, while Bank of Ireland indicated it has lent €1 billion. Both banks gave commitments to make available €3 billion in 2010 and 2011. Each of the banks submitted its plans for making available this funding and the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Innovation are examining these plans. A number of issues have arisen from the plans and further clarification has been sought from the banks to ensure their commitments are met. The Department will monitor the level of advances being made to businesses and the chief credit reviewer will be involved in the monitoring process.
Deputy Willie Penrose: On behalf of the Labour Party, I have argued the case for small businesses consistently and at every opportunity and forum, including in the Dáil Chamber. The banks, unlike me, do not recognise that more than 250,000 small businesses provide 750,000 jobs. On the contrary, they have treated small business in a disdainful fashion. The Labour Party proposed the establishment of a strategic investment bank because the disgraced private banking institutions failed us and brought the country to its knees.
How will the Minister monitor the commitments made by the banks given that they have been past masters at fudging the figures and creating a mist of confusion and contradictions? The losers in recent months have been small businesses which have sought to expand, pursue new avenues of business or secure additional overdraft facilities. The Minister used a good expression in stating the banks have stonewalled. How will he be certain that the promised moneys will be made available to small businesses? There is a great fear that, notwithstanding his bona fides and efforts, which I acknowledge, the banks will engage in a public relations exercise to get the Minister off their backs. Having secured the funding to recapitalise, the banks will use viability and other factors as an excuse. Many small businesses are family run and have been viable for years. Why then are the banks calling this tune now?
The authors of the third Mazars report could not establish what criteria the banks were using to make funding available for small businesses. Much of the information is not precise and they admitted a number of factors limited the collection of relevant data. If Mazars was unable to get to the bottom of the issue, how will the Minister monitor the commitment the banks gave to ensure it is implemented?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The Deputy has asked pertinent questions and the issues he raises will exercise us. In the past, money was not made available when the banks indicated it would be made available. On this occasion, however, there are two differences. I have secured a commitment from the chief executive officers and chairpersons of the banks concerned that they will provide the funding. They have admitted in meetings with me that obviously there were major shortcomings in the way they were dealing with their customers. They also indicated to me that there would now be an appeal system within the bank itself. In other words someone refused at a local level could appeal to a higher level in the bank. A customer who is still not satisfied that he or she has been treated equitably and fairly in his or her application can appeal that decision to John Trethowan, the chief credit reviewer. I also met Mr. Trethowan because I thought it was important to ascertain precisely from where he was coming. This man was chief executive of National Irish Bank and he knows the banking system. In my meeting I was very impressed that he knows what he is at. The chief credit reviewer will give a quarterly review to the Department of Finance outlining his findings from the appeals made to him.
[427]The chief credit reviewer was very strong on one point. The Mazars report indicated that four out of five were getting approval of applications. Of course the small businesses were claiming that only one out of five were getting it. However, if a small businessperson was looking for €100,000 and a bank granted approval for €40,000, it seems the Mazars report regarded that as an approval even though it was no good to the future viability of that small business. He will evaluate all the applications. Importantly he requested that every stage be documented in writing so that an audit trail is available to us.
Deputy Willie Penrose: What proposals have AIB and Bank of Ireland made to indicate they will meet the targets? The Minister indicated that he got an additional €500 million. Where does that fit in, in the context of the €3 billion that was supposed to have been provided for in 2010 and 2011? Is it in addition to that or is it a portion of that to get the thing up and running. Were they simply sitting on their hands until the Minister met them? After getting the taxpayers’ money and with small businesses paying through the nose trying to keep the show running, they were sitting on their hands. Can the Minister confirm that is what they were doing? I hope the Minister gave them a good kick up the transom and I hope he gives them plenty more.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: Is that parliamentary language a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I think so.
Deputy Willie Penrose: It is very parliamentary when compared with what I would like to say.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: In that case, I am very glad for the Deputy’s forbearance.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: We had very forthright discussions, as a result of which I am satisfied that the €500 million will be part of the overall €3 billion they have committed. The chairperson of AIB, who was present at the meeting, indicated clearly that there were deficiencies, that in the restructuring the bank had lost sight of its customer base and the loyalty of those customers, and that it was prepared to ensure that AIB local management would deal equitably with applications that came before them. We will continue to monitor it on a quarterly basis and I will report back to the House on an ongoing basis to ensure they are complying.
36. Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the steps he has taken to seek a purchaser for the Pfizer plants in Loughbeg and Shanbally, County Cork, to prioritise job retention in the area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24696/10]
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: Pfizer remains a major industrial employer in Ireland with more than 4,200 workers, in seven locations, involved in the manufacture of high-end life science products for world markets. I have asked IDA Ireland to continue to work with Pfizer to save the jobs at risk due to the planned future sale or closure of plants in Cork and Dublin. Any impact on jobs at the facilities in Loughbeg and Shanbally in Cork would occur in 2012 to 2014.
IDA Ireland is confident that a buyer will be found for at least some of these facilities. In the recent past, IDA Ireland and Pfizer have been successful with the sale of Pfizer’s animal health plant in Sligo and its Cork Loughbeg API plant, preserving jobs at both locations. Pfizer is planning further capital investments and new positions in its biotechnology operations in Ireland and the Government will do all it can to support the company’s growth plans and is in discussions with the company.
[428]The Government is working hard to sustain and create jobs throughout the country by creating a business environment that is supportive of Irish enterprise and export growth, and ensures we continue to attract high value foreign investment. In the past ten years, direct employment in IDA Ireland-supported companies in Cork city and county has grown from just under 16,000 in 1999 to 20,000 now. Since 2006, company projects with a job potential of more than 4,222 have been approved. Enterprise Ireland has approved approximately €50 million to client companies in Cork city and county since 2008. EI has a client base of more than 700 companies employing approximately 18,000 people.
For the micro enterprise sector, grant approvals in the period 2000 to 2009, by the four Cork city and county enterprise boards amounted to €11 million, supporting 647 projects. Capital funding for these boards in 2010 amounts to €1.5 million. It is generally estimated that the jobs directly created result in approximately the same number of jobs being generated in the local economy.
As for other regions, the Government and the industrial development agencies will continue to focus on attracting investment and creating industrial jobs.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: I thank the Minister for his response. Of the two plants in Cork at Loughbeg and Shanbally, the Minister mentioned that IDA Ireland is confident of providing a buyer for one. I presume he is referring to the Shanbally site, which is a more modern facility. I know Pfizer and IDA Ireland are working to sell the plants. Are there any specific targets in mind and has any market research been carried out as to who might be a likely buyer? People want to hear that there is something tangible out there? There is the possibility of offering tax breaks for the Loughbeg facility which is currently producing Lipidol, which will have gone off patent in 2011. There must be some area that is being targeted rather than the general open market. People want to hear that there is something more specific.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: Some of the plants are really marketable and IDA Ireland is very confident that it will be able to sell off some of them and bring in companies that will sustain and preserve many of the jobs that already exist. It is very helpful that the closedown of these facilities is over a period from 2010 up to 2014 in some cases, which will give us a great opportunity. IDA Ireland has been in discussions with some companies on these matters. There will be regular site visits to the facilities to see how appropriate and fit for purpose they are to some of the companies with which IDA Ireland is in contact. We remain very hopeful. It is too early for us to give any definitive signs, but from its experience and the contacts it has made, it remains steadfastly confident that it will be in a position to sell some of them.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: Specifically on the Loughbeg facility that is producing the Lipidol, is it possible to market that with tax breaks for research and development purposes? I know something is available under that scheme. Is that a tool the Government is using?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: Any company coming in that will commence a process, of course, will be subject to the 12.5% corporation tax. If it is involved in research, development and innovation, it will be able to obtain the further tax credits that would be available to any multinational or other company coming in. It would be seen as a totally new entity. Irrespective of the grants paid or the time lag, they would obviously need to be paid back to IDA Ireland if such moneys were to be refunded to the IDA. However, anything new coming in would be regarded as a new project that would be entitled to all the appropriate grants.
37. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation if his attention has been drawn to the recent report published by the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland seeking changes in the current arrangements for issuing work permits to those from outside the EEA area which it claimed was leading to exploitation of workers; the changes he is planning to the current regime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24355/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Billy Kelleher): I am aware of the recent report by the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland, entitled Work Permits and Exploitation: Time for Reform, in the context of proposing changes to the system of issuing work permits, and assume this is to what the Deputy’s question refers.
Since 2004, a key element of Irish labour market policy has been to ensure that general labour and skills needs are met from indigenous labour and from within the workforce of the European Union. For strategic skills or labour shortages in designated occupations in key economic sectors, Government policy is to issue employment permits for the employment of non-EEA nationals for specific vacancies and in response to employer demand. The various schemes that give effect to such policies — green cards, work permits, spousal and dependant work permits, and permits for intra-company transferees — were introduced following enactment of the Employment Permits Act 2006 and came into effect on 1 February 2007.
The Employment Permits Act 2006 provides immigrants with greater freedom, autonomy and control over their own employment choices by enabling workers, for the first time, to apply and reapply for their own permits. The Act also allows workers to change their employer after a period and move to another employment to take advantage of better conditions or career options.
It is important to retain the current arrangements which operate to protect employees as it allows the system to trace employers who employ permit holders. The current arrangements for moving jobs are sufficiently flexible. A properly controlled employment permit system requires that permits be issued to a specific employee for a specific job with a specific employer. To do otherwise would not only risk abuse of the employment permit system but would make it much more difficult to ensure that employers observed the employment rights of employees.
Although employment permits are employer and location specific, the Department currently makes efforts to facilitate those who encounter difficult positions and who wish to change employers with new employment permits. In the past year, for example, almost 1,500 new employment permits were issued in respect of employees changing to new employers. These permit applications were issued without regard to the normal requirements of advertising the position in daily newspapers and with FÁS.
Exploitation in the labour market is unacceptable and I urge all who find themselves in this position, including employees on employment permits or persons who know of such an issue, to contact the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, which will investigate these matters. Whereas reporting of breaches can sometimes present difficulties for employees who hold permits linked to a particular employer, I remind the Deputy that NERA will also act on complaints made anonymously. That is critical. We have heard very disturbing stories from the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland so anybody with information should contact NERA, even if it is on an anonymous basis.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Employment Permits Act 2006 provides for regular review of Ireland’s economic migration policies and my Department keeps these policies under review on an ongoing basis.
[430]Deputy Willie Penrose: I thank the Minister of State for his reply. In 2010, one would think the holder of an employment permit only being allowed to work for the particular employer stated on the permit is very restrictive. The logical consequence of such a binding system is to deny the holder of the permit basic freedom to change employer; it is fundamentally flawed, unjust and discriminatory. We should be clear that such action encourages exploitation.
Nobody wants to throw out the baby with the bath water and there is a system in place. We want an administrative change. I accept the thrust of the Minister of State’s reply but does he agree that a better and fairer employment permit system would have the employment permit granted to a worker within a designated occupation or job category? The job category and designation would remain the same so a carpenter could not work as something else but he or she could go to a different employer after three or four months provided it is in the same category of work.
That is a simple administrative change and there is no need to overhaul the entire system. The labour market need tests would still be applied, as the Minister of State correctly indicated. With a change of employer, I suggest it is quite simple to notify the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation or the Department of Social Protection. It is not a big deal. Does the Minister of State agree it would be good for ensuring compliance by employers so they will not be undermined and can compete on a level playing pitch with those who might look to exploit people within the current system?
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Our first obligation is to the EEA labour market.
Deputy Willie Penrose: We accept that.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: It is the first obligation of the State to ensure that is the case. The process is demand-led to ensure specific skills shortages can be filled on a continuous basis. Some 1,500 work permits were issued to employees changing employer in 2009, so the system is flexible while maintaining integrity. The system is being continuously reviewed, with the last occasion in early 2009.
We continuously consider the needs of the economy and employees. This is critical. When I was Minister of State dealing with labour affairs I always urged people to relay any information they had concerning exploitation of workers. We have urged unions to do so and I met representatives from the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland on several occasions. If Deputies in the House have information they should contact the National Employment Rights Authority which will investigate. We have put in many resources for language training, and inspectors have access to Polish, Chinese, Lithuanian, Latvian and so on. There are more than 12 languages in published documentation on employment rights.
Deputy Willie Penrose: The position of the EEA system is accepted but this concerns non-EEA issues. Surely the Department has an obligation to ensure there is no exploitation or undermining of people’s rights? In that context why is there such an obstinate refusal by the Department or somebody within it to review the issue? In a month’s time the Minister of State could return with an answer and I would be happy with it.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: I will give an answer I hope the Deputy is satisfied with now. In the past year we have issued 1,500 work permits to employees allowing them to change employer. The system is flexible and wherever there are issues of exploitation, the Department will consider them from a humanitarian and sympathetic perspective if an employee wants a transfer from an employer. We understand the needs but we urge everybody in the House to report incidents of exploitation.
38. Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation if he will report on the workings to date of the inter-agency team that he set up, comprising of Enterprise Ireland, FÁS, Industrial Development Authority Ireland, relevant county enterprise boards, the Department of Social Protection and his officials following the announcement of some 900 voluntary redundancies at Quinn Insurance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24697/10]
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: In response to the announcement of redundancies in Quinn Insurance, I established an interagency team comprising Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, the relevant county enterprise boards, FÁS and the Department of Social Protection. The interagency response team, which held its first meeting in Cavan on Friday, 30 April, has met on four other occasions since and is chaired by Mr. Dan Flinter. It is important to note that this co-ordinated response to the position in Quinn Insurance is a work in progress. The group oversees and monitors the direct responses of the relevant State agencies concerned with the Quinn Insurance locations in Cavan, Navan and Blanchardstown.
Information sessions for Quinn employees have been delivered at all three sites by Enterprise Ireland, FÁS, the county enterprise boards, the Department of Social Protection, other agencies, education providers and financial institutions as required. The focus is to ensure that employees have all the relevant and practical information necessary to help them make informed decisions as they consider their options for the future. A Start Your Own Business programme is being rolled out in Blanchardstown and Navan in response to the numbers of expressions of interest in self-employment received by the employee representative committees.
A job availability portal is now operational and it will extract information from websites on employment opportunities for the whole region, including north Dublin. This portal will be targeted at those people leaving the company and will initially be password protected to them.
A sub-group comprising the company, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland and the county enterprise boards is being established to keep a particular focus on responding to companies who indicate an interest in recruiting staff leaving the company and those who are known to be actively recruiting in related sectors. From 9 June, the Department of Social Protection and FÁS have been on site in Cavan, Navan and Blanchardstown to process benefit applications and assess training needs.
I consider that the interagency team approach is the most effective way to co-ordinate the activities of the relevant Departments, State development agencies and county enterprise boards to ensure that every avenue is explored as regards potential employment opportunities for the workers affected.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I thank the Minister for his response. The announcement of 900 voluntary redundancies in Cavan, Navan and Blanchardstown came as a body blow to all those areas, not least my own constituency of Dublin West, which has lost so many jobs in recent months. I appreciate that some good work is being done by the different agencies to assist people taking up the voluntary redundancy offer to access their entitlements and to receive benefits and training.
Has the Minister had any meetings on a possible new owner for Quinn Insurance? Who are the potential new owners? Is there a possibility that any owners would retain the jobs, take over the business as a going concern and provide the gap in the reserves? Even at this late stage could they reverse some of those redundancies?
[432]Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The Deputy is aware that I met the administrators on the evening they announced the redundancies. At the meeting we made it quite clear that if the business were to be sold off, it would be better to be sold to a company not operating within Ireland. In fairness to the administrators they indicated clearly that this would be their preference. That said, they would have to put it in the public arena and bids would be made. A judgment would be made on the offers put on the table.
I understood at the time that in excess of 20 expressions of interest in respect of purchasing the company had been made.
I cannot interfere with the administrators. Enterprise Ireland has an officer who liaises on an ongoing basis with the administrators and Mr. Dan Flinter, who chairs the inter-agency group and from whom I receive regular updates, is in constant contact with them. I cannot become involved by indicating the groups I might wish to see purchase the company, that is a matter for the administrators. The administration process is independent and is set up by the courts. It would be completely wrong of me to involve myself in that process or to indicate what should ultimately be done.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I appreciate what the Minister stated. I suppose, however, that he must have some influence on the administrators, with whom I also met. Surely he could indicate to them that he would like the company to be taken over by a new owner who would be in a position to build up the reserves and take on the business, particularly that relating to the UK, as a going concern — this would ensure that existing jobs would be retained — rather than it being taken over by an owner who potentially might want to close down that market and reduce competition.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: There are two issues that arise, one of which relates to sustaining the existing jobs. The most important factor, for ourselves and the inter-agency group, is that the jobs which are already in place should be retained and that the business continues to grow. We all want to ensure that as many jobs as possible will be retained and that new jobs will be created by any new regime that comes into place. As already stated, the Government is most interested in ensuring that a group which does not operate in Ireland at present should come in, take over the company and provide sustainable employment into the future.
39. Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the decision he has made on each of the recommendations of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programme report relevant to his Department such as creating a single funding stream for all science, technology and innovation activities across all Departments, the discontinuation of funding for the Irish Council for Bioethics, the reduction of Departmental civil servants serving the science, technology and innovation programme, consolidating all indigenous enterprise support and sector marketing functions in Enterprise Ireland and the rationalisation the organisations losing functions as appropriate, the reduction of Industrial Development Authority capital and administrative costs including rationalisation of regional offices in Ireland and shared services, efficiency saving in administration and programme prioritisation in Enterprise Ireland, the rationalisation of IDA and Enterprise Ireland overseas offices, reorganisation Shannon Development, reorganisation of Forfás, outsourcing the Certification Service of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the rationalisation of [433]all employment services provided or funded by the State into a single operation, ending the dual entitlement of certain social welfare claimants to both social welfare payments and FÁS training allowances or Community Employment allowances, cutting FÁS services to business, finding efficiencies in the FÁS administration budget, the relocation of all Industrial Relations institutions to a single location, merging the Health and Safety Authority and the National Employment Rights Authority into one Work Place Inspectorate, merging the functions of the Registrar of Friendly Societies and Companies Registration Office, savings in corporate services, a reduction in administrative budget and a transfer of foreign posts to Brussels to reduce travel and subsidence spend, merging the Irish Takeover Panel with the Competition Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25397/10]
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes made a number of recommendations addressed directly to my Department. The Deputy has outlined most of these recommendations in his question.
In the time available, it is not possible to address all of the recommendations in the special group’s report relating to my Department in detail. However, I am circulating, for the benefit of the House, a detailed table which sets out the current position on each of the recommendations in the report that relates directly to my Department. As the Deputy will see from that table, eight recommendations have been accepted in whole or in part and the resulting financial savings have been incorporated into my Department’s Estimate for this year.
Some proposals envisaged by the special group, such as the rationalisation of agencies, are quite complex to implement and may require legislative provision if they are to be achieved. There are also a number of recommendations in the report affecting my Department which require cross-departmental consideration and/or consideration at Government level.
As the Deputy will be aware, responsibility for FÁS transferred from my Department to the Department of Education and Skills with effect from 1 May this year. The recommendations made by the special group in respect of FÁS programmes and services are now a matter for consideration by that Department.
Decisions in respect of some recommendations will be a matter for consideration by Government in due course. Any expenditure reductions that may arise will be included in the budget for my Department in future years.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I thank the Minister for his reply and I look forward — assuming it will still be my responsibility to do so after tomorrow — to examining the table to which he refers in great detail. I would not agree with every proposal contained in the an bord snip nua report but I and my party agree with many of them. For some time I have been critical of the fact that the Government commissions reports and appoints task forces but does not then state, within a reasonable timeframe, which recommendations it is accepting, which ones it is refusing — and the reasons for so doing — and which ones it is going to implement. That practice should be normal for Government.
Does the Minister agree that if a report is commissioned or a task force appointed, the Government should, within a reasonable timeframe, indicate the recommendations it intends to accept and those it intends to reject? Does he also agree that reasons should be indicated as to why certain recommendations might be rejected and that information should be provided with regard to when and how those which are being accepted will be implemented.
The Minister indicated that eight of the recommendations in the report have been accepted. Have any been rejected?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The report contains a total of 17 recommendations in respect of my Department. As already stated, eight have been accepted and will be implemented. We believe that four or five of the others are not appropriate and I can list these for the Deputy and provide reasons as to our why we perceive them in this way.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: That was the question which I asked.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: Some of the recommendations will not provide the savings envisaged. The special group was interested in bringing about savings. One of its recommendations related to merging the Irish Takeover Panel with the Competition Authority. I am informed that such a merger could lead to an unnecessary policy conflict and would not be in line with best international practice. As a result, the recommendation relating to the merger must be disregarded.
There is a further recommendation relating to the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority, IAASA, which——
[437]An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I do not believe it necessary for the Minister to read out the entire list.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I would like to hear what is happening in respect of the recommendations that have been refused.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: I will supply the list to the Deputy.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I would like to allow some flexibility in respect of this matter and invite supplementary questions from other Deputies.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: I will also outline for Deputy Varadkar the reasons we believe we cannot approve four of five of them.
Deputy Willie Penrose: I was about to suggest that some of the recommendations are inherently contradictory. That is why the Labour Party looked askance at some of the proposals contained in the McCarthy report. A number of those proposals, particularly that relating to the merger to which the Minister refers and which I also identified, could have serious implications. As we have discussed on previous occasions, the Competition Authority has serious work to carry out in respect of cartels, etc., and is obliged to consider what is best in that context. Does the Minister intend to deal with such matters in the context of the new legislation he intends to introduce?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: I did give consideration to the recommendation that the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, and National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, be merged into a single workplace inspectorate. Again, however, radical differences arise in the context of the nature of these agencies and there are overlaps in their work. In the circumstances, we cannot see a merger becoming a reality or the savings that were envisaged eventually being made.
The McCarthy report sought a reduction of 594 in the number of staff across the Department and the various agencies. There are 5,150 whole-time equivalent posts across the Department and its agencies. The number of posts across both fell by 322 in 2009. Some 80 of these posts related to departmental civil servants. We are currently examining the annual staffing targets required by the Department of Finance for 2012. As the Deputy will appreciate, the transfer of FÁS had a significant impact on numbers within the Department. This is a matter which will now have to be taken into account by the Department of Education and Skills.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: In the budget introduced in April 2009, it was stated that Competition Authority and the Consumer Agency were to be amalgamated. However, nothing has happened in the intervening 15 months. This merger was on the Government’s agenda prior to any special reports being commissioned. We have been looking forward to the introduction of the relevant legislation for a long time but nothing has happened.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: As Deputies Varadkar and Penrose will testify, the legislation to which the Deputy refers was before the House quite recently. We are moving forward with this matter. Emergency legislation was introduced and another major Bill is being finalised at present. I hope to be in a position to publish the latter in September or October.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I am confused by the Minister’s answer. If memory serves, the legislation to which he refers is the Competition (Amendment) Act 2010, which was recently passed by the Houses and which allows the Minister to appoint, on a temporary basis, some members of the authority. The consumer and competition Bill, the purpose of which will be to merge the Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority and to extend the powers of the resultant [438]new body, has yet to appear. My question is similar to that posed by Deputy Clune. Some 15 months have passed since the introduction of the relevant budget in April 2009. I accept that a week is a long time in politics. At present, a day is a long time in politics. However, why has it taken 15 months to draft the relevant legislation?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The process relating to drafting the relevant legislation is extremely complex and a great deal of interaction took place between the Department and the Office of the Attorney General. I have increased the staffing complement dealing with this matter in my Department by bringing on board an official from the Office of the Attorney General.
It is hoped we will now be in a better position to transpose directives and to process legislation with far greater co-ordination of activity between my Department and the Office of the Attorney General.
40. Deputy Michael Noonan asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation if he has given any consideration to privatising any agencies or companies within the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24511/10]
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The following agencies operate under the aegis of my Department: Enterprise Ireland, Forfás, IDA Ireland, the National Standards Authority of Ireland, Shannon Development Company, county and city enterprise boards, InterTrade Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland, the Competition Authority, the National Consumer Agency, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority, the Health and Safety Authority and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.
In general, these are statutory, non–commercial, State agencies and are for the most part reliant on Exchequer moneys to fund their activities. In some instances, the agencies generate own-resource income but this is used to defray operating expenses and so limit the requirement for Exchequer funds. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board, which is entirely self-funding, is not engaged in commercial activity designed to make profit.
The Special Report on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, the McCarthy report, recommended the privatisation of the certification services of the NSAI. Having considered the recommendation in detail, it was not clear that any benefit would accrue to the taxpayer from such a move because of the high level of overhead costs that would remain with the NSAI following a sale of the certification business. The more likely result would be increased Exchequer cost. Accordingly, my Department has decided not to pursue this proposal at this time.
I do not believe that any of the agencies under the Department’s remit are engaged in the provision of services that would be a suitable or attractive proposition for privatisation.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I welcome the Minister of State’s reply. It is reasonable to say that given the profile of the State-sponsored bodies and agencies under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation none of them are appropriate for privatisation as they are not commercial entities in any real sense. I was curious to ask this question for many reasons.
It is not that long ago that the Minister, Deputy O’Keeffe, issued a statement which was critical of Fine Gael’s NewEra policy on the basis that we were proposing privatisations — that is not what we were doing — and did not know how much this would raise. The Government has since then announced its intention to privatise the VHI. Will the Minister of State agree that the same applies? Is not now an inappropriate time to privatise the VHI and how much [439]does the Minister believe will be raised from this sale? Does the Minister stand over his remarks in regard to Fine Gael’s privatisation policies?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister is not answerable to the House for the VHI.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I would like him to respond to my question.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The NewEra document was condemned by the Minister, Deputy O’Keeffe, and many others, including Members in Opposition parties. It counted jobs a number of times.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: Deputy Bruton was not happy with it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please allow the Minister of State finish his reply.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: It seeks to sell off the family silverware. The purpose of the sale of VHI is to deal with risk equalisation and to ensure there is competition.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: No, it is not. That is rubbish.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Yes it is and this has been confirmed. The Deputy should read the statements in this regard from the Department of Health and Children.
The Government is committed to ensuring we reduce expenditure where possible. The State agencies under the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation are not involved in profit making. They are non-commercial State agencies that give support to many activities throughout Ireland. The agencies involved include Enterprise Ireland, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority and others which are critically important in the area of supervision and supports.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I again ask the Minister of State the question the Minister asked of Fine Gael in regard to NewEra. Is it not inappropriate to privatise VHI at this time given the current state of the capital markets and how much does the Minister hope to raise from this sale? That is the question posed to Fine Gael in respect of NewEra. I would like now to hear the Minister’s answer in regard to the Government’s proposal to privatise VHI.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Again, the Minister is not accountable to the House for the Department of Health and Children.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I would like to hear a response from the Minister, Deputy O’Keeffe, rather than from the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The best way for this issue to be addressed is by way of parliamentary question from the Deputy as spokesperson on enterprise, trade and innovation. We can then supply the necessary answers. We cannot be held responsible for the matters relating to the VHI and Department of Health and Children posed in the questions tabled today.
41. Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation if he will provide a list of all printing and package contracts awarded in 2009; the value of each contract and the company to which it was given; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25406/10]
[440]Deputy Billy Kelleher: Neither my Department nor the Offices of my Department, which manage their own procurement requirements, awarded any significant printing contracts in 2009. For the purposes of procurement of printing services in 2009 the Department and the Offices of the Department relied mainly on the Government Supplies Agency and National Procurement Service for the tendering and procurement of printing services. This service is provided principally by means of drawdown contracts, which sets out prices, terms and conditions under which supplies are delivered. The Department and the Offices of the Department purchased, as required, from the appointed contractors in 2009. I am circulating in the official record as part of this reply a tabular statement which sets out the details of all such purchases in 2009.
| Printing Works | Cost | Company |
|---|---|---|
| € | ||
| Letters and Notices | 105,349 | DC Kavanagh/ Ebrook |
Deputy Leo Varadkar: This is the second time this session I have been promised a tabular statement. I am sure the relevant tabular statement has been already prepared. Would it not have been reasonable to provide Members with a copy of it for Question Time? Perhaps the Minister of State will do so now. I do not understand how I might ask follow-up questions based on the promise of a tabular statement.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: That is the idea.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: It is disrespectful.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has made a valid point. I will raise with the Office of the Ceann Comhairle the matter of circulating tabular statements at the time a question is being answered.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I appreciate that. This is an important issue. There is concern among the industry that small print contractors in particular are not being given a fair opportunity to tender for Government work. I would like to know how the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, which is supposed to support Irish industry within European rules, behaves but I cannot ask a follow-up question because I have not received the relevant tabular statement.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: If the Minister of State has no objection, I could circulate a copy of the tabular statement to Deputy Varadkar in order to allow him to ask a supplementary question.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Yes, there is nothing in it that is not available on the record. I apologise for the Deputy not receiving the tabular statement with his reply. If the Deputy wishes I will supply him with a copy of it now.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will take a question from Deputy Morgan and then come back to Deputy Varadkar.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: Is the Minister of State aware of the perception that exists that a very large number of contracts, not alone in respect of printing, are being awarded abroad? Is he considering ways of improving awareness among businesses who deal in that capacity to tender for such contracts? The same is happening in respect of school building and other contracts. Often when contracts are big, operators here are not in a position to tender for them. Can contracts be segmented? Has the Minister of State considered the possibility of his Department segmenting some of the procurement contracts? We need to as creative and realistic as possible given the current environment.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Deputies will note from the now circulated tabular statement that some of the contracts awarded are small. One contract awarded to Print Stations was for [442]business cards, letterheads and complimentary slips at a cost of €258. Another contract awarded to New Oceans was for information booklets, headed stationery and business cards at a cost of €13,785. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation does not award large contracts and relies in the main on the Government Supplies Agency and National Procurement Service in this regard.
A review of tendering and procurement in regard to State contracts is ongoing. We are all aware of the difficulties people are experiencing in terms of accessing contracts owing to the change in environment or in their individual circumstances. It may be that a particular person does not have recognised skill capabilities having been laid off and set up his or her own business as a result of which he or she may not have a track record in his or her own right. This matter is being examined.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: What time-frame is involved?
Deputy Billy Kelleher: As I stated, the matter is under review. The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, is reviewing that process.
Deputy Willie Penrose: This is an important issue, one discussed by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Deputy Varadkar may have been inspired to table this question having been present for the discussion on this issue by that committee.
There is a perception that printing contractors are losing out hand over fist and that other European competitors are able to devise methods of ensuring they are awarded contracts. Irish contractors believe other European countries are running a coach and four through the rules in this area and that Ireland is being a goody-two-shoes from a European perspective. Not alone are we obeying the rules but we are making them more difficult for our native industry, in particular the printing industry, which is under threat and trying to survive. We are making business extremely difficult for it.
As far as I am aware — I may be wrong on this — the contract for printing of material in respect of the first referendum on the Lisbon treaty was awarded to a company outside Ireland. How can this be justified?
Would the Minister agree that there is a weighting system in awarding contracts? The OPW is deeply involved in this. Could we not ensure that greater weight is given to people who are tried, trusted and reliable and have done jobs in the past? Our native industry, particularly in the printing trade, has tried to secure important and skilled jobs and they are all under threat.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: We understand that many businesses are vulnerable, as was referred to by the Minister. I have met and received correspondence from many representatives of the printing industry. However, we must be conscious of another aspect. Many Irish companies are also exporting. Irish companies have contracts connected to the 2012 Olympics in London and several Irish software companies are providing services to councils in the United Kingdom and across the European Union. If we are to be open in one area we must accept the quid pro quo. We must restore competitiveness to our economy and ensure that our companies are competitive.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: No one on this side of the House would oppose the rules of the internal market. I will examine the tabular statement provided by the Minister. It gives the names of companies but does not say if they are based in Ireland. In fairness, I did not ask the Minister for that information. I will have to review them.
[443]Does the Department have an internal printing procedure? The Government might save money if it had a Government printing press. Some time ago, Fine Gael began to use its own printing facility in Ballymount, as well as the facilities provided in Leinster House. Has the Government considered having its own printing facilities? Money could be saved in that way without the need to outsource contracts.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: A high level group is examining all areas of procurement by the Department to see where efficiencies and savings can be generated. Printing is a specialised business. Some of the contracts are for printing booklets rather than simple letterheads and complimentary slips.
There is a tendering process which is open and transparent. Some of the contracts awarded by the Department are very small. In general, we depend on the National Procurement Service for larger contracts and general provisions to the Department itself. We are conscious of cost savings in the present climate. We can look at all aspects of this matter.
42. Deputy Michael D’Arcy asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation when he will make a decision on the introduction of a small and medium enterprise loan guarantee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25419/10]
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The Deputy will be aware that work is under way in my Department on the examination of a possible scheme of loan guarantees for the SME sector which could augment lending by banks by addressing particular market failures. This is in line with one of the recommendations in the Mazars review on bank lending to SMEs.
Enterprise Ireland and Forfás carried out examinations of loan guarantee schemes in the UK and in some other countries. Following more detailed examination, Forfás recently submitted a report to my Department, which is being considered. A key issue to be addressed is the role such a scheme might play in improving access to finance, particularly in current circumstances, for viable companies, such as start-ups and technology companies, that do not have bankable substantial assets.
Studies that have been consulted attach considerable importance to the design of such schemes to ensure that they benefit companies and to minimise the cost to the Exchequer. From the company perspective, the key issue concerns additionality, the extent to which a scheme increases the amount of lending to SMEs. To the extent that substitution occurs — companies that would be funded in any event being covered by the scheme — such schemes merely increase the cost of borrowing to the companies concerned. From a cost perspective, the premium charged to the borrower is intended to offset the cost of defaults but in most schemes some level of public subsidy is involved. The design of any scheme is obviously critical. The scheme must have clear objectives and be carefully targeted. The issues are being examined in detail in my Department and on completion of this work I will bring the results before Government.
In addition, the Deputy will be aware that the Government has taken decisive action to get bank credit flowing to viable businesses, which include specific SME funding initiatives by AIB and Bank of Ireland.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: I am confused. Is the guarantee happening? There has been much soul searching, examination and reports while small businesses are crying out for immediate finance to pay a lease, buy stock or invest in the business. That is the real issue. Business people do not have time for the lengthy process in which the Minister’s Department is engaged. [444] Is the Minister intent on introducing the scheme or will yet another report be given to someone to examine to see if its recommendations can be implemented?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: Generally speaking, I implement the recommendations in reports. However, we must be careful in this instance. We have looked at the UK and other countries. The design of a loan guarantee proposal is of vital importance. If the design is not right the guarantee might supplement credit that is already available, which could cost the country much more in the long run.
We asked Forfás to do a detailed analysis to see what benefits there would be for companies, over and above the increase in credit now available through the banks and through recapitalisation. If we do not get it right there will be exposure and further losses to the taxpayer. I know what Members on the other side of the House would say in those circumstances. I have had the Forfás report for three weeks and it is being examined in the Department. I will bring proposals to Government before the summer recess.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: I accept the need to examine models and that it is right to protect the taxpayer. When the Minister has brought proposals to Government when will the guarantee hit the streets? There is a high risk to the taxpayer. However, companies need funding and we need to ensure they are viable. The big question remains. When will the guarantee get to the end user?
The Minister of State referred to a high level working group. Sometimes what is needed is a low level working group, to get at the real savings. It is often the people on the shop floor who can tell us how to be more cost effective.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: There are two issues here. First, we have increased the amount of credit available to SMEs through both banks. We hope that process will lead to greater availability of credit to small and medium sized businesses. Second, we do not want a loan guarantee to supplement that.
Some of the medium sized businesses find it easier to get credit than smaller businesses. Approximately 30% of the medium sized businesses avail of credit compared with 19% of small businesses. Many small companies do not have collateral. Many research and development and start-up companies do not have collateral and are not seen as credit worthy by banks. We must find a way to help, nurture and grow those companies.
We will bring the loan guarantee recommendations to Government and the Government will have to look at them and approve them. We must make sure they are tailor made and will not be a burden on the taxpayer.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I have some sympathy with what Deputy Morgan said. It seems that high level groups are the latest fashion in Government. I wonder if there is a hierarchy of groups. Are there medium and low level groups or are they all high level? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Deputy Conor Lenihan: The low level stuff is all in Deputy Varadkar’s party.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: Has the Minister looked at the Chilean loan guarantee system, which is the preferred option of the Governor of the Central Bank? I think he is right about that, having read his lectures on the subject.
The question everyone else has asked and which the Minister has not answered is, will he introduce an SME loan guarantee?
[445]Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: I will answer the last question first. I will put the proposals in the Forfás report to Government before the summer recess. It will be a matter for Government to take the decision. I was also asked whether we have examined the Chilean system. Yes, we have. That has been taken into account in the FÁS and Enterprise Ireland reports.
On the high level groups, it is fair to say we are trying to have joined-up thinking and joined-up action across departmental boundaries. I will give an example of something I was involved in when I was Minister for Education and Science. We got the universities in Dublin to tender for their energy costs and they saved more than €1 million. We got the universities and institutes of technology in Limerick, Athlone and Cork to tender for their energy costs and they saved €1.5 million. Great savings can be made by crossing boundaries and having joined-up action and joined-up thinking. I have asked the various agencies in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to consider tendering for their energy costs and to see what they can do. We want to transpose that kind of thinking across departmental boundaries. That is why the high level groups are so important. They allow for synergies in what we want and need to do. The savings that result from that are important for the taxpayer.
43. Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the position regarding the draft consumer rights directive; if he is satisfied that the existing rights consumers here, such as the right to reject, will be retained; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24343/10]
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The proposal for a consumer rights directive was published in October 2008. The directive has been drafted on a full harmonisation basis. If that is retained, it will preclude member states from going beyond its protection in national legislation. Although some provisions of the proposed directive would strengthen consumer rights in Ireland, others would have a less positive effect. Concerns about the proposal’s impact on Irish consumer rights centre mainly on its provisions on consumer remedies for faulty goods. As the Deputy’s question suggests, it would have particular implications for what is known as the right to reject — the right to return faulty goods, obtain a refund of the price and terminate the contract. A fully harmonised provision along the lines proposed in the draft directive would, if adopted, mean that the right to reject would be a remedy of second rather than first resort for faulty goods.
I assure the Deputy that my officials have expressed reservations about relevant aspects of the proposed directive in clear and forthright terms. Such concerns were restated at political level at meetings of the Competitiveness Council in December 2009 and May 2010. I raised our concerns directly with Vice-President Reding, who has responsibility for this proposal, when I met her at the most recent meeting of the Competitiveness Council. It is important to recognise that discussions on the proposed directive have a considerable way to go at official and ministerial levels and in the European Parliament. The European Parliament committee on the internal market and consumer protection is considering the proposal which is expected to have a first reading in the Parliament before the end of the year. I remind the House that this is a draft proposal, as opposed to an EU directive.
Deputy Willie Penrose: I would object to the implementation of such an EU directive on a full harmonisation basis. It would impinge negatively on existing consumer rights. I accept that it is proposed to extend the withdrawal or cooling-off period for distance or off-premises contracts from seven to 14 days. That would be welcome. The proposal that risk would pass upon the delivery of a consumer sales contract would also enhance the rights of the consumer. We [446]have to ensure it is balanced, however. As far as I can tell, the unfair contract terms set out in the directive are similar to our own. As the Minister of State suggested, the provisions of the consumer rights directive with regard to consumer remedies for faulty goods would impinge negatively on the right to reject or return faulty goods, get a refund and terminate the contract. That would be serious.
The sales law review group was established in November 2008. Has the Minister of State made a submission to the group to ensure important rights are retained? Has he made a recommendation to the observation group on the proposal to reduce the liability period from six years to two years? That would be an absolute disaster. What is the feeling at EU level? Are many other member states that have similar legislative protection in place for consumers showing sympathy with our position? Such protection will be eroded if this directive is implemented in full.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: We have raised our concerns at official level in the strongest and most forthright terms. We relayed them at meetings of the Competitiveness Council in December 2009 and May 2010. I have spoken to Vice-President Reding about our concerns with regard to consumer protection. I emphasise that this is just a proposal — a draft directive as opposed to a directive that would have to be implemented by national parliaments across the EU. We are conscious of the need to ensure there is strong protection for consumers. That is something we are advocating at all levels. Mr. Andreas Schwab, who is the rapporteur of the European Parliament committee on the internal market and consumer protection is conscious that the proposal is not in line with the observations of some member states. It would dilute consumer rights, such as the right to return being the first recourse, as opposed to a secondary recourse. We will raise these issues again in due course.
Deputy Willie Penrose: I thank the Minister of State.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: This is a very good question.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: It was a very good answer as well.
Deputy Willie Penrose: One will not get a good answer unless one asks a good question.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: I would like to ask whether a defective government can give grounds for rejection by consumers. Specifically, when are the people of this State likely to get an opportunity to reject this Government?
Deputy Billy Kelleher: I missed the Deputy’s question.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I think it was a rhetorical question
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Was it not relevant to my answers?
Deputy Arthur Morgan: I would love to hear an answer.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: If the Minister of State wishes to respond, the Chair will not prevent him from doing so. However, I do not think the matter raised is appropriate to his line responsibilities.
Deputy Willie Penrose: Has any work been done to examine the legislative protection in the Sale of Goods Act 1893, as amended by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, in the context of the new directive? Did Mr. Bob Clark and his colleagues on the sales law [447]review group examine anything of that nature? We have heard much today about charts — has a chart been compiled to compare and contrast what is available under the 1980 Act with what is now proposed? Perhaps we could be furnished with such a document in due course.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The common law in the Sale of Goods Act 1893 was amended in the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.
Deputy Willie Penrose: The 1980 Act is the real one.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Yes. Some of the provisions of the 1893 Act are still used.
Deputy Willie Penrose: They are.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Does the Deputy suggest that a comparison should be made between the Irish legislation and the draft EU directive?
Deputy Billy Kelleher: That observation has been made. We believe the directive, as presently proposed, would undermine the statutory provisions we have made in the interests of consumers in the Sale of Goods Acts and in our broader consumer protection measures.
Deputy Willie Penrose: Can the Minister of State bring a copy of the 1980 Act to Brussels and everywhere else to show them how good our law in this area is?
Deputy Billy Kelleher: I certainly can. I could even bring the 1893 Act with me, just to be sure. Our officials have raised these issues regularly. We do not want our solid consumer protection laws to be undermined by a proposal like this.
Deputy Willie Penrose: Very well.
44. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise; Trade and Innovation the position and timeframe for the transposition of the Services Directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24345/10]
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: The regulations to bring the services directive — directive 2006/123/EC — into law under the European Communities Acts have almost been finalised. I hope to sign the regulations into law by the end of this month. Ireland is open for business as far as the directive is concerned, as we have been applying it administratively since January 2010. The purpose of the services directive is to remove any remaining barriers to trade in services across the EU and to open all 27 EU markets to service providers and consumers. It will make it easier for an Irish service provider to set up business in any member state by enabling him or her to complete the necessary formalities through a point of single contact. For a consumer, it means access to services from across the EU. The directive contains many consumer protection provisions, as well as provisions requiring member states to share in the policing of their service providers operating throughout the EU. The services directive does not affect labour law and does not diminish workers’ rights.
The overall effect of the creation of a single market for services will be to enhance Ireland’s competitiveness. It will enhance the EU’s competitiveness by creating the necessary economies of scale for European service providers, who are facing an increasingly globalised world economy, to challenge service providers in world markets. Forfás estimated in 2008 that gross value [448]added in services to the Irish economy could increase by €540 million per annum as a result of the services directive, and net employment in the sector could increase by more than 4,000. The value of services exports was expected to increase by between €10 billion and €14 billion per annum. Those projections are being re-examined and revised figures will be included in the regulatory impact analysis which will be published when the regulations are signed. The negotiation and transposition of the directive has been a lengthy process involving all Departments and stakeholders as far back as 2004. In addition, the Oireachtas debated the then draft directive in 2006 before final decisions were made on Ireland’s position on the proposal. We have been in ongoing contact with the European Commission at all stages during the transposition process. Officials of my Department met representatives of the Commission as recently as yesterday, 14 June, at which time the Commission was assured of Ireland’s commitment to completing the transposition of the directive in the next few weeks.
Deputy Willie Penrose: I thank the Minister sincerely for that. The directive is important in the context of the legal framework for any service provided for economic return, with the exception of specified services in health and various other areas, and takes into account the specific nature of the activity or profession. Is it true that we are in the slow-coach lane? Along with Slovenia and Greece, Ireland is one of the three tardiest countries in transposing the directive. The former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, was the person who originated this, so perhaps the Minister is right, in hindsight, to take it easy. That is the way I would look at it at this stage.
There will be many benefits associated with the transposition of the directive. Has the Department identified any specific area, within the broader services area, in which the directive will be of major benefit to us or in which we can take a leading role? It does not apply to insurance or anything similar; nor should it, because of the importance of where contracts are made and so on. Are there certain legislative areas in which we are already advanced and which are complemented by this directive, allowing us to gain an upper hand in securing business?
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: From Ireland’s point of view, it is important to have the Services Directive in place. The directive was supposed to be transposed into law——
Deputy Willie Penrose: In 2007.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: ——in December 2009, so we have been tardy in that respect. This is why I spoke to the Attorney General about the transposition of directives. I am delighted that a specialist has now been seconded to the Department from the Office of the Attorney General to assist with the transposition of directives, helping us to achieve this more efficiently and effectively than has been the case up to now.
Why would we delay this process? We certainly would not. The directive has been applied administratively since January 2010 so, in effect, it is in operation. The legal entity will be transposed, I hope, by the end of June. That is the target we have set ourselves and we want to meet it.
The major employment growth area envisaged by IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland is in the services sector. Our exports of services will grow exponentially over the next ten years. In that respect the directive is important for Ireland, and we welcome it with open arms. We did everything in our power to ensure it was effected administratively because it provides wonderful opportunities for our export business.
[449]Deputy Willie Penrose: The Horizon 2020 report from IDA Ireland, which sets out a road map for future developments, focused on services as an area in which significant benefits could be gained. The directive should be an important complementary tool for the IDA in achieving those objectives.
Deputy Batt O’Keeffe: This is why we in the Department are anxious to transpose the directive legally, although it is operating administratively. Along with IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and so on, we are anxious that indigenous companies in the services sector be given the opportunity to export these services, which should result in the creation of jobs at home.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Joe McHugh — the need to commission the construction of two additional classrooms at St. Brigid’s national school, Glenmakee, Carndonagh, County Donegal; (2) Deputy P. J. Sheehan — the need to set out a detailed timetable and carry out the necessary work for the implementation of flood relief schemes for the towns of Bandon and Skibbereen; (3) Deputy Thomas Byrne — the availability and improvement of respite services for intellectually and physically disabled people in County Meath and their families; (4) Deputy Timmy Dooley — the need to provide satellite agriculture offices on a part-time basis for those counties in which the agriculture offices have been closed; (5) Deputy John Perry — the locations at which staff of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs will be based in Counties Sligo and Mayo and the need to ensure the best working conditions for these employees; (6) Deputy Joe Costello — the need to ensure that the librarians facilitating the junior certificate schools programme have their contracts renewed for the coming school year; (7) Deputy James Bannon — the need to provide a new community college for Kilbeggan, County Westmeath; (8) Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin — the misdiagnosis of miscarriages at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth; (9) Deputy Brian O’Shea — the need to prioritise job creation in the Waterford constituency; (10) Deputy Jack Wall — the need to provide adequate respite care in County Kildare, particularly in view of the discontinuation of facilities at Drogheda Memorial Hospital, the Curragh, County Kildare; and (11) Deputy Deirdre Clune — the need to ensure that important development checks for infants are not put at risk by the reallocation of staff.
The matters raised by Deputies Brian O’Shea, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, Jack Wall and P. J. Sheehan have been selected for discussion.
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, on Wednesday, 16 June 2010:
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
Deputy Thomas Byrne: I wish to make a contribution, but Deputy Shortall was in possession.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Very good. Deputy Shortall had only about three minutes left.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: I am pleased to be able to speak on this Bill. The Minister for Social Protection is making important reforms to the social welfare system. My only disappointment with the legislation is that it is not part of a wider reform package, although I know this is under way and the Minister is doing much work in this regard. The public, and recipients of social welfare, are crying out for this type of reform.
Social welfare assistance must be seen as an opportunity rather than an end in itself. It must be a means to reach the objective of employment, so that people can improve their participation in the State, as citizens, and in the economy. Whatever benefit a person is on, apart from the old age pension, the expectation must be that it will at some stage lead to something better and more productive in terms of the economy. This will benefit the person concerned even more, as he or she will be able to enjoy a higher standard of living.
The Minister has introduced important proposals for jobseeker’s allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. In section 17 — this is one of the key provisions——
Deputy Róisín Shortall: On a point of order, Members were delayed by the Minister for Social Protection at the Select Committee on Social and Family Affairs. We tried to leave.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I was aware the Deputy was the speaker in possession, with three minutes left, but unfortunately——
Deputy Thomas Byrne: I am more than happy to yield to the Deputy. I indicated to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that Deputy Shortall was in possession.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: If the House is agreeable, the Deputy may yield to Deputy Shortall. Alternatively, Deputy Shortall may want a few minutes to get her breath back, and I could call her after Deputy Byrne.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: If Deputy Shortall wishes to make some other arrangement, that is fine.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: I would like to make my contribution.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Will I call the Deputy now or after Deputy Byrne?
Deputy Róisín Shortall: After Deputy Byrne.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Deputy might note that I did indicate that she was in possession.
Section 17 provides for a reduced rate of payment to jobseeker’s allowance claimants under certain circumstances, including where a claimant refuses to participate, without good cause, in a course of training or measures under the national employment action plan. Modest reductions are proposed for people in those circumstances. This is an excellent proposition against which [451]I cannot see any recipient of jobseeker’s allowance arguing. However, it confers an obligation on the Government to ensure that training and other measures are provided to recipients of jobseeker’s allowance. If they are to have the chance to accept such offers of training, the training must be there. It is absolutely reasonable that persons over the age of 24 who refuse such reasonable offers will see a reduction of €46 in their allowance, while those aged 22 to 24 will see a reduction of €35 and those aged 18 to 21 will see a reduction of €25. It further emphasises the Government’s obligation to provide the training and activation relevant to the beneficiaries of jobseeker’s allowance. I cannot see how any reasonable person would disagree with the proposition made by the Minister. Section 17 provides for specific disqualification where a person refuses an offer of suitable employment. That is reasonable and I am not sure anyone can find difficulty with it. The problem is that the suitable offers of employment may not be made. It is important we have a welfare system that will be of benefit to the economy and welfare beneficiaries in the future as well as at present. The Minister must cut back at the moment even though he does not want to do so. Who would want to be in the position of cutting social welfare? I have often made that comment in committees and in the Dáil Chamber. No one wants to do so but we want to achieve best value. The recipients must also receive best value and opportunity. This must be at the heart of the debate.
I see lone parents every time I hold a clinic. Most Deputies have the same experience because lone parents are more likely than most sectors of society to be in poverty or to have social problems or difficulties. Most lone parents do an heroic job against the odds and I will never sit in judgment on single mothers and I condemn those who do. However, that does not mean the Minister’s proposal is not reasonable or beneficial to society and the families.
I commend the Oireachtas Library & Research Service on the fantastic research on this legislation. This is one of the best items of research we have received and all are of a very high standard. I commend the researcher. OECD figures show that 56.5% of one parent families in Ireland were not working in 2007 whereas the OECD average was 37%. That is a stark figure that must be borne in mind and it relates to 2007, when we had full employment. The Labour Party often told us the root cause of the difficulties in Ireland is unemployment. If we examine the OECD figures presented by the Oireachtas Library & Research Service, the problem with one parent families is that the parent is not working or cannot work for whatever reason. This may be because of a poverty trap created by the social welfare system, lack of motivation to work — which I am not sure about — or the lack of child care facilities. We cannot stand over our record. Countries such as the United States do not have fantastic social services or child care services yet only 23% of lone parents do not work, which is half of the rate in Ireland. I refer to countries that are less developed than Ireland in respect of social services, such as Spain. I do not know what additional services or protection the UK has. Scandinavian countries have vastly superior services but they pay for that with their taxes. Time and again the Irish people have told us they do not want to do that. Any party that supports an increase in tax, for whatever purpose, will not benefit.
The Minister is trying to encourage work. Whenever a proposition like this is made, some of the voices of complaint claim we will leave lone parent families without any payment but that is not true. It applies when the children grow older. The change gives the payment for the status of one parent family and now the payment will be made in return for jobseeker’s allowance. We will encourage people to work. It is critically important that it is done.
We have a good model of community child care in our towns and villages and the Government has supported this over the years. To comment that the Government was going to let 13-year-olds sit at home on their own while we force their lone parents to go to work was not fair. It is not reflective of the Government’s position. Ireland has a record of lone parents not [452]working that we cannot stand over and we must get these people out to work if employment is available.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: What is the answer to that?
Deputy Thomas Byrne: Deputy Shortall made a number of good suggestions that I have since discussed with the Minister. There needs to be reform of rent supplement. I agree with the measures implemented by the Minister last week. Deputy Shortall made a further case for reform and I will ask the Minister to examine this reasonable proposal. I also seek reform of the back to education allowance. Hopefully the Minister will make an announcement on this in the near future. The same applies to the mortgage supplement. No one can stand over the system of mortgage supplement. I urge the Minister to change this. Whatever changes the Minister makes, and I hope they are radical and to the benefit of the country and people in receipt of social welfare, he will be opposed by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. That is guaranteed. Even if the Minister proposes exactly what Deputy Shortall has suggested today, he can be guaranteed that some lobby group will express disagreement and the Labour Party — no lobby group left behind — will oppose the Minister.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: There is no chance of that.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: However, I and Fianna Fáil will support further reforms of social welfare to cut costs and to give people better opportunities in life and a sense of hope that they will be able to exit from welfare dependency.
An Ceann Comhairle: I understand an arrangement has been arrived at in respect of Deputy Shortall’s speaking time. There is no provision for a Member to speak twice on a debate but, in view of the fact that the arrangement has been agreed, we will allow it this time. However, it is important not to see this as precedent setting.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: I appreciate that. The reason I was late in arriving was that the Minister was attempting to force through an Estimate at the committee without debate. That is why I was delayed.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: That is not accurate.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: That is not the way to do business, where a social welfare Bill is being debated in the Chamber and Estimates are being debated in committee.
Sections 15 and 20 introduce new measures that undermine the independence of the social welfare appeals office. Section 15 makes all decisions of the chief appeals officer appealable by the Minister to the High Court. What is the point in having a chief appeals officer if the Minister can decide to challenge his or her ruling? The previous Minister strangled the Combat Poverty Agency to death. In section 15 the new Minister is muzzling the social welfare appeals office. Section 20 allows the Minister to appoint any person at his or her discretion to become an appeals officer. I recognise the need for additional appeals officers because the delays in the appeals system are undoubtedly costing the State money. However, the wording of the Bill allows the Minister to appoint anyone at his discretion, not just retired appeals officers. This is wide open to abuse. Under the wording used, the appointee could be a political aide, a person with a vested interest or someone with no background in social welfare. The appointment is particularly open to cronyism by a Minister leaving office. It further undermines the independence of the social welfare appeals office. The Minister should change legislation to put the [453]office on a statutory basis and guarantee its independence. The Labour Party will table an amendment in this regard.
I hope the Minister read the recent Forfás report on youth unemployment. There are many lessons to be learned in it. There is a need for a national guarantee of training, education or work for every unemployed young person. The detail of the lack of educational achievement is the key to tackling the problem of youth unemployment. That must be addressed. The Labour Party will seek to amend the payment of child benefit so that both parents can receive the payment split between them where both have custody and both maintain the child.
The National Youth Council of Ireland expressed concern about the proposal in respect of young jobseekers. Those aged between 18 and 19 years are currently in receipt of €100 a week. In the case where they do not take up a reasonable offer of employment or education, their benefit will be reduced by €25 week. This decreases further as the jobseeker’s age increases. These changes were made on top of cuts for young jobseekers introduced as a result of the past two budgets. Is the Government really saying the strategy for youth unemployment is to cut income support to €75 week?
It is a far more complex issue and needs a much greater and thought through response.
An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Seymour Crawford. The Deputy from Cavan-Monaghan has 20 minutes if he wishes to exercise them.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is clear there must be new structures and changes in the area of social welfare from time to time and I agree there must be a keen watch to ensure that young people are encouraged towards rather than away from employment. However, in page 2 of his speech, the Minister referred to the other jurisdiction, Northern Ireland, in order to make comparison with its social welfare schemes. I have no problem with that but we must also check on the other supports that exist there. For example, the medical card is not an issue in Northern Ireland because there is a free health service but in this jurisdiction that can be a major problem for a young person on social welfare at a low level whose parents do not have a medical card. We must be clear what we compare and whether we compare like with like.
I came across a figure the other day which I mentioned in committee earlier, namely, the fact that 7,000 young people who were in the apprenticeship system have been made redundant. That is a major issue and one we cannot ignore. It is all right to talk about rectifying this by social welfare but we must have a planned structure for young people who want to find employment and have a skill in order to proceed into the workforce whenever jobs become available or, if they must emigrate, that at least they will have some kind of certificate in order to find a job at a certain level. When we talk about encouraging young people back into the workforce by means of cuts in social welfare we must look at the alternatives we offer them and see whether we are making a real effort. A total of 7,164 apprentices have been made redundant since 2008, a figure provided in this House by the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Coughlan. We cannot ignore such figures and must ensure that these young people are helped in whatever way possible and that they get alternatives. I appreciate it is a result of the end of the construction boom that jobs no longer exist for plumbers, electricians, etc, but surely the Government and the Department must find ways of dealing with this type of crisis involving young people.
Job creation is vital. In my constituency, in County Monaghan, 400 jobs were created by outside companies in past years despite the fact that we suffered serious problems over a 30 year period, with the Troubles in Northern Ireland. These have been over for the past ten or [454]15 years but no effort has been made to bring about outside employment so that young people in the area who are highly educated get an opportunity to stay there. I hear middle-aged parents talk about seeing their sons and daughters on Skype in Australia, New Zealand, Dubai and such countries simply because we have allowed 100,000 young people, at minimum, leave during the past two years. At present we do not seem to have any alternative.
It is fine to bring in this Bill to curtail costs with, as stated in sections 17 and 18, a reduction of €46 for those aged over 24 years of age, €35 for those aged 24, and €25 for those aged 18-21. Many from those age groups come to me, as I am sure they come to every constituency office, under severe pressure and not knowing where they will get the next penny because they cannot find jobs although they want to work. If those people apply over and over for jobs and go to their social welfare office showing documentation — if they can get it from the employers — to prove they have tried to get jobs, unsuccessfully, it is not fair they should be cut off. There must be a balance so that we do not force people into certain situations. We do not like to talk about suicide but when one looks at areas such as County Leitrim at present one must accept that some of the suicides in that county are linked to economic problems. Although there are suicides in my own county, the figure is not to the same extent, thank God, and one wants to ensure this does not happen.
On several occasions, I raised the issue of the self-employed and farm assist and the problems the people concerned have in getting payments at a reasonable rate. There is a note about farm assist and spouses in the Bill. Section 4 provides for an amendment to the definition of spouse to include different sex cohabitants or couples as spouses for the purpose of farm assist and pre-retirement allowances.
With all due respect, the big problems with farm assist are first, that those who deal with it do not seem to understand farming and, second, there has been a real loss to the farmer. This was especially the case in 2009, which was extraordinary. In case the Minister does not believe me, independent Teagasc figures state the average drop in farm income over the two and a half year period was 40%. In areas such as mine, Cavan-Monaghan and Leitrim, etc, where land structures are difficult and the weather was extraordinary, the drop in income was much more dramatic and yet the figures, issued by the Department today in committee, show that the level of money spent on farm assist has not increased dramatically and that numbers have increased by less than 700. Major questions have to be asked, not about the spouse issue but about the actual structures being used to allow people such as farmers and others who are self-employed to get their just cause.
There is a young family whose case I have quoted several times. Last June, the family’s application was shown to give them an income of €6.50 for a husband, wife and two children. That case has been on appeal since and the family still has not had any outcome. We tried to get a review of the case but it has not brought about any change. I can tell the Minister, from my own farm experience, that the milk cheques to that farm were down by one third while the meal bills and everything else were up dramatically but the reviewers could not see that. Yet we are talking about spouses of different sexes. Where are we going? It is crazy. We must get down to reality and ensure that people like this are allowed to survive. That is all we ask.
Another young farmer was getting €14.60, or some such figure. In January when the budget was implemented he was handed €2 across the counter.
Another young farmer getting €14.60 went in the day after the budget last January and he was handed €2. That was the cut he received in his farm assist. I could go on and on. It is so annoying and so perplexing.
[455]I have seen grown people cry due to the extraordinary pressure they are under. They have to go to co-operatives and elsewhere to get money in advance to put food on their table. While I agree that we need to have clear structures and clear systems in place, these figures show that what I have been saying for the last 12 months was 100% correct. The increased numbers for the farm assist scheme were limited and the budget did not increase significantly, in spite of the fact that the income to farmers was down 40%. No other group would accept that situation and it was no different for those that had been in the building industry and found themselves without any jobs at all. One family received €390 per week from January 2009 until February of this year, but without any consultation, that was suddenly cut to €97. It is crazy. The man in that family simply does not have an income.
The back to work allowance is extremely important and the second last figure referred to the need for change in this area. There certainly is a need for change because if we are to encourage people, we must allow them back to work as quickly as possible. Some changes have to be made to the amount of time a person must be on the dole to receive that allowance, in light of the fact that we are cutting social welfare benefits. The quicker we can get people back to work, the less danger there is of them becoming long-term unemployed.
About 900 staff have accepted redundancy offers at the Quinn group on a phased basis over the next few months. Promises were made that a great back-up service would be given to them, and to be fair, they were given advice at their place of work. I came across one case the other day in which the person involved wants to go back to education. There are all sorts of difficulties in the way that person’s grants are structured and so on. In extraordinary situations like that, everything should be done to ensure people get their chance to go back to education and that they do not have to be on the dole for six months, as that would not be fair. Some of these people took redundancy because they wanted to go back to education. One of them had only been working for four years, had a basic degree, but wanted to go further in education, so it is important that we give such people every encouragement to do that.
There are around 440,000 people unemployed at the moment. This means there has been a major increase in the demand for back to work clothing, footwear and so on. I have heard through the grapevine that there may be a major problem in community welfare offices in having people there to issue the cheques to parents. If that is the case, it is absolutely crazy. It was raised in national newspapers that people who are well connected had been given jobs in other counties, but it seems that the difficulty to which I referred still exists in County Monaghan.
I have spoken about the appeals structure to the Minister and he has promised that extra people will be brought into the system to ensure that appeals are heard more quickly. I question how well advised are the people conducting the appeals. If they do not understand the situation themselves, the social welfare inspectors who made the first decision will be much better educated and much more able to put forward their case than, say, farmers who need the support but who would not have such knowledge. It is absolutely vital that whoever the Minister appoints to these positions, they are people with a background knowledge so that they can be capable of doing a proper and just job straight away. We cannot stand over a situation where appeals are not being heard for more than 12 months, as is the case at the moment.
Deputy Shortall spoke about the power given to the Minister under section 15 to appeal a decision of the chief appeals officer to the High Court on a point of law. I hope the Minister will try to work in favour of the person that needed the social welfare and that it will not be used to get at somebody, but I worry about a person of political standing getting involved in something like that. When the Minister is summing up, perhaps he can explain what he is trying to do in this section, because it is quite worrying.
[456]Where young unemployed people do not take a job or a course, they are penalised. There are 3,500 people in Cavan looking to get into a third level college in the county next year, but there are only 1,200 spaces available. What happens the other 2,300 who will not be able to get into those places? Will they be considered or will they lose money because places are not provided? From talking to representatives of the VEC in Cavan, I understand that they are in a position to rent some of its buildings and make sure that spaces are available. There are also many teachers available and we need to look at cases like these very carefully. When people are eager to receive education, it is important to ensure they get an opportunity.
Some changes have been made to rent allowance. I support the need for changes in that area. We have a great number of houses lying idle in half built estates all over the country. Through the NAMA structures or whatever, efforts must be made to ensure those houses are made available at the minimum cost to the State. The State has spent enough money on NAMA already. Nevertheless, it is hard to justify providing high rent allowance to so many people when there are so many houses lying idle at minimum value.
We have heard tell of personnel in the financial services speaking about taking bulldozers and levelling down some of these estates because they are not needed. They may not be in the right place but they need to be looked at very carefully to ensure that people are housed at the minimum possible cost. It would be much better for families if they were in a house of their own in that type of structure. I fully understand why efforts had to be made to curtail the cost of social welfare but I ask that the Minister be sure that a genuine effort is made on job creation and education to minimise the numbers in long-term unemployment.
Deputy John Browne: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I listened with interest to the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, when he outlined the main provisions of this important Bill. The work of the Department of Social Protection impacts on almost every person in the State. It is a proactive Department, and I am very familiar with its working, as is every Deputy, because of the amount of queries and contact we have with it on a daily basis. In addition to its income support responsibilities, the Department is also actively engaged in co-operation with a range of other Departments and agencies in supporting those who are unemployed, lone parents and people with disabilities and providing them with opportunities to get back to work. It is also involved in education and training to assist them to participate fully in society.
I mentioned lone parents, and this afternoon I wish to speak to the proposed changes in this area. What struck me in particular is the fact that statistics show that many lone parents still live in poverty. This is despite significant State spending by successive Governments and Fianna Fáil Ministers in the recent past. As well as improvements made to one parent family payments over the years we also had a substantial increase in child benefit allowance and other allowances. However, the latest EU figures show that in 2008, 17.8% of lone parents experienced consistent poverty compared to 3% of two parent households and 4.2% of the population as a whole.
The cost of one parent families has significantly increased in recent years. In 2009 it was €1.12 billion, an increase from €835 million in 2006 and €338 million in 1997. When other related supports and entitlements are taken into account, including child benefit, rent supplement and family income supplement, the total expenditure in this area is more than €2 billion per year. It amazes me that after all the investment we still speak about lone parents being in a cycle of poverty. We have to change the way we assist them and improve their quality of life.
[457]In general, we all agree that the best route out of poverty is through paid employment and it is recognised that work, particularly full-time work, may not be an option for parents of young children. However, it is believed that supporting parents to participate in the labour market once their children have reached the appropriate age will improve their economic situation and social well-being and those of their family.
The current arrangements, whereby a lone parent can receive the one parent family payment until the child is aged 18, or 22 if in full-time education, without any requirement for them to engage in employment, education or training, are not in the best interests of the parent, the children or society. Under the new proposals, the one parent family payment will be paid until the youngest child in the family reaches the age of 13. The 2006 Government discussion paper on supporting lone parents originally proposed continuing the parental allowance until the youngest child reaches seven years of age. The Minister and the Department consider that 13 years of age is a more appropriate age for this change, and the need for child care lessens from that age.
The requirements in the United Kingdom will change in October, whereby lone parents will required to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of seven instead of the present cut-off age of ten. In Norway, Sweden, Germany and Italy there is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of three.
The cut-off age of 13 is probably a bit too young. The Minister made the point that child care is probably less needed but a youngster of 13 still needs some form of child care rather than coming home to find his or her parent is out working. The age should be increased to 15 or 16 years. Will the Minister seriously look at increasing it to junior certificate standard of education? Many junior certificate students are approximately 15 years of age. From knowing young people in my area they require a certain amount of guidance and support at 13 years of age rather than coming home to find no one in the house.
I am not against what the Minister is doing if it will improve the quality of life and the standard of living for lone parents. Deputy Crawford made a point about the houses throughout the country which are lying idle. Many lone parents live in rented accommodation and some of the rent they pay is exorbitant. There are unscrupulous landlords who, if they know a lone parent is in receipt of rent allowance, tend to seek high rent from them. The lone parent must then try to make up the difference between the rent allowance and the amount sought by the landlord. This causes a certain amount of poverty also and is an area which the Minister needs to examine.
If the Minister is to implement these major changes, and he spoke about getting people back to work and onto training courses, FÁS schemes and post leaving certificate courses, it is important to have adequate availability of these courses. I am not sure that some FÁS courses being run at present are relevant to lone parents. There is a need for specially designed courses relevant to job opportunities available. The Minister spoke about the social inclusion model and this is important. Recently, I had discussions with the new chairman of FÁS, Michael Dempsey, and pointed out to him the need for a new way of thinking in FÁS, to design courses not only for lone parents but for every sector of society to reflect the job potential in an area. There is no point in training carpenters, brickies and roofers at present because the building industry is not thriving. It is important that FÁS examines other areas.
In my home town, Enniscorthy Vocational College provides post leaving certificate courses attended by numerous lone parents and married mothers. Its capacity is 300 even though this year it had some 500 applications. It may be an area the Minister for Education and Skills can examine. Some of the budget FÁS now has could be transferred for extra PLC courses in the vocational sector. People could go on to do hairdressing, child care, beauty care and all of the [458]different courses that are provided. The principal of the school to whom I recently spoke told me he had 60 applications for hairdressing but only 30 places. It is an area which could be examined. Rather than paying people jobseekers allowance or whatever other allowances are in place, they should be entitled to get jobseekers allowance and go on training courses such as FÁS or PLC courses.
The other area the Minister needs to examine is how people can go from social welfare to a part-time or temporary job for one, two or three months, and then return to social welfare. As Deputy Connaughton and the Minister of State know, if one gets a job for two or three months and then one wants to return to social welfare, one is put through the process. The social welfare inspector has to call out and more than likely one will end up with the appeals officer and will not get an appeal for six months. There should be more flexibility in that area.
When I tell people a job is available for three or four months they say if they take it they will not receive social welfare. One should be able to take a part-time or temporary job and receive social welfare again without the rigmarole of the social welfare officer calling out to assess one in one’s home, etc. If one is not there when he or she calls, the assessment cannot be done and it is likely the officer will accuse one of working or doing some illegal operation in the employment area. It goes on and on. This is something the Minister needs to examine.
The late Séamus Brennan introduced a pre-retirement scheme. When one reached 57 years of age one received a pre-retirement booklet and did not have to sign every week. When we had almost full employment in the good times the then Minister decided to abolish the scheme. I ask the Minister to consider reintroducing it for people aged 60 years of age and older because the chances of people of that age acquiring a job in the current climate are low. They should not have to go to the local exchange every week or month to sign on. They should be put on a pre-retirement scheme. If they find a job, that is well and good and they can leave the scheme, but people aged 61 or 62 should not be dragged through the local social welfare office.
Anybody who is 60 years of age and is on a FÁS scheme should be left on the scheme until he or she reaches retirement age or can receive the old age pension. I know several people in my area who were on FÁS schemes at 62 and 63 years of age who were let go and told that their two or three years had expired. They returned to the non-work environment. They had been doing tremendous work in the local community with the local parish council or whatever and all of a sudden they were dumped back onto the dole queue with no focus in life. For the life of me, I cannot see why we cannot continue to keep such people on a FÁS scheme because they will be paid social welfare payments for doing nothing. This is another area which should be examined.
I ask the Minister to also examine the appeals system. He announced that he has taken on a number of retired appeals officers to try to speed up the appeals system. I do not know the situation in the rest of the country but in Wexford it takes from six to nine months for a person to acquire an appeal. It is not acceptable in this day and age when so many people are losing their jobs, are not being approved by social welfare inspectors and then have to appeal to have to wait six or nine months. I would not bring back retired appeals officers. There are enough professional people at the current time who are unemployed. We all know there are solicitors, qualified nurses and accountants and others with professional qualifications who are not able to get a job and who would be able to carry out the duties of an appeals officer for six or nine months. The Minister’s point is that a retired appeals officer will know the ropes and be able to make a decision but it would not be a major effort to train a person to be an appeals officer and the Minister should seriously consider giving unemployed people an opportunity to acquire such temporary jobs.
[459]I am glad the Minister has taken on some of the areas of FÁS. I am sure he will have a major input and is examining ways of developing a more flexible system and how one can get organisations, groups and sporting clubs to take on unemployed people and include them in the same type of scheme as a FÁS scheme. The local GAA club or organisation would pay the difference between the payments from social welfare and FÁS. I welcome that move on the part of the Minister. It is a more flexible way of looking after people who are on social welfare and would allow them to enter FÁS or community schemes.
People on jobseekers benefit should be allowed to sign up for courses. People have told me they signed up for courses only to be told by staff at their local exchange offices that they could not attend them because they would not be available for work. It is better to have people attending courses from which they may get a qualification which will increase their chances of getting employment down the road than having them sit at home every day and get €188 in jobseekers allowance. I have spoken to the Minister about this and he is seriously examining how we can have more flexibility in that area.
The Minister is also taking over the rural social employment scheme which is being availed of by rural GAA clubs and sporting organisations. My club in Enniscorthy, an urban setting, has a person who in is receipt of farm assist payments and is doing a great job. I ask the Minister to increase the numbers on the rural social employment scheme and make sure that people who are in receipt of farm assist payments are able to get opportunities in their local communities, GAA or soccer clubs or local sporting organisations.
I wish to raise another issue before I conclude, namely, that of people with special needs. When the Minister refers to 13 years of age as the cut-off point — I suggested it should be 15 or 16 years — he stated that under the reform scheme there also will be special provision for families with children in respect of whom domiciliary care allowance is paid. Will he clarify that further? A lot of people are not in receipt of domiciliary care allowance but because they have special needs they need one parent to look after them. A special needs child could reach the age of 13 and the payment could be cut off under the Minister’s regulation. That special needs person might not be in receipt of a domiciliary care allowance. It is very difficult to get that allowance from the HSE at the current time. However, they would still be regarded as special needs children requiring constant care and attention from their parents. I ask the Minister to provide in the legislation for an increase in the age limit to 15 or 16 where medical evidence indicates that the child requires constant care and attention. It is important that the Bill be flexible in this regard because legislation is often too rigid. We have seen in the case of special tax rates on adapted cars for persons with disabilities that it is difficult to qualify if one does not meet the threshold of missing two arms or legs despite having strong medical evidence of need. I am the parent of a child in a wheelchair and, while I was able to get a domiciliary care allowance at one stage, I am aware of many others who were unable to qualify.
While I welcome the Bill, I feel strongly that the 13 year cut-off is too low and should be increased to 15 or 16 years, or junior certificate stage. I recognise that other countries have different policies but we in Ireland have always prided ourselves on being a caring society. It is important that we maintain this caring attitude by considering an increase in the age limit.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010, although I would need two hours to address it in its entirety. It is an important Bill because, unfortunately for all our sakes, 440,000 people are unemployed. Social welfare was never more relevant to the lives of our citizens than today. In all my time in politics, I never met anybody who wanted to be on social welfare. In the part of the world from which I come, people would prefer to get a part-time job or training. That should be the central principle of this type of legislation.
[460]I agree with some aspects of the Bill but I wish to raise a matter which it does not directly address. I cannot understand why certain anomalies have not been fixed over the past two years. One of these relates to the eligibility assessment for jobseeker’s assistance for the self-employed. Last Saturday, I met two constituents who did not know the location of the social welfare in their area. They were lucky in the past that they never needed to know where it was located.
One of the individuals was a small-scale builder who four or five years ago had to employ an additional labour unit to do the books because his business was going well. He employed his wife, as he was entitled to do under the legislation, and kept his contributions up to date. Unfortunately, the business began to fail and the time came when there was just enough work to keep the husband employed. The wife applied for jobseeker’s benefit but was refused on the grounds that her husband was a sole trader. I previously raised this issue in a parliamentary question because I find it difficult to understand. The official rationale is that the wife is statutorily excluded. In case somebody claims this is an internal family matter or questions whether the job in fact existed, there is clear evidence that the job existed, that contributions were paid and that the wife was actively seeking employment. The remarkable aspect of this story is that a partner, son or daughter would not be ruled ineligible. If that is not discrimination against a married couple, I do not know what is. I have encountered five or six similar cases in Galway East and I ask the Minister to address the issue.
There appears to be a bias against self-employed people who have no income. I know of one small-scale builder who did reasonably well in the best of times, although he never employed more than two people, and like every other family around the country took out a mortgage to buy his family home. However, he was also building half a house and had to take out a large mortgage to do so. One would think that the half house would help his assessment because of the mortgage but under the method of calculation used for social welfare payments, it was regarded as an asset. I do not doubt the house will become an asset some day, at which point it can be sold for money. This person should not be entitled to social welfare on the basis of the house but it is not making money and, as his wife said last week, the family cannot eat a brick from it. Social welfare benefits should be closely tracked to ensure they are not paid to people who should not get them but an asset that cannot be converted into an income should be taken into account. The asset should be noted on the claim with a view to revisiting the issue within one year. If the building has been completed, let or sold in the interim, a new assessment should be made. People want income from social welfare now, however, and this provision is causing havoc.
The further information sought in this area alone requires applicants to consult auditors, accountants and so forth. In most cases, the applicants owe their accountants money and cannot obtain further information from them.
In one household with four children, the family’s only income is a disability payment of €210. The Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, was born and reared in the same part of the world as me. She should try to rear four children on €210 per week.
I have made a practical proposal to change the social welfare code. Checks and balances are in place to ensure people are not in receipt of a payment to which they are not entitled. I note the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív who introduced the rural social scheme, has entered the Chamber. I expect a major expansion in the scheme, which does everything right for everyone at every level.
[461]Deputy James Bannon: Accessing social welfare is akin to climbing Mount Everest. It is a matter of scaling the obstacles placed in the way of those who, through no fault of their own, have been forced out of employment and into reliance on the Department of Social Protection.
I am pleased to note my colleague, Deputy Mary O’Rourke, is present. Of the 440,000 unemployed in the State, almost 16,000 of them reside in the Longford-Westmeath constituency I and the Deputy share. More than 5,000 of them are in County Longford and more than 10,000 in County Westmeath. This is a significant number of people in a sparsely populated, rural constituency.
The social welfare system does everything possible to defer to the latest possible moment, payments which are entitlements rather than hand-outs. This approach increases the stress and economic hardship of those who are the unwilling victims of the Government’s mismanagement of recent years. The Bill will increase that hardship.
While it is important to encourage claimants to engage in training or participate in programmes under the national employment action plan, it is extremely punitive to reduce the jobseeker’s allowance, which is already set at a subsistence rate, as the Government did in the most recent budget. The argument from the Taoiseach and Minister for Social Protection that the new rules, in particular the rule pertaining to the qualifying age for the one parent family payment which will no longer be paid when a child reaches 13 years, are part of an anti-poverty policy rather than cost-cutting measures is about as ludicrous as one could hear from this shameful and heartless Government. Given the ever widening rich-poor divide under the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government, the justification of such a position is lost on me and many others. Let us call a spade a spade and a cost-cutting measure a cost-cutting measure. Cloaking the new rules in the guise of an anti-poverty measure is, even by the standard of the Government’s spin, a highly unusual social welfare theory.
On reading the Bill, I could not but be reminded of the expression, “the deserving poor”. The English poor law, which was extended to Ireland in 1838, was viewed by the British as a cost-effective means of coping with the high level of poverty in Ireland. Unfortunately, there was a perception that many of the so-called poor were not poor and, therefore, assistance would only be given to “the deserving poor”.
When one goes back further to 1563 we find that the poor were divided into three different categories, namely, those who would work but could not to do so, those who could work but would not do so and those who were too old, young or ill to work. Although a basic approach, it was nonetheless effective for the time. I hoped that we had advanced a little since the 16th century, if not by making “cradle to the grave” provision, at least by making an equitable level of provision. Such provision is absent in the Bill and the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government has not advanced much beyond the 16th century. It is extremely upsetting for those who work in the area of social provision and those in receipt of social assistance that retrograde steps are included in the Bill. Not surprisingly, the legislation has been described by many as “heartless”.
There has been a major shift among welfare states in recent years as countries move from adherence to cradle to the grave provision and passive labour measures to active labour measures. While this new departure is in many ways a positive development, it must be tempered to the social and economic climate. This change of direction has resulted in a move from passive measures — in a broad sense, the provision of income supports — to active measures which encourage claimants to enter the workforce through the utilisation of various policy tools. While this is a welcome move, the decision to time such policies to coincide with a period of recession is debatable.
[462]Promotion of work activation involves the use of measures which aim to activate claimants to enter the workforce or engage in education or training through support, encouragement or obligation. The obligation element is worrying in this time of recession. I am in favour of people returning to work as quickly as possible but social provision has been fraught with pitfalls for those entitled to assistance. While such limitations may mean an Exchequer saving, I question whether they are well timed.
Schemes such as the back to education allowance introduced in 1990 and back to work allowance introduced in 1993 gave the unemployed an opportunity to work or study while retaining some payments and benefits for a specified period. In a positive move made in 1994 some leeway was introduced in the then lone parent’s allowance when the retention of benefits was permitted in cases where a recipient found employment. These positive moves stand in stark contrast to the punitive measure introduced against lone parents in the Bill.
Supposed activation of various age banded young unemployed people resulted in FÁS interviews and proposals that they be given an option of training, education, employment or guidance. The effectiveness of this measure in increasing the motivation to work or return to education is debatable. The main danger in this respect is that decisions will be uneven as each deciding officer interprets the clause which stipulates a reduction in payment if a claimant fails to take up an offer of training, and so on, “without good cause”.
However, when it comes to social provision and the Department of Social Protection, one can only throw one’s eyes up to heaven. The Department, which apparently tightened up on fraudulent claims by insisting that claimants should produce photographic identification, is now, against all logic, planning to permit claimants to sign on by text, which is a joke. Even by the farcical nature of the current Government’s ill-conceived ideas, this takes the biscuit. Not only will claimants sign on——
Deputy James Bannon: The Minister will have his opportunity. Not only will claimants sign on by text, they apparently——
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: There is no question of people signing on by text.
Deputy James Bannon: That is what the Minister has said. He can come in and deny it this evening if he likes.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: My Department never claimed anybody could sign on by text.
Deputy James Bannon: That is what the Bill offers.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: No, it does not.
Deputy James Bannon: Of course it does. The Minister should not contradict me. It is there in black and white.
An Ceann Comhairle: We could have a breakdown.
Deputy James Bannon: The Minister’s officials might have prepared the Bill, but he has not read it.
[463]Deputy James Bannon: It is there in black and white.
An Ceann Comhairle: Could we——
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: What the provision-----
Deputy James Bannon: Will I be protected, a Cheann Comhairle?
An Ceann Comhairle: Yes. I am anxious about that.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: On a point of information——
Deputy James Bannon: The Minister should not get ratty or hot under the collar.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It will be done by voice recognition by mobile phone and not by text. The Department never claimed it would be by text. Unfortunately the media jumped to conclusions and because we said we would use mobile telephony they presumed it was text. The voice recognition will be done in such a way that if somebody rings in and it is not that person’s voice the very sophisticated software will recognise that. It will also be locational and therefore will not work with somebody ringing from outside Ireland as we will know immediately the person is outside and will cut off.
Deputy James Bannon: As I read it, it is certification by the mobile phone.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Yes, by the mobile phone but not by text.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should be allowed to continue anyway.
Deputy James Bannon: This is surely the definitive example of spending pounds to save pence. As recently as April, a Department spokesperson stated that new claimants for jobseeker’s payments are now paid through the post office. This requires them to attend the post office weekly, confirming their residency in this country.
While immediate saving may be made in terms of staffing, we can only sit back and watch the number of fraudulent claims mounting and the costs skyrocketing. Last year’s figures showed up to 10% of dole claims were fraudulent, mostly relating to people outside the country. I would like the Minister to stand back and watch that statistic grow.
Where are the provisions for job creation? We are seeing doubtful welfare reforms, but the Government is ignoring the need for a focus on job creation. As a first outing this Bill very much calls into question the highly suspect new title for the Department of Social Protection. Who is being protected from whom? Is it the Government from the social welfare claimants or the other way around? Whatever it is called, the truth is undoubtedly that the Government is not too hot on protecting the social needs of the unemployed and single parents.
Deputy Mary O’Rourke: I am glad to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I commend the Minister on bringing it forward and commend the title of social protection, which is suitable and modern, and will do much for the Department. Deputy Bannon referred to 1563. Usually I very much like historical allusions in this Chamber because I used to be a student of history. However, referring to what was put upon the people in 1563 is remarkable when one considers that in the past 12 years the Government in various guises increased pension rates by 120%, unemployment benefits by 130% and child benefit payments by more than 330%.
Deputy James Bannon: On a point of order——
[464]Deputy Mary O’Rourke: I never said anything to bother the Deputy.
Deputy James Bannon: Was that before or after the cuts in the last budget?
Deputy Mary O’Rourke: The cost of living has increased by approximately 40% over the same period. There is no point in people saying we are way back in 1563. It is an absurd allusion in the present context. During that 12 years we extended coverage, removed barriers and increased entitlements such that the level and extent of social support payments has been transformed beyond recognition. In 2010 the Government will spend €20.9 billion of taxpayers’ money on social welfare provision, which is €500 million or 2.45% more than in 2009. Even when the word “cutbacks” is introduced, the cutbacks manifest themselves in an increase in payments -clearly an increase in claimants or where various other social measures came into play and in so doing accrued to themselves various social benefits.
I note the Minister said that on Committee Stage he would introduce an amendment to provide for the transfer of the rural social scheme and the community services programme to the Minister for Social Protection. He will also introduce an amendment to give him the necessary statutory powers regarding the employment services and community services programme of FÁS, and to subsequently transfer the related funding to the Department of Social Protection. In effect that gives voice to the concerns of the Government particularly for those in long-term unemployment and the very young unemployed to allow them to take up activity under the transfer of those. Between that and the skills element transferring to the Minister for Education and Skills and the FÁS budget to go with that, it is a very meaningful change.
The Minister stated that one of his priorities is to place a particular focus on job activation. The new Department brings a joined-up approach to looking at job activation in its wider context with income support. I knew that the rural community schemes were following the Minister into his new job which pleased me because I have found him very innovative and open to ideas about what we call the rural social employment schemes and I hope more can be done through that. While I accept the Minister stated it in his press release and it is addressed in the Bill, until I heard him speak on Second Stage, I did not know he was also taking over the community services programme of FÁS, which is very good. That provision is extremely important for us as a Government. At our parliamentary party meetings and in public in different places the Taoiseach has said he wanted to put a focus on job activation. Therefore, the removal of dependency and firming up on activation programmes is very important in how we provide for that employment activation.
Of course, the biggest concern in many households today is the issue of jobs. When I first stood for the Dáil I might come to a house in Athlone or Mullingar with three, four or five people unemployed in the household. It is not at that level now but it is fast approaching it. When one goes out to visit people one finds there are many people unemployed or becoming unemployed in households.
One of the main good points to be noted is that over 80% are now in third level education, which was unheard of years ago. We should be delighted by this.
On Monday night a young woman came to see me in Athlone who had received first class honours in her three-year science degree in Athlone Institute of Technology. The total marks in her subjects averaged 85%, which was a brilliant result. She is from another nation, as we like to say, having come here and started attending primary school in fifth or sixth class. She had to learn English from the beginning and is clearly brilliant. I asked her what she would do and she told me she would do a master’s degree.
[465]There is a clear acceptance in many young people that jobs do not exist now but they will equip themselves with as many qualifications as possible so that when the job markets open fully, they will be properly equipped. That woman is an example. This woman achieved a remarkable result having studied while working part-time in McDonalds for three years, on Saturdays for three hours and Sundays for four hours. I commend her on working hard, earning a few bob for her pocket, while at the same time steering her way through college.
The Minister indicated that part of the Taoiseach’s reasons for setting up a new Department of Social Protection relate to the amendments that will be brought in for work schemes and employment services moving to a single Department. That is the correct action.
Deputy Enright is the current spokesperson for social welfare issues but there will be a shake-up; we can afford to smile about it here. She would know that young men in particular want to go to college as mature students. They may have done a leaving certificate but as jobs presented, the lure of a pay packet at the end of the week would have been very strong for everyone. Some years ago they would have taken that path but many are now going to Galway and Athlone to do the Access programmes, which the Minister knows about. Having done a year in the programme they may be told they will be taken on by the National University of Ireland, Galway, the IT in Athlone or the university in Maynooth. They follow up the Access programme. Students may have their first year in science, social science, arts, engineering etc. and have a chance to continue the education.
There appears to be a burgeoning difficulty but I do not yet have my head around it. I do not know if it involves the Minister for Social Protection or the Minister for Education and Skills. These people may be in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance but want to go into full-time third level education. They may also qualify for the higher education maintenance grant but if they get this they cannot get their jobseeker’s allowance. All these people would qualify for the maintenance grant.
Many of these people are young men with families, either married or partnered. They may have young children. There was an idea that the allowance and grant from the local authority could be combined; I know this was in the budget as I looked it up in the Estimates. As of now the major payment is the jobseeker’s allowance and people opt for that as payments cannot be combined.
The Minister for Social Protection or the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Coughlan, should deal with the issue. The measures in the Minister’s speech and the focus within the Department is on retraining and allowing people back into the work force. I have separately met with 24 or 25 such people, mostly coming from Galway. I am sure they would not normally pass the Minister’s door. There were also people from around Athlone. All received in the past number of weeks notification of transfer from the Access programme to first year in a chosen discipline in college, which is great. With one exception, those I met were young men in their early to mid 20s and are mature students qualifying for either the higher education maintenance grant and jobseeker’s allowance, although not both.
Of these people, one man had three children, one had two children, another had one child and another had no children but was running a home. They all wanted to keep their avenue to full-time education open. I know it would be an enormous issue across the country and I am only considering the effects in two college areas that include NUIG, Galway IT and Athlone IT. That would surely be replicated in UCD, Maynooth and various other colleges. I expect there are replicas of all those people across Ireland who will be thwarted in their laudable ambition to return to college. Perhaps they should not have left education but did so because there were jobs for everyone. These people know they need qualifications for jobs, with the more qualifications, the better.
[466]This problem is becoming quite acute as up to now they were awaiting the result of the Access examination and to hear if they would get a place. Most of the people I spoke to appear to have been successful and must move to the next phase of their application, taking in either the jobseeker’s allowance or the higher education maintenance grant. I hope the Minister here tonight and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Coughlan, will set up a meeting to thrash this out. Otherwise these problems will thwart the ambitions of people going back to education to promote better job opportunities.
The Minister may indicate it has nothing to do with his Department and it may not. I imagine the Department of Education and Skills would have a responsibility but I will follow up on the matter. I would like the Minister to revert to me because I intend to raise it on the Adjournment. It is a very important issue that could ignite any day soon, becoming a nationwide problem. I am quite sure the Minister has come across it already, as has Deputy Kathleen Lynch in Cork. There is no doubt that I am just giving expression to what we have all heard from people we meet during the course of our duties. We hear the real stories.
I note there is a strong urge in well motivated, well read and literate people to argue that Deputies should not bother with constituents’ troubles. That is a ridiculous argument. How are we to know our thoughts on legislation and what should be done if we do not meet people who will, in effect, take the pain of measures coming down the road?
Last week, I read an article in one of what might be termed the “posh” newspapers which indicated that Deputies should spend all their time in the Dáil dealing with legislation. I contribute to the proceedings of the House each week, so I believe I am doing my bit as regards legislating. It would be very silly if we did not meet our constituents and others because otherwise how would we know about what to talk if we did not hear the concerns of those who come to see us? I hesitate to use the word “clinic”, which I hate, in this regard because people are not sick when they come to see Members. Those to whom I refer come to talk to one and to seek advice and it is wonderful that they do so. The trust that is built up between the elector and the person he or she uses his or her vote to elect is fine and proper in nature.
There has been a great deal of comment with regard to the age limit of 13 in respect of the allowance relating to children of one-parent families. In 2006, this matter was debated with the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs in the Seanad and people reckoned that the age should be ten.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It was seven.
Deputy Mary O’Rourke: It will now be 13. I am of the view that social welfare moneys, in whatever form they take, are meant to be active rather than passive in nature. People are not meant to just accept such moneys week after week and do nothing in return. Doing nothing is undignified and it saps people’s confidence and their ability to do something about their circumstances. Having said that, I acknowledge that it is not always possible to adopt a get-up-and-go approach to life, particularly in light of current economic circumstances. The age limits which apply in Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, the UK and two other countries are four and five. I accept that the age which will apply here will be 13 but we must question whether child-minding services are necessary when children reach that age.
I wish the Minister well in the Department of Social Protection and I look forward to working with him in the future.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
[467]An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I wish the Minister well with his new portfolio. When times are good, not many people are interested in social welfare. However, when times are bad — which is when it is needed most and when there is less to distribute — people have an acute interest in it.
I am conscious of the fact that I do not have much time and that I probably have too much to say. My first point relates to the delays of up to three or three and a half months which people in Cork city are experiencing when they apply for jobseeker’s benefit. Such delays are happening despite the fact that departmental officials are working flat-out and are doing their very best. Under the Bill, the Minister is granting far too much discretion in respect of those who qualify for jobseeker’s allowance. I have worked with people in the Department of Social Protection for over 20 years and I have major respect for them, their opinions and their judgment. As in other walks of life, one comes across those who are over-zealous and others who are not sufficiently zealous. Under the legislation, it will up to deciding officers to evaluate whether people take sufficient steps in respect of finding employment.
Everyone is aware that the majority of those who are unemployed live in areas where there are no jobs of offer. If jobs were available, those to whom I refer would not be obliged to seek the assistance of the Department of Social Protection. These people have sought jobs but cannot find them. I, therefore, have a major difficulty with this aspect of the Bill.
Various provisions in the Bill relate to jobseekers losing their allowances or benefits if they do not accept a reasonable offer of employment or training. I do not understand why these have been included because they are already contained in existing legislation. This appears to be an exercise in window dressing. What is significant is the fact that the Minister intends to grant himself power to appeal the decision of an appeals officer following an oral hearing and to take the matter to the High Court on a point of law.
I have been involved in more oral hearings than I have had hot dinners. Most of the deciding officers I meet each week are better versed in social welfare law than any High Court judge. I do not understand why the Minister is trying to usurp their power. I am not aware of any decision taken by an appeals officer which could have been challenged on a point of law. I know from experience that these officers are extraordinary people and they make very good decisions. I do not know from where the Minister is coming in respect of this matter and that is a cause of some concern to me.
I am particularly concerned with section 24, which I am sure we will discuss at length on Committee Stage and which I believe will be challenged successfully in the courts. We are about to put to the people of Ireland a constitutional referendum on the rights of the child. However, the Minister proposes, by means of this Bill, to introduce into law a provision that will give rise to an element of discrimination relating to how certain children enter the world and which will influence how they progress in life. A distinction is being made in respect of the relationships relating to one type of child and another type of child. I thought we had engaged in that argument a number of years ago and that it was now out of the way.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is the other way around.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: No, it is not. I have always argued that widows under the age of 66 are probably the most neglected and badly treated group of people in this country. Under the Bill, a situation will be created whereby if I am a widow and I have a child, he or she will, in the event that he or she enters third level education, be in receipt of the dependant element of my payment until he or she reaches the age of 22. If, however, I have a child and am in a [468]relationship but am not married and if I am deserted, abandoned or if my partner dies, my child will only receive the payment until he or she reaches the age of 13. Apart from the marital status of their mothers, what is the difference between the two children to whom I refer? I am frightened by the fact that we appear to be reintroducing this concept of difference and I am sure it will be successfully challenged.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I move:
commending the depth of analysis and conclusions of the Report on The Irish Banking Crisis — Regulatory and Financial Stability Policy 2003-2008 by the Governor of the Central Bank (the ‘Honohan Report’) and the Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis by Klaus Regling and Max Watson;
noting the conclusion in both reports that the conduct of fiscal policy by the Government in the period 2003-2008 was a major contributory factor in the property bubble, the loss of export competitiveness and the subsequent banking and economic crisis, while also noting that it was beyond the terms of reference of these reports to examine the motivation behind these policy decisions;
noting the conclusion in the Honohan report that the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen extended property tax reliefs for developers in 2006 at the height of the property bubble, while also noting that it was beyond the terms of reference of this report to examine the motivations behind these policy decisions;
noting the conclusion in the Honohan report that the Minister for Finance and his officials exercised influence on the Financial Regulator in 2006 to the effect that a proposed tightening to the quality of governance of bank directors was not implemented, while also noting that it was beyond the terms of reference of this report to examine the motivation behind these actions; and
noting the conclusion contained in the Honohan report that an excessively generous bank guarantee issued on 30 September, 2008, has cost the taxpayer more than was necessary to protect the stability of the financial system, and that arguments were made at the time against such a blanket guarantee, while also noting that it was beyond the terms of reference of this report to examine the motivations behind this policy decision;
I wish to share time with Deputies Seymour Crawford, Joe McHugh and Paul Connaughton.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy O’Donnell will have 20 minutes, Deputy Crawford, eight minutes and Deputies McHugh and Connaughton, six minutes.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Fine Gael has put forward this motion on foot of the two excellent reports published by Professor Honohan, Governor of the Central Bank and Messrs Klaus Regling and Max Watson, which are objective in their orientation and criticism of Government policy. What we are seeking is the context of the proposed Commission of Investigation, in particular the draft terms of reference in this regard as proposed by Government.
The motion commends the depth of reporting and analysis in the reports published by Professor Honohan and Messrs Regling and Watson. It also notes the conclusions in those reports on several issues including that our fiscal policy was very much relevant to our economy being dependant on property, thus creating the property bubble which had a major impact on our loss of export competitiveness and leading to the banking crisis.
I want to deal with a number of other factors and to give an objective critique of Government policy. I do not wish to personalise this matter but to deal with it as reported in the banking reports and to set out the areas I believe need to be considered as part of the Commission of Investigation to ensure a whole rather than selective approach which will provide extra weight to the initial reports and ensure that we not alone learn the truth but note the mistakes made and changes required.
The reports state that the issue of directors’ compliance statements was put forward by the then Financial Regulator but that this was effectively blocked by the Department of Finance and then Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen. The authority was informed in December 2006 that the Minister for Finance felt it was important to assess the competitiveness issue. Following a discussion with the Department of Finance it was agreed with the Financial Regulator not to implement the provision as set out in the Central Bank Act and to examine the requirements for compliance statements from financial service providers in the context of projects to consolidate and modernise financial services legislation. In essence, this never happened. The introduction of directors’ compliance statements would have improved immeasurably corporate governance within the banking system.
I turn now to the bank guarantee scheme. Professor Honohan’s report is an excellent and easy to read report. I have no doubt it will be easily understood by everyone. Professor [470]Honohan stated that the guarantee scheme introduced on the night of 29-30 September was too broad and as a result ended up costing the taxpayer, in particular in terms of its coverage of subordinated debt. The Government came into this House on 30 September and stated that the bank guarantee scheme had to be introduced because the banking system was at crisis point. We now know from Professor Honohan’s report that in July 2007 a group had been established to review the banking system and that many of the issues were considered in the context of Anglo Irish Bank. A decision was taken by Government that no bank would be allowed to fail. Anglo Irish bank fell into a different category. The Government included in this regard lower tier II subordinated debt. The banks then effectively took more risky subordinated debt and allowed it to be converted into lower tier II, which brought it within the guarantee scheme. It is clear from Professor Honohan’s report that subordinated debt should not have been guaranteed as part of the bank guarantee scheme.
What we want in terms of the commission of investigation is for the two elements missing from the banking reports to be addressed. It was not within the terms of reference of both banking reports to consider the motivational aspects in terms of policy. Policy is determined by Government. During the crisis, in terms of the fiscal element from 2004 to early 2008, the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen was Minister for Finance. We have no idea of the motivational aspect in terms of the policies he introduced or the official advice provided to him by the Department. It is a weakness in our democratic system that advice provided by departmental officials is not put into the public domain thus allowing us to know the background upon which Ministers made decisions. We are told this information cannot be disclosed. We have, therefore, an information deficit.
Professor Honohan and Messrs Regling and Watson appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. When I asked each of them whom they interviewed I was told that none of them had interviewed the main player in this period, namely, the current Taoiseach and then Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen. This is a weakness in the reports and the proposal in this regard as contained in the motion should be included in the terms of reference of the commission of investigation. The Government has provided to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service the draft terms of reference for the commission of investigation which it is to overview and make recommendations on.
The commission of investigation must take into account Government policy. We have within this House and at ministerial level the power to determine people’s future through Government policy. Professor Honohan, as Governor of the Central Bank, implements Government policy. We need to know why the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, when Minister for Finance, indulged in pro-cyclical budgets and why in 2007 and 2008 we had an 11% increase in real expenditure, which effectively, according to Professor Honohan, worsened the situation. Why did this happen?
Professor Honohan is on record as saying that in a final twist real expenditure rose by 11% in 2007 and 2008 following the budgets of 2006 and 2007 respectively introduced by the then Minister for Finance and current Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen. There was an unfortunate late burst of spending, which boosted the underlying deficit at almost the worst possible time. That was at the end of his tenure as Minister for Finance. On page 28, the report says the following about the start of his tenure:
[471]When Deputy Brian Cowen became Minister for Finance he presented budgets which turbo-boosted the economy when it did not need that. The Taoiseach has said that in December 2005, he decided to curtail, or disband, tax incentive schemes. However, the tax incentive schemes continued until 31 July 2008, two and a half years later, and bang in the middle of the financial crisis. The commission of investigation must establish the Minister’s motive for allowing the schemes to continue for so long. Why did he allow expenditure to increase at an alarming rate during his period as Minister for Finance, culminating in an 11% increase in real expenditure in 2007 and 2008? The commission must include the Department of Finance in its remit. We must know what advice the Department gave to the Minister. What was the train of thought in the Department and the reason for the advice given?
Until 2002 or 2003, we were, in the main, an export nation. The property crisis had not gone out of control and we were reasonably competitive. Suddenly, our exports fell, lending by the banking sector went out of control and the Minister for Finance was spending as though there was no tomorrow. The impression was given that, in the words of the Honohan report, “the party would never end”. The property market was fuelled by budgetary policy which fanned the flames. Between 2004 and 2008, we had inflationary budgets, which made us uncompetitive, and no check was placed on the banks. In the financial stability reports, the Minister would have seen references to the problems created by the increase in property prices and the loan books of various banks, particularly Anglo Irish Bank. Between 2005 and 2007, there was a doubling of the loan books of the other banks, much of it property related.
We want full and complete clarity as to what happened, why it happened and who were the parties to what happened. The key player is the Taoiseach, who was Minister for Finance at that time. I do not know why he did it or what information he was given by his Department. Why did he not allow the corporate compliance statements to be introduced by the Financial Regulator in 2006? That would have had a major impact, in terms of corporate governance.
The draft terms of reference for the commission of inquiry limit it, interestingly, to the period from 1 January 2003 to 28 September 2008. The last two days of September are left out. They were the two days when the major discussions on the Government guarantee scheme took place. Furthermore, on page 120 of his report, Professor Honohan said:
This is probably the most significant financial decision taken in the history of the State, involving €440 billion of taxpayers’ money. It is frightening. In a footnote, Professor Honohan states:
Why was the solvency issue not considered? Why were balance sheets ballooning in the banks? Was their solvency not considered at the time? Anglo Irish Bank’s position was particularly pertinent in this regard.
Members of the board of Anglo Irish Bank came before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service today. They stated that €14 billion has gone into the bank. That money will never be seen by the taxpayer again. The board requires a further €8 billion, making €22 billion. Furthermore, they want another €2.5 billion of share capital to establish a good bank-bad bank. We need to know the details of these key fundamental issues.
I commend the motion to the House. The draft terms of reference for the commission of investigation must be widened by the Government. Fine Gael will propose this extension at the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. The terms of reference should include the political and policy context for the conduct of budgetary policy in 2005-08, including official advice given to the then Minister for Finance and the lessons to be learned; the political and policy context for the decision to extend tax reliefs for property developers in 2006 up to 31 July 2008, including the official advice to the Minister for Finance and the lessons to be learned; the political and policy context for the failure by the Financial Regulator to implement tighter compliance rules for bank directors; and the political and policy context for the decision to extend the bank guarantee scheme on 30 September to invest in long-term subordinated debt.
As Professor Honohan said, only sketchy records remain. We need to know exactly what happened. What was the political and policy context for the failure of the Department of Finance and the Financial Regulator, in December 2008, to stop Anglo Irish Bank from publishing financial records that misrepresented the strength of its customer base? What are the lessons to be learned from that? Anglo Irish Bank’s deposits went to Irish Life & Permanent as bank deposits, in effect, and came back as customer deposits. Why were these accounts allowed to be published in that context? Who knew what?
I commend this motion to the House. I hope Deputies on the Government side will appreciate that all we want is an inclusive commission of investigation. The Government should have nothing to worry about, in terms of the context. The public is entitled to get the facts in a clear, concise and comprehensive report on the all the individuals involved. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, what were his motives and those of his officials? I hope we will get support from all sides of the House. I commend the motion.
Deputy Seymour Crawford: I support the motion proposed by my colleague, Deputy O’Donnell. This important issue needs to be fully clarified and sorted out. Many small businesses and farmers in my constituency are under pressure because they cannot get proper banking facilities. That serious problem is a direct result of the crisis presided over by the current Government, as alluded to in the two reports. The preliminary reports on the banking crisis clearly blame the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen. His economic policies were a major cause of the crisis we are experiencing. The Taoiseach’s only defence is that his policies were based on the best available advice at the time. This argument has not been tested at length by either report.
The Taoiseach’s claim needs to be examined by a private commission of investigation, in the interests of democratic and public service accountability. We are looking for proper terms of [473]reference to be put in place so that the Taoiseach and those involved with him at the time are brought into the debate. They should be examined fully on their roles in what happened during the years in question.
When one examines the situation in Anglo Irish Bank, one must speak in terms of hundreds of thousands of euro. One of my colleagues chastised me when I spoke in terms of billions of euro the other night. I was told that people do not understand billions because they are not used to them. Hundreds of thousands of euro — taxpayers’ money — is going into Anglo Irish Bank. As Deputy O’Donnell has said, it is colossal and unforgivable. The bank in question has made it clear that unless it gets more money, the money it has received to date will not be of any service or use. Small industries and farmers are under severe pressure as a direct result of that. I emphasise that the people of this country, each of whom owes €20,000 as a result of this crisis, want to get a clear indication of how and why it happened. I do not believe those who caused the crisis can make sure it is rectified.
It is proposed that when the report of the commission of investigation is completed, it will be laid before the Oireachtas for further consideration. It will then be open to an Oireachtas committee to hold further hearings on it. The draft terms of reference require that the commission of investigation should complete its work within six months of its establishment. It is a joke that the terms of reference limit the issues to be covered to the failure of the bank managers, directors, auditors and regulators to protect the financial stability of their institutions and the country as a whole. I accept that all of these people played a role in the crisis, but it is completely unacceptable to suggest that the Government and the Minister for Finance of the time did not play a role in it.
The central findings of both of the preliminary reports — that the socioeconomic context for the individual failures of the banks and the regulator was the reckless and inflammatory policies pursued by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen — are being ignored. His policies ignored the contemporaneous warnings that the stability of the economy was being threatened and national competitiveness was being undermined. We have heard the Taoiseach say on many occasions that nobody warned him about what was happening. He was given umpteen warnings about it. He was Minister for Finance at the time when Deputy Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach. The only response the former Taoiseach gave at that stage was that those issuing such warnings should take a running jump and go somewhere else. I do not have his exact words to hand, but I recall that he said certain people should commit suicide. It is crazy for people to say the Government was not warned, or that nobody was angry or anxious about the situation.
I used to drive around villages in County Cavan on Sunday afternoons to look at the extraordinary numbers of houses that were being built. There was not a factory in sight. There was no word of any jobs being created, other than in the building industry. It did not make sense. Special arrangements were put in place in the Shannon basin so that those building houses could get tax relief. As part of the region was in County Cavan, in my constituency, I constantly received telephone calls from people in County Monaghan and other areas who wanted to know why developments in one area were eligible for tax relief but developments in other areas were not. It is bunkum for the Taoiseach to say he put an end to such arrangements as soon as he became Minister for Finance. The reports show clearly that did not happen — the tax reliefs were phased out over a long period of time.
No one is living in many of the houses that have been built in towns and villages throughout the country. We have to try to devise ways of ensuring those houses are used. Many people do not have their own houses at present. If we provide jobs in the areas in question, young people may use these houses in the future. It is not hard to see what has happened over the years. In [474]my own county of Monaghan, just 400 jobs have been created by outside industry over the last 30 years. No effort has been made by the Government, IDA Ireland or anybody else to bring jobs to the area. The jobs have gone to Dundalk, Sligo, Dublin, Galway and elsewhere but not to the Border region. Some of these matters can be sorted out.
I beg the Minister for Finance to ensure a little common sense is applied in this context. We are not asking for much. The issues highlighted in these reports have to be discussed if the work of the commission is to be relevant. It should be allowed to consider the actions of the present Taoiseach and his officials, so that a clearer picture starts to emerge. We need to ensure nobody in the history of this generation or the next allows a debacle of this nature to develop again. We have experience of the work of the new regulator — major questions have to be asked about how he dealt with the Quinn affair. Jobs that should not be lost are being lost. We have gone from total under-regulation to over-regulation. The only way we can solve this problem is by agreeing the simple resolution before the House, which would allow the proper people to be questioned and a proper report to be made. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for anything major.
Deputy Joe McHugh: On 3 July 2009, the Taoiseach said in this House that “nobody predicted what has happened globally or in Ireland”. The two preliminary reports into the banking crisis, which were presented to the Oireachtas earlier this month, suggest that the Government’s economic policies were a major cause of the crisis.
The Government’s draft terms of reference for the investigation are designed to protect the Government from being held publicly accountable. That is why Fine Gael, through this motion, wants to change these terms of reference. We find that the Taoiseach’s defence is unsustainable. His only defence has been that these policies were based on the best available official advice at the time. However, this argument has not been tested at length by either report.
On 3 July 2009, the Taoiseach said: “[N]obody predicted what has happened globally or in Ireland.” That argument is negated by the fact that among those who warned of the risks of the Government’s policies were Fine Gael — Deputies Kenny and Bruton warned time and again that the construction bubble was not sustainable — Professor Patrick Honohan, John FitzGerald and the ESRI, the National Competitiveness Council, the IMF, the OECD, The Economist, and, most importantly, the ordinary man in the street. Ordinary people had been predicting the bursting of the property bubble for more than a decade, and the Government, which has been in power for so long, had a responsibility to listen to these people.
Irish people are educated today. There was a time when a politician’s job was to form his or her own independent view; that time is gone. Our job as parliamentarians in this democracy — messengers of the people — is to listen to our constituents and use their views to inform our political decisions and choices. I challenge any politician who served in an Irish constituency between 2002 and 2007 to stand up in the House and say that the man in the street did not warn that the bubble was unsustainable.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Hear, hear.
Deputy Joe McHugh: Deputies Blaney and McDaid cannot say they were not warned on the streets of Letterkenny. Either that, or they were not listening to our people.
I will provide another quote for the Minister of State:
Without blowing my own trumpet, I will explain that this is a quote from a speech I gave in the Seanad on 23 November 2005. I will provide another quote from the Upper House:
These are also words spoken by me, on 5 July 2006. The Government should have listened to the people. We, as voices on the Opposition benches, tried to act as a conduit for the opinions of the people, but we were not listened to. This led me to form my own reply to the question: “What is the difference between the Seanad and the Dáil?” The difference is that in the Seanad one can say whatever one wants and nobody listens; in the Dáil one can say very little and everybody listens. These are two quotes from 2005 and 2006 that were not listened to by the Government.
The substance of the Fine Gael motion, which the Government wishes to amend, is a call on the Government to extend the terms of reference, as Deputy O’Donnell has already mentioned, to include the political and policy context for the decision to extend tax relief for property developers in 2006, including official advice given to the then Minister for Finance, who is now the Taoiseach, and the lessons to be learned. The then Minister’s failure in the final extension of the construction boom was the 2006 Act in which these reliefs were introduced.
Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. I am a practical politician; I am not interested in the prospect of punishing the Government for the sake of it. However, there must be accountability. These mistakes must not be made again.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: What the Opposition, and every person outside this House want is to find out the basis for what happened on that night in September 2008. They want to know the factors leading up to the decision that was taken to provide a blanket bank guarantee. It appears the Government is prepared to talk about everything and put every spin that is humanly possible on this scenario without coming to the point of how the decision was made.
I was a junior Minister for five years and I have seen all the documentation that must be provided even for the introduction of a sheep scheme.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: This was far short of a sheep scheme.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: One would want a wheelbarrow of information to justify it, including the reasons for its introduction, its evaluation and so on. Can one imagine, while we are talking about the concept of €440 billion, that at least the next three generations——
Deputy Paul Connaughton: ——will remember that night with pain, anxiety and bitterness?
I am delighted the Minister for Finance is here this evening. I have no doubt there was a particular reason, maybe a good reason, for the decision that was taken that night, but I do not know about it, and I am a Member of the Oireachtas. There are 4 million people here and they do not know. The least they would have expected, with all the investigations of every aspect of Irish life, is that everything up to and including the decision that was taken that night [476]would be opened up to investigation; but this has not happened. It is a bit like holding an investigation into a house burglary which deals with everything up to the night the robbery takes place but leaves the actual robbery out of it.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: Professor Honohan has outlined the whole thing in his report.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: The Minister must not have read the full report.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: Not at all. I do not have the time, in two or three minutes, to go through it all, but——
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Only sketchy records.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: Sketchy records.
Acting Chairman: Deputy Connaughton without interruption.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: Since the two reports have come out, the Minister and the Taoiseach have become professionals at spin. What they wanted to do——
Deputy Brian Lenihan: The Deputy’s party is learning fast.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: We will eventually become good at it. The Minister need not worry. In fairness, the Minister is a master at it. In spite of all the pointers, the Minister is now saying that nobody could have expected this; it was the Lehman Brothers collapse that was responsible for the whole thing. We never hear a word about the economy being overheated or our reliance on the building industry, although everyone in the country was talking about it.
I remember one famous occasion on which one of the Minister’s predecessors, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, gave his view on economics: “When I have it, I spend it and when I don’t, I don’t.” When he said that, he was sitting in the same seat the Minister is sitting in now. That is some basis for a rational way to run a country — when I have it, I spend it. Surely that is exactly what the Government did.
As far back as November 2005, the IMF explicitly warned the then Minister for Finance that “house price over-valuation in Ireland [was] large compared to other countries” and could not be explained solely by economic fundamentals. Just two months after that, the then Minister assured the national mortgage conference that there was “a consensus that the Irish mortgage and housing market has been strong over an extended period of years because the economic fundamentals of the Irish economy have been strong.” That is some statement. I assume that, and other similar statements, is to what Professor Patrick Honohan referred.
If there was any honesty in the Government, the Minister would make available every item of information so that the Irish people can make a judgment.
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I move amendment No. 1:
I agree with Deputy Connaughton’s last sentence and I will make the information in my Department about what happened on that evening available. I would be delighted to go before an Oireachtas committee to answer questions Deputy Connaughton or other committee members have. I do not wish to subject myself or the House to a tribunal that may last 14 or 15 years as these matters are examined.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Not a tribunal.
Deputy Paul Connaughton: We do not have to have a tribunal.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: Fine Gael tabled a private Members’ motion on the draft terms of reference of the commission of inquiry before its members had an opportunity to hear from the authors of the two reports and before the committee dealing with the matter had an opportunity to consider the terms of reference. The Government made it clear in its decision on these reports that it welcomes the views of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service regarding the terms of reference. I look forward to that discussion. I find it surprising the discussion has been pre-empted by the tabling of a motion. The Government submitted the draft terms of reference to the committee, drawn from the report of Mr. Watson, Herr Regling and Professor Honohan and carefully refined by the Attorney General.
[479]Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: More from Mr. Watson and Herr Regling than Professor Honohan.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: There is no question of a political attempt to exclude matters from the terms of reference or to make them less comprehensive than they should be. The terms of reference mirror the concerns of the reports and have been carefully refined by the Attorney General and the Government. This motion was tabled before Fine Gael listened to the authors of the reports, who have clarified a great deal of what was intended by the reports in their testimony before the Oireachtas committee. Apart from being bad mannered, it is an abuse of the good work of Professor Honohan, Herr Regling and Mr. Watson. It is clear the Fine Gael Party did not want a reasoned or informed discussion about the analysis in the reports. The name of the game is political advantage and that is fair enough but we must be clear that this is what is going on.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Quite the contrary.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: Let us not hear any more about transformational change from Deputy Bruton and let us hear no more about political cultural change. Political cultural change is not happening in the main Opposition party in respect of the handling of this issue. Last Friday, at the meeting attended by Herr Regling and Mr. Watson, Deputy Bruton pushed very hard to have these experts join a witch-hunt against the Taoiseach. They refused, with Herr Regling saying “it would be quite easy to blame persons or institutions” but that this would be to miss the point and would be far “too simple”. The simple soundbite is the essence of populist politics and that is what we have got and what we will continue to get from Fine Gael whatever the new or continued dispensation may be later in the week.
The authors of these reports and the citizens of the country deserve more. Last February I set out a comprehensive framework of investigation for these matters. I said that a comprehensive understanding of the events that took place in the banking sector in this country was an essential component of recovery. We have a duty as Members of the Oireachtas to ensure not only that the origins of the crisis are understood but that lessons are learned and that the international and domestic confidence in our banking system is restored so that our economy can return to growth.
At the first stage of the process of investigation, these two reports provide an authoritative examination of the crisis in the banking sector in Ireland. They also provide a solid basis for further investigation of a number of significant issues. The reports will be considered by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service with regard to the terms of reference. The committee has had two separate and lengthy engagements with the authors and I thank the members of the committee for engaging.
It is important to set out the issues that, in the Government’s view, require further investigation and how we propose to address these issues. I am more than willing to listen to different views expressed so we can try to come to a practical agreement on this matter. The Government has given extensive consideration to the two reports over several meetings. This has given rise to some criticism from the Opposition, who seem to think we should join them in the political football game they are playing with the reports. The Government proposes that the Oireachtas should begin to give serious consideration to the reports and the next steps leading to the establishment of a commission of investigation.
The report of Herr Regling and Mr. Watson examines the recent crisis in Ireland’s banking system as a whole to inform the future management and regulation of the sector. It analyses how different factors — external and domestic, macro economic and structural — interacted [480]to cause the banking crisis in Ireland. The authors advised the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service that the factors involved were multiple and complex. No single factor lay at the heart of the crisis. This is clear from the report’s key conclusions. They point out that the crisis was influenced in crucial ways by global events but that our difficulties arose from a property bubble, compounded by exceptional concentration of lending for property, and specifically for commercial property, to a limited number of key developers. The report says bank practices and governance failings exacerbated Ireland’s credit and property boom, leaving the economy vulnerable to a deep crisis, and depleted its fiscal and banking buffers when the crisis struck. Lending trends in the Irish banking sector were analysed and the pace of expansion and the rise in asset and funding risks should have rung alarm bells in banks on the management side and on their boards and in the supervisory structures.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: And in the Government.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: The authors did not say this should have taken place in the Government; they refer to the supervisory structures. They say bank supervision in Ireland was weak and the response of supervisors to the build-up of risks was not sufficiently hands-on or pre-emptive and was in some cases too mild to make a major impact on the risks. There was a failure of checks and balances within the banks. The Governor of the Central Bank is also forthright in his conclusions that the failures of regulation stem from a regulatory approach that was excessively deferential and accommodating, insufficiently challenging and not persistent enough. He refers to an under resourced approach to bank supervision that relied on good governance and risk management procedures and neglected quantitative assessment and the need to ensure sufficient capital to absorb the growing property related risks and the unwillingness of the Central Bank to take on board sufficiently the real risk of a looming problem.
The Governor’s report shared the view of the other two authors that the macro economic and fiscal policy played a central role in contributing to the crisis. The Governor takes the view that such policies contributed to economic overheating, relying to a clearly unsustainable extent on the construction sector and other transient sources for Government revenue. It is worth noting that Professor Honohan points out that while three quarters of the crisis was homegrown, the primary culprit in the generation of the crisis was the banking sector, the secondary culprits were those in the supervisory system and the Government is in the bronze position in that race.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I would not be overly happy with that.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: Nobody can be happy with what happened here. Opposition parties did not identify these problems. I do not often make that point because I accept Governments must take responsibility for what happened. As far as the Opposition is concerned, the proposals formulated in the last general election would have exacerbated the problem substantially. I refer especially to the proposals on stamp duty.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The following budget was a different matter.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: Let us not revisit those matters; let us consider the matters for further investigation. It is important to keep in mind that these reports are preliminary scoping reports that are intended to point the way to more detailed examination of specific issues by a statutory commission of investigation. It is important to state that the authors have all stated where the problems arose and that these reflected the actions of several elements, each of which interacted in mutually reinforcing ways. Both reports identified areas that should be investigated. [481] The terms of reference submitted by the Government faithfully reflect the concerns of the authors of the reports.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: In the Regling report but not the Honohan report.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: That is reflected in the report and what the authors of the report advised the committee. Professor Honohan seems to suggest there should be no further reports.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: No, he does not.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: He came close to saying that but the Government does not agree with the Governor in this respect. The Government believes there should be a commission of inquiry. The Governor did not make the case for the kind of investigation Fine Gael is calling for, and neither did Herr Regling and Mr. Watson. There is a reservation that must be entered and Herr Regling and Mr. Watson are careful to distinguish between key issues that are amenable to further investigation through a legally oriented process such as the commission of investigation and other issues that are less concrete and verifiable. Perhaps they are more appropriately the subject of policy review. A reservation must be entered and, in their report, Messrs. Regling and Watson are careful to distinguish between those issues which are amenable to further investigation through a legally orientated process such as a commission of investigation and other issues which are less concrete and verifiable and may be more appropriately the subject of policy review. The Government accepts this distinction and in its statement of last Wednesday set out how it proposed to take forward further consideration of these two different strands.
In regard to those areas for further investigation by a commission of investigation the report of Messrs. Regling and Watson sets out a comprehensive set of issues covering specific breaches of corporate governance and failures in risk management, which the report’s authors consider are amenable to a properly executed legally orientated process and a committee of investigation. For that reason, the Government prepared and published the draft terms of reference which seek to encapsulate these issues. The Government went beyond what the authors of the report suggested and also inserted the issue of any communications from the Department of Finance to the supervisory system.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: That was only for financial regulation, not for macro regulation.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: It was to the supervisory system. We shall come to macro advice in a moment. We are now at matters that can be subject to legally verifiable examination. Macro-economic policy is not one of those areas.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It should be.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is not, according to any of the authors of any of these reports. It is a matter we can argue about in this House and we can set up a procedure to devise how we want to test it but it is not a matter that can be investigated in a commission of inquiry. That is very clear from these reports. What their authors suggest is that we should have terms of reference to look at the banking system. The Government agrees with that and has also made clear, so that there will be no question that the banking system is somehow being insulated from the rest of the system, that the supervisory system and the accountancy profession should be part of that process and that in so far as there are any communications from the Department of Finance to the supervisory system, they should also be within the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry.
[482]Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: On a quick point of order——
Deputy Brian Lenihan: I doubt it is a point of order but I am in the Acting Chairman’s hands.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Please, there are other Members. There is no such thing as a point of order in regard to this debate.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: In a statement Mr. Karl Regling said ministerial advice should be provided.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): I ask the Minister to continue.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: Within each of the institutions guaranteed by the Government the main causes of the serious failures to implement and adhere to appropriate standards and controls should be examined, specifically in regard to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide building society, as should the main causes of the adoption by their senior management and the implementation by their boards and senior management of business models and strategies which caused severe financial distress in these institutions, the position of external auditors, supervisory system and any advices given by the Department thereto.
Let me draw the attention of the House to a number of points in regard to these draft terms of reference. First, both reports but, in particular, that of Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson, described in some detail the nature of the explosion in credit growth in the Irish banking sector and characterised the failures in governance and risk management in our banks as disastrous. This ultimately led to systemic difficulties in the banking system. Allied to the failures in internal controls is the need, as identified in both reports, to examine what exactly was said by the external auditors of these institutions. Second, it is clear that there were especially egregious failures in corporate governance and risk management at Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. In this context there are specific matters which are subject to investigation by the relevant authorities but there is a clear need to delve more broadly into what went wrong in these organisations while taking account of these investigations. Third, and building on the analysis by Professor Honahan of the failures of the organisation he now leads, there is a need to probe in more detail the nature of supervision and oversight by the Financial Regulator of the covered institutions. Fourth, the terms of reference propose that the commission should also examine whether the advice or directions given by my Department to the regulator in regard to the supervisory role were in any way relevant to the failures of the Financial Regulator.
One of the primary purposes of the preliminary reports was to crystallise those specific issues that are capable of further investigation by the legal process. This has now been achieved and the draft terms of reference set out by the Government provide a way forward to get to the bottom of that aspect outlined in the reports. In this context there is a necessity to ensure the issues are clearly defined to enable the commission to investigate fully the issues that are to be referred to it by the Oireachtas in as timely a manner as possible. I point out that the terms of reference published by the Government are draft only. The Oireachtas is invited now to provide its views on shaping these terms of reference. I will attend the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for that purpose. I did not wish to be present at the testimony of persons in respect of reports I had commissioned.
The Government proposes that when the joint committee has provided its views the final terms of reference will be put to a vote in both Houses of the Oireachtas in the form of a draft Government Order to establish a commission of investigation. I envisage that this vote should be taken by the end of June because I am anxious that the commission meet the six month [483]deadline. Deputies and others have taken time, rightly, to discuss the terms of reference for the commission and put forward suggestions that they be expanded to include policy issues within the scope. The Fine Gael motion before the Dáil today proposes to add a number of policy related elements to the terms of reference. I question the benefit of this approach which is completely at variance with the recommendations of Messrs. Regling and Watson. It completely ignores their distinction between issues that are capable of investigation through a legal process and other issues which are more appropriately the subject of policy review. That is why the Government has decided to consider the policy issues separately. As a Government, we fully accept the policy lessons set out in the report by Messrs. Regling and Watson. Again, they have set out the key policy issues in their report. The Government proposes to invite the Oireachtas finance committee for its views on those key policy lessons in the report. It is important that we analyse them and see how they can be implemented in our financial system.
There are a number of points in the Fine Gael motion and a question on fiscal policy. My time is short and I cannot go through all the arguments. I went through some last night. It is important to note that the design of fiscal policies is being examined at a European level as well in the wake of current difficulties in Europe. President von Rompuy’s taskforce is formulating proposals in this area.
In regard to tax reliefs, I do not wish to go over the substantial argument that has taken place already. There is a very long history of these tax reliefs and a very substantial appetite for them on all sides of the House. It is clear their days should be numbered and if we are to learn one lesson from the report it is that.
In regard to the scope of the guarantee and the decisions surrounding it, the Governor has given what he believes is a comprehensive examination of the issues surrounding the guarantee. He had access to the files of the Department as well as of those of the Central Bank and the regulator. Herr Regling and Mr. Watson said the Government’s crisis management was superb throughout the period. There are questions that can be asked legitimately in regard to Professor Honohan’s report but it is clear the report is comprehensive in its scope concerning the guarantee.
I cannot think of a better person to conduct the report than the current Governor of the Central Bank, an international expert on banking crises, who was not present on the night in question and who brought his own detached and very nuanced view to an analysis of the question and a balanced way to his presentation of the issues. I am happy to accept his conclusions — would that others did. The primary objective of the guarantee was to bolster confidence among senior investors in the wholesale capital markets in so far as the funding position of Irish banks was concerned. Of course, there are questions which were raised by Professor Honohan about consultation with other European countries. He believed that within the short time available and the very limited timescale greater consultation might have taken place. He also raises the question of subordinated debt. It is worth noting that no dated subordinated debt, or guaranteed form of that debt, has been paid in Anglo Irish Bank or Irish Nationwide building society since the guarantee, nor will any sum be paid until the expiration of the guarantee. I have made it clear the guarantee will not be extended in respect of dated subordinated debt after the end of September. That said——
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: What about senior debt?
Deputy Brian Lenihan: The question regarding senior debt, which was already issued, was raised by Professor Honohan in his report but was not brought to a conclusion by him. If one examines the appendix to the report, he makes the point there is a fundamental distinction in law between the position in the United States, where, as a result of the bank resolution legis[484]lation, a distinction can be drawn between bondholders and depositors, and the position in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Many Irish bonds are subject to English law where no such distinction can be drawn. That is certainly an issue we should examine in the context of the resolution legislation for the banking system.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: He brought it up at the committee.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: I have made it clear I am prepared to make available to the finance committee the entire file of my Department on this matter, take whatever questions the committee wishes to ask me and be accompanied there by my officials. I did a similar presentation to that committee in February or March of the year before last and have no objection to attending the committee — nor has the Taoiseach — to clarify any outstanding questions committee members may have. I want to thank Professor Honohan for the comprehensive nature of his work on the guarantee.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): There are 12 minutes left, so the remaining three Deputies have four minutes each.
Deputy Michael McGrath: I welcome the opportunity to make some brief remarks in support of the Government amendment to the Fine Gael motion on the two preliminary banking inquiry reports. When he came before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service yesterday, Professor Honohan summarised succinctly the main contributory factors that led to the banking crisis. He pointed out the comprehensive failure of bank management and direction to maintain safe and sound banking practices. He referred to the failings of the regulatory approach to contain the breaches of proper banking practice. He highlighted the contributory role of macro-economic and budgetary policies as well.
It is important to point out that the Regling and Watson report emphasised to a significant degree the international factors that contributed to the crisis, including the monetary conditions that prevailed in the eurozone area and the availability of liquidity. They were circumspect in attributing a weighting to the various factors that led to the crisis. Professor Honohan did allocate 75% of the responsibility to domestic factors, but he put those factors in a hierarchy and he made it clear that the primary responsibility Ireland lay with the directors and senior managers of the banks. The secondary contributory factor was the catastrophic failure of the regulatory function, while he also referred to the macro-economic and fiscal policy of the Government as a third factor, “taking the bronze”, as the Minister put it.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: We have shifted the blame on to the managers now. That is a subtle shift in position.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Deputy Sherlock, you will get your turn.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: We have gone to the bronze medal now.
Deputy Michael McGrath: It has been interesting to listen to Labour Party Members talk about the bank guarantee, which they opposed resolutely. Professor Honohan made it quite clear that the guarantee was required.
Deputy Joan Burton: Professor Honohan agreed with us.
Deputy Michael McGrath: The Deputy needs to get her reading glasses. According to Professor Honohan, the guarantee was required, because otherwise there would have been a [485]likely collapse of the Irish banking system within days in the absence of decisive, immediate action, causing immediate and lasting damage to the economy and society. There would have been additional lost income and employment, surely amounting, if it could be quantified, to tens of billions of euro. That was his clear conclusion, which completely contradicts the Labour Party policy on the guarantee——
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The Deputy missed the vital part of that paragraph.
Deputy Michael McGrath: At least Fine Gael got that part of it right.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Will the Deputy talk about subordinated debt?
Deputy Michael McGrath: Both of the main Opposition parties are in the dock in respect of Anglo Irish Bank. They have both been consistently saying that Anglo Irish Bank was not systemic and that it should have been allowed to go to the wall. Professor Honohan makes it clear that the bank was systemically important at the end of September 2008.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The Deputy is being very selective.
Deputy Michael McGrath: I know it is very uncomfortable for Opposition Deputies to hear these facts, but it is important to put them on the record.
Deputy Michael McGrath: Professor Honohan made it clear that the bank was systemically important. He said that “There can be little doubt that a disorderly failure of Anglo would ... have had a devastating effect on the remainder of the Irish banks”. He went on to state that “in all likelihood the main banks would have run out of cash within days”. That is the summary of Professor Honohan’s ideas on the consequences of the Labour Party policy of letting Anglo Irish Bank go to the wall in a disorderly fashion.
Deputy Joan Burton: Is Deputy McGrath saying that the Minister for Finance lied to the House at the time of the bank guarantee?
Deputy Michael McGrath: I look forward to engaging further with the Minister at the Oireachtas finance committee, which has had very constructive engagements with Professor Honohan, Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson in the last few days.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: Why not have a public inquiry?
Deputy Michael McGrath: We can hold an examination in public session of the macro-economic policy lessons and the fiscal policy lessons to ensure that they are learned. It is important to have some balance and put on the record the failings of the Opposition parties in this area.
Deputy Niall Collins: I am glad to contribute to the debate tonight. It is livening up nicely. At the outset, I would like to congratulate my Limerick colleague, Deputy O’Donnell, on his elevation to the Fine Gael front bench. I hope he has a long and fruitful career. I do not know whether it was because he declared or switched sides today, but we will leave that to some other forum.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: How is that relevant?
[486]Deputy Niall Collins: It is refreshing again to hear the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance state that they will make themselves available to the commission of inquiry when it is constituted. All the factors need to be discussed and they also said they would make all the documents available.
Much has been made of this famous September night of the bank guarantee.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: A guarantee of some €440 billion was provided.
Deputy Niall Collins: The Minister will appear before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service to detail the events of that night, and it is right and proper that he has committed to make himself available to attend.
I welcome the two reports produced by our three independent learned friends. They are very good and I do not think anybody disputes their findings. The only quibble I would have with them is that they do not contain a critique of the policies of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party. The reports would be more complete if they contained such a critique. Their election manifestos promised spending left, right and centre based on a predicted growth of the economy——
Deputy Joan Burton: Not as much as Fianna Fáil did.
Deputy Niall Collins: The point is that these parties promised to do it, and they are now conveniently trying to forget about it.
The public wants to see how we are going to get ourselves out of this. We are constantly articulating our policies on this side of the House.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: The Government will not be able to do anything after spending €22 billion on Anglo Irish Bank.
Deputy Niall Collins: I will come to Labour Party policies in a minute, but I will start with my Fine Gael friends.
Deputy Michael McGrath: If the Labour Party had its way, it would be €42 billion.
Deputy Niall Collins: I have stated to Deputy O’Donnell on many occasions that Fine Gael has a fanciful policy in respect of the NewERA document, promising 105,000 jobs but not mentioning Limerick city or county once. We can confirm that by Googling Limerick on the document.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Has the Deputy seen the midwest policy in the NewERA document?
Deputy Niall Collins: There is no mention of Limerick in that document.
Our friends in the Labour Party voted against the criminal justice legislation. They are happy to have crime all over the streets of our small towns in Ireland.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: How many cases have been tried under that legislation?
Deputy Niall Collins: It had absolutely no position on the Croke Park talks. It has an ill thought out position on the strategic investment bank——
[487]Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Deputy Sherlock, I will have to ask you to leave the House if you keep interfering.
Deputy Niall Collins: What the people want to see is policy on crime, policy on jobs and policy on banking. The Labour Party is defunct in all those areas because there is an absence of policy. It might be riding high in the opinion polls, but as we get nearer to election time, the people will focus on its absence of policies and I wish its members the best of luck then.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: The most extraordinary case of a Labour Party member sitting on the fence was when a representative in my constituency came to a meeting and told the 300 angry farmers in County Meath — many of them angry with us — that he was not allowed to discuss his own personal position on the issue of stag hunting, because the Labour Party had not decided on it yet. That is indicative of what the Labour Party has been about.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: That is only rubbish; ráiméis in ainm Dé.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: It has no policies. It has nothing. We have also had to listen to Deputy Burton tonight. Any independent person who has read Professor Honohan’s statement on the systemic importance of Anglo Irish Bank would be deeply shocked by what the finance spokesperson of the Labour Party has said tonight. Professor Honohan said there were three aspects of the test on whether a bank was systemic. He looked at academic literature on how to decide if a bank was of systemic importance. He concluded that a bank was of systemic importance——
Deputy Joan Burton: He said the bank failed two out of the three tests.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: He said it was systemic because it passed any of those factors.
Deputy Joan Burton: He said it was because of the Fianna Fáil toxic triangle with developers and bankers——
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Deputy Burton, please address the Chair.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: The factor that was crucially important was the impact that it would have on other banks. Any collapse of Anglo Irish Bank would have an immediate impact on the other banks in Ireland. When Professor Honohan says something that is liked by Opposition Deputies, they will all welcome it, but when he says something about Anglo Irish Bank with which they do not agree, then they will disagree with him. They have disagreed with him as well on aspects of the NAMA proposal.
Deputy McGrath told me that Mr. Aynsley, at the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, stated that the winding down of Anglo Irish Bank over a year or two would cost €42 billion. This is a disgraceful situation, but it is not one that this party or this Government brought about.
Deputy Joan Burton: Is the Deputy saying the Government did not bring about what has happened at Anglo Irish Bank? He should come off it. Does he write fairy tales for young children?
Deputy Thomas Byrne: Listening to the Opposition, one would think that the Minister for Finance was sitting up in the Department writing out loan approvals. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is apt.
Deputy Joan Burton: No, you did them in the Galway tent.
[488]Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Senior Anglo Irish Bank figures——
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Deputy O’Donnell please.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It is there in black and white.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: Fianna Fáil wined and dined them or else it was the other way around.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: The majority of Fianna Fáil backbenchers, Ministers and members have never come across——
Deputy Joan Burton: Did they have a special dinner?
Deputy Thomas Byrne: ——any senior officials of Anglo Irish Bank. They have never dealt with Anglo Irish Bank. Those allegations will be refuted. They are not true. We have no connections with it whatsoever. We knew nothing about it.
Deputy Joan Burton: For what did they give Brian Cowen a special dinner?
Deputy Thomas Byrne: I never heard of it in all my time as a commercial solicitor. I never had anything to do with it and never would. It is a disgraceful bank and people need to be punished.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Professor Honohan said this. Does Deputy Byrne not like what he said?
Deputy Thomas Byrne: Deputy O’Donnell will not tar all of the party on this. It is apt that the Minister used the analogy of the bronze medal. Yes, the Government has responsibility for what went on but other people also have responsibility, including people outside the country. The only focus of the Opposition is on politics and policy. The place for politics and policy is at election time. Do not get too carried away by polls because last year, when The Irish Times had a party at 25% it received 15% in the local elections and I am confident it will happen again when the arguments are put forward to the Irish people. There is a complete lack of politics and policy.
Who started the auction in the general election? I clearly recall it was the Labour Party which stated taxes are down and will stay down, and an 18% tax rate.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: Based on Department of Finance figures.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: We are being criticised for a fiscal policy with unsustainable tax rates. The Labour Party made a policy decision to have low income taxes, which policy is now shown to have been unsustainable because if one has low income taxes one will be dependent on other taxes, in this case property stamp duty. We saw the Opposition seeking to abolish stamp duty, which would have massively inflated and increased the property bubble. I was glad the Minister reminded the House last night that Deputies Bruton and O’Donnell put forward a proposal earlier this year, in an amendment to the Finance Bill, for a property based tax relief for doctors.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: That was completely different.
Deputy Michael McGrath: It was a property tax relief.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It was a form of grant for medical centres.
[489]Deputy Thomas Byrne: They all added up and contributed to the situation. One property tax relief abolished this year was for child care facilities. Who could argue against that? However, it did contribute to the situation as did all tax reliefs.
Deputy Joan Burton: I wish to share time with Deputies Seán Sherlock and Arthur Morgan.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Joan Burton: I want to return to the Honohan report in view of the outrageous way the Taoiseach, Fianna Fáil Ministers and a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies with supplied scripts have tried to abuse the report.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: We do not need scripts.
Deputy Seán Connick: Deputy Burton has the wrong Fianna Fáil man there.
Deputy Joan Burton: One of you made a bad mistake in the script so you need to check it out. I will give you the advice later.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Deputy Burton should address the Chair.
Deputy Joan Burton: It casts seriously bad reflections on their Minister.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The scripts were not up to standard.
Deputy Joan Burton: Professor Honohan enjoys an enviable and deserved reputation among his peers at home and abroad. That reputation was enhanced by the report he presented last week on the cause of Ireland’s banking collapse and he is entitled to have his findings treated with respect and due consideration by everyone in this House. I was pleased when the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, chose Professor Honohan to be Governor of the Central Bank. It was a courageous and enlightened decision and I welcomed it immediately and publically on behalf of the Labour Party.
Yesterday, Professor Honohan expressed scepticism on the value of a special commission of inquiry. His reservations should be discussed by all parties represented in the House, perhaps in a private meeting with the Governor, and there could be common ground thereafter on how to proceed. The Minister should give due consideration to this.
The Governor enjoys confidence at the moment but that confidence could be eroded easily if Ministers act as they did yesterday and this evening to deliberately distort what he wrote last week. English is a flexible language but yesterday the Taoiseach stretched the ordinary meanings of words beyond belief to extract vindication for his past actions and policies from sections of both reports that quite unambiguously said the exact opposite.
I go back again to the section on the bank guarantee. I have read it again and again because I believe the decisions that have to be made about an exit strategy from that guarantee in a few months constitute some of the most critical decisions to be made this year, of equal significance to the budgetary decisions before December. If Ministers read the Honohan report with no motive other than to claim they were right all along on every banking decision they made, then they have a mindset that is truly frightening and dangerous for our country and our people.
On 30 September 2008, the Government gave a blanket guarantee to the major domestic players in Irish banking, including Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. The Labour Party dissented that day from the blanket nature of the guarantee offered though we broadly supported a policy to protect depositors. I wrote to the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, a week [490]or two prior to knowing the bank guarantee was coming, to suggest that to him, and it is on the public record. Fine Gael was foolish to offer unconditional consent to the Government that day and ought to have joined the Labour Party in seeking to limit the scope of the guarantee. At the time the term I used was not to give a blank cheque and Fine Gael was foolish to offer Fianna Fáil a blank cheque in this respect.
What does Governor Honohan say about the guarantee decision in his report? Yes, he acknowledged that some level of guarantee was required. He uses the words “extensive guarantee” to describe what was necessary in the light of the undoubted turmoil in the international markets at the time. So far so good for beleaguered Ministers. This is where they choose to gild the lily and to twist the meaning of the Governor’s words for their own purposes. The plain word “extensive” has been stretched to a wholly new meaning. “Extensive” in the Fianna Fáil vocabulary now means “total” or “blanket”, which in his report the governor positively excludes.
Yesterday, the Taoiseach was barefaced in his arrogant twisting of language when he claimed the Governor’s endorsement of an extensive guarantee means total support for the specific blanket guarantee. If one were to read the entire section of Professor Honohan’s report one could not fail to get a very different view. This section concerns far more than the issue of subordinated debt. That part of the guarantee was bad enough in itself but as people have stated it amounted to only €12 to €14 billion, which is a lot of money but nothing compared with the totality of €440 billion. However, Professor Honohan goes much further than this and questions the nature of the given guarantee in a far more fundamental way than the question of subordinated bonds.
I want to read into the record the full paragraph which states:
How can anyone with a grasp of plain English interpret these words as a wholehearted endorsement of Government policy? He clearly objects to the inclusion of subordinated debt. More than that, he explicitly questions the wisdom of extending cover to pre-existing bonds. Certainly, it was important to guarantee new bonds from that date but to give cover to existing bonds simply added to the level of State exposure to losses.
The Government and the Department came around to that view with the ELG scheme for which they got permission from the European Union in recent times.
[491]Ministers have repeatedly asserted that the Irish guarantee policy was followed by many other countries, which is not true. The Irish decision to guarantee the full stock of existing debt was unique and reckless. Many countries certainly covered new bond issues but not in the way the Taoiseach did and his particular Irish solution to an Irish problem has left our taxpayers on the hook for all of Anglo Irish Bank losses. Who did not hear Mr. Mike Aynsley today who said €22 billion is gone? The Fianna Fáil members whose eyes were going through the roof of whatever hair they have left could not believe it. He repeated it two or three times. He said we need to face up to the fact that €22 billion is gone. Think what €22 billion would do in Wexford.
Deputy Seán Connick: It would do very well.
Deputy Joan Burton: The overhang of these losses weigh heavily on our country’s capacity to source borrowings at reasonable cost. Yesterday the NTMA had another successful bond auction but at a price that must cause ripples of anxiety in the Department of Finance. Mr. Paul Krugman, in an article in The New York Times today, makes exactly the same point and compares our bond rates with those of Spain. The notion that Ireland is taking a huge austerity hit when the underlying fundamentals were weakened by the guarantee in precisely the way Professor Honohan points out is the cause of the continuing large premium which we pay over German bond rates because we have ended up with too much national debt as a consequence of the Fianna Fáil move. That is as simple an analysis I can make.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: The fundamentals were strong.
Deputy Joan Burton: There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. There are none so blind as those who refuse to read an official report in its entirety and want only to extract this or that paragraph they can twist and twist for their own purposes. It is most unfortunate that Ministers are unwilling to recognize the any flaws in the September 2008 guarantee. These flaws are honestly recognized by Professor Honohan. They are extremely serious and may prove to be very costly as early as this autumn when the banks have to roll over as much as a further €74 billion in debt.
We again heard some phoniness today, namely, that we are deeming the sub-debt at an attractive price and then rolling it over at a higher interest rate. To be honest one produces a book profit but the ongoing costs, as I am sure the departmental representatives know, are consequently much higher. I said that the Taoiseach cannot fully come to terms with what he did. When he was Minister for Finance he refused to recognise that the issue of the millionaires paying no tax was something which was rooted in the property-based tax breaks. It took him years to do anything about it. He referred yesterday to reigning in property-based tax breaks from 2005.
Deputy Seán Connick: He did that.
Deputy Joan Burton: In the large print he reigned them in and then extended them. It was like saying, “Roll up, roll up property developers. You have your last six months, year, two years or three years”. Mr. Regling, that very nice German man who is now, thankfully, in control of the stabilisation fund — I hope he thinks kindly of Ireland even though he was shocked by his experience — said to me after a committee meeting that he did not realise that the Irish situation in terms of tax expenditure on property was three times any other example he could find in the eurozone. He did not mop his brow but he gave a very good Germanic impression of being shocked and of never having heard the like of it before.
[492]Let us get real. What else did the Taoiseach do? Stamp duty avoidance is covered in section 110. Developers could avoid stamp duty at a time when young couples were paying fortunes to trade up from a first property to become second time buyers and perhaps move from a three to a four bedroomed house. Developers could use pre-section 110 to avoid stamp duty, rest on contracts and various other devices. Goodbody Stockbrokers compiled a report which told the Taoiseach, the then Minister for Finance that it costed €250 million in 2005-06.
What did the Taoiseach do? Apparently a famous developer made an approach to the Department of Finance — this story has been told in several newspapers and I followed it intensely at the time — and the Taoiseach, the then Minister for Finance, introduced the section to the Finance Bill before the general election. He then had Goodbody Stockbrokers conduct a study, which was never implemented. That was giving in to vested interests by a serving Minister for Finance which was wrong.
What else did he do? I had a discussion with him in November 2006. I was the first person to mention companies such as Start Mortgages peddling sub-prime debt in the House. He told me to buzz off and that it was not a problem. People were knocking door to door in housing estates in my constituency and that of the Minister of State telling people if their debt was only €70,000 they could have a loan for €150,000 on the value of their house and could buy a car, go on a holiday, get a new kitchen and up their mortgages because they could meet the repayments. Many people who remortgaged are underwater. The Taoiseach is on the record. He would not even listen in November 2006 when it was specifically brought to attention.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: I will start by nailing the lie that is coming from the Fianna Fáil benches in regard to the Labour Party and any policies it may or may not have. I invite Deputies McGrath, Collins and Byrne to take a look at the Labour Party website. Therein they will see at least 50 position and policy papers on a wide range of subjects from tourism right through the economy. I invite them, in particular, to take a look at the Labour Party proposals on the creation of a strategic investment bank that will get this economy up and running again.
Deputy Seán Connick: How much money are we talking about?
Deputy Joan Burton: Do not look too closely. You might copy it. That is what you are worried about.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: It will create wealth and jobs and will be used in a manner which is productive and will grow the economy, through the National Pensions Reserve Fund and can be used effectivity to get this economy up and running again. I want to nail this lie which is now emerging from Fianna Fáil that somehow we are a party which is devoid of policies. It is an insult to the intelligence of anybody in the Labour Party who put their names to a ballot paper because it suggests somehow that we were devoid of any kind of substance politically before we ever decided to enter politics
We have always been a policy-driven party. I invite people to take a look at our record in terms of our involvement in this House down through the years and ages. The record will speak for itself on that matter. When we are in Government the people of this country will see that we will do our best for them and will not be pandering to vested interests.
On the reports, nobody, including me who is on my first mandate, had perfect knowledge on the fateful night of September on the Government’s position or the true picture of where the banks stood. It is right and proper that when we are legislating in this House that every single Deputy who is given a mandate in this House has perfect knowledge. It is very clear [493]now — we do not seek to take political advantage from it — that the guarantee which was given on that night was too wide-ranging. It was too big a blanket, in terms of how it covered the individual banks.
Anybody who examines the reports in any objective fashion will see that it was too wide ranging. Anybody who is an ordinary decent citizen of this land will see that the cost of covering Anglo Irish Bank has been €22 billion so far, if I am not mistaken.
The €22 billion spent thus far is money that the next Government will be down in terms of being able to provide services to the ordinary decent citizens of this country. Fianna Fáil Deputies will be lambasting us from the other side of the House for not delivering services because we will be down €22 billion. This is Fianna Fáil’s classic game. It is acting as surreptitiously as possible and is spinning the story that winding down the bank in an orderly manner will cost a multiple of €22 billion, even though we do not know that for certain.
Deputy Michael Ahern: If we followed the Labour Party’s policies, it would cost €44 billion.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: We want transparency so that every citizen, regardless of his or her political affiliation, can decide whether the Government of the day is doing a decent job.
These independent reports clearly have not vindicated the Government’s position. Their criticism of past macro-economic policy and the over reliance on tax breaks is as clear as the nose on my face. The bottom line is good governance in the banks, a proper regulatory framework and a public inquiry that allows us to understand the relationship between politics and banking so that we can develop legislation that ensures the chicanery we have become used to over the past decade will be no more.
Deputy Arthur Morgan: I thank Labour Party Deputies for sharing their time with me. The House has become too quiet. Just before the Ceann Comhairle entered the Chamber, the debate was very interesting and the bell was going so often that I thought it was calling us to second mass at home on a Sunday morning.
Deputy Seán Sherlock: Would the Deputy have done two masses?
Deputy Arthur Morgan: I would have done two masses easily and the bell would have been heard three counties away. The House has become quieter since then, however.
Sinn Féin welcomes these reports but there is still a long way to go. The reports undoubtedly capture some of what happened but people seem to fall for the bluff every time. During the 2007 election campaign, Fine Gael and the Labour Party were substantially ahead of the Government until a little tremor occurred in the final few weeks. I will leave it to others to decide whether that was due to a television interview or a debate. The tax auction reached the point where I thought no tax would be collected in the subsequent year. The public fell for it when they were told the good times would last forever even though the more measured heads among us cautioned otherwise. The Ceann Comhairle will attest that land prices in our constituency were such that one could not afford to purchase a square metre. People had to borrow small fortunes to buy sites in the areas in which they were born and reared. In some cases, people were getting loans for house extensions without ever filling in or signing a form. How was that sustainable?
The crisis arose on two fronts, the personal and the corporate. I have just given a flavour of the personal aspects in my part of the world but the corporate aspect was really interesting. One of the best examples is the Glass Bottle site, which was sold for a multiple of its value. The story of that purchase remains to be told in detail but, of course, our old Seánie was up [494]to his neck in it. He was not only in a conflict of interest by lending money to a body of which he was a board member but it is no secret who appointed him. The reports indicate that the practice of what some high office holders regarded as putting the right people in the right places was par for the course. The Honohan report states in a footnote: “Although it became quite clear to top FR decision-makers that senior Anglo figures were well-liked in political circles”. The author never quite explained what he meant by that fascinating insight when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service earlier this week. I will not rehearse further extracts from the report because if I did so, I would want to read it again in its entirety.
The motion also deals with the establishment of the commission of investigation. I am concerned about the exclusion of Government policy from the terms of reference of the commission because this was the main cause of the crisis. An all-party Oireachtas committee should be established to closely investigate what happened. It is critical that a consensus be achieved on the terms of reference rather than having them imposed by the Government. We need to merge the two reports.
Transparency in Government and the banking system is integral to the reputation of a financial sector which serves the needs of everyone in this State. Nothing short of public scrutiny is acceptable from the banking inquiry. We must call to account Ministers, leaders of political parties, top bankers and the regulatory institutions which succumbed to an unruly financial sector. The inquiry should be completely public and conducted on an all-party basis with the support of outside experts. The systemic failures that pre-empted this banking crisis and the fact that many of those involved are still in their positions requires a fully transparent examination of the facts.
The Government excluded its fiscal policy from the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry, focusing instead on the role of regulation and internal management within the banks. However, the Minister for Finance has asked the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service to prepare a report on the Government’s macro-economic policy. While this aspect of public scrutiny is welcome, the manner in which the inquiry is being conducted is unacceptable. The taxpayer is being put to further expense because we have, on the one hand, a Judiciary-led inquiry tasked with investigating some aspects of the crisis and relying heavily on the work conducted by Patrick Honohan and, on the other, an investigation by the joint committee into the Government’s macro-economic policies. This is being done on foot of the two preliminary reports released last week. The public deserves an holistic inquiry into the banking crisis. The crisis did not occur because of isolated and unrelated events and as such, the inquiry should be conducted jointly.
After all, Irish banks went on a reckless spending spree, having been encouraged to do so by venal politicians who actively discouraged regulation and provided a phenomenal array of tax breaks to developers at a time of cheap money and easy credit. As we all know, Fianna Fáil Party politics acted as a catalyst for the crisis.
The invitation extended to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service falls short in that it is not an all-party committee and there would not be sufficient cross-party representation on the committee which is conducting the investigation into the Government’s macroeconomic policy. To lock this inquiry into a restrictive commission of investigation with inadequate terms of reference and a veil of secrecy is unacceptable. Furthermore, splitting the investigation into a two-pronged inquiry by the commission and Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service is inadequate.
[495]Those who have suffered most from the failures of the banking crisis will not be privy to full, open disclosure during the course of the commission inquiry. Rather, the commission and separate committee reports may end up couching the faults of the Government and letting it off the hook again, which would not be acceptable.
Today’s meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service heard that large swathes of the population are suffering, with people losing their homes and businesses. Many are tormented and cannot sleep at night, such is the level of debt they owe. In many cases, their problems are not of their own making because they did not have available to them the financial expertise available to bankers and lenders. Lenders failed to take cognisance of the financial constraints that should have applied in such cases. The consequences of this failure have been catastrophic.
Moreover, €22 billion has been invested in Anglo Irish Bank and the joint committee was informed this morning that a further sum of at least €10 billion will be required. What is taking place is frightening and unacceptable. Let us hope we can get a shape on it sooner rather than later.
Deputy Michael Ahern: I commend the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, and Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson on their reports. I propose to refer to statements made at a meeting between the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson on Friday last, at which Mr. Regling stated:
I propose to address a number of issues arising from the motion. It notes, for instance, “the conclusion in the Honohan report that the Minister for Finance and his officials exercised influence on the Financial Regulator in 2006 to the effect that a proposed tightening to the [496]quality of governance of bank directors was not implemented”. None of the reports mentions names or refers to any Minister for Finance.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Names are mentioned on page 51 of Professor Honohan’s report.
Deputy Michael Ahern: The motion also states that the Honohan report excoriated the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, for extending “property tax reliefs for developers in 2006 at the height of the property bubble”. The Minister reduced many of the tax reliefs available at that time. When asked the reason he did not abolish property tax reliefs immediately, it was pointed out that such a step would have had legal consequences.
Deputy Burton indicated that the Government’s policy on Anglo Irish Bank is costing €22 billion. As was explained to the joint committee, the closure and liquidation of the bank would cost up to €45 billion. The Labour Party should explain the reason it supports a policy that would result in a €45 billion loss to the economy.
I regret I do not have more time. I commend the authors of the two recent reports on the important work they have done on behalf of society.
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Billy Kelleher): I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. As the Taoiseach stated in another debate, history is continually being rewritten and a great deal of revisionism is taking place. While it is unusual to have history written as the relevant events are unfolding, we should not be in the least surprised by anything that occurs in this House.
If people wish to speak on this issue, they should read the relevant reports and listen to what the reports’ authors have to say when they appear before committees of the House. Professor Honohan, Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson have been at pains to point out that to point the finger of blame for the banking crisis at one agency, authority or individual or at Government fiscal policy is to engage in simplistic assessment.
I would like to address a number of issues but unfortunately I do not have sufficient time to do so. It is important to note, however, when analysing Professor Honohan’s report, that the Opposition’s contention that we should not have guaranteed Anglo Irish Bank because it was not of systemic importance is factually incorrect. In Chapter 8.43, Professor Honohan states:
This statement demonstrates that Anglo Irish Bank was of systemic importance and the decisions made on the bank guarantee were crucial in maintaining the integrity of our banking system and allowing the difficulties that were becoming evident in Anglo Irish Bank to be [497]addressed in an orderly manner. It is equally important to note that there would have been systemic failure in the two major banks in a matter of days if the bank guarantee of September 2008 had not been introduced.
The Regling and Watson reports and the Honohan report outline the many reasons for the pro-cyclical fiscal policy and inflationary pressures building in the economy in the context of credit flows and the development of the property bubble. Equally people should be honest in this House. On trawling the Dáil records I have yet to find anybody who said the Government should have been spending less money on the needs of our people at that time in the area of health, education and social welfare and across the infrastructural development of the country.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It needs to be sustainable.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The Deputy should read his party’s manifesto which was more inflationary.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: That is becoming a mantra used by all Fianna Fáil Deputies tonight.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The actions Fine Gael was encouraging the Government to take in the abolition of stamp duty would have been further fuel to a fire that was beginning to run out of control.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Absolutely.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Page 51 of the report states that the then Minister for Finance raised the issue of competitiveness. People were conscious of that and were trying to make decisions.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It is competitiveness about the banks. The Minister of State does not know what he is saying.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: Nobody on that side of the House raised the issue. The Deputy can look at the record and will see that everything advocated on that side of the House was pro-cyclical and inflationary, and would have done further damage and added fuel to the fire. The two reports are timely and welcome. We should get on with the further investigations and inquiry into what went wrong. More importantly now is the time to be honest and deal with the challenging issues of that are a consequence of the difficulties nationally and internationally in the context of the world recession and our internal difficulties.
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Tá mé buíoch as an deis chun labhairt ar son an rúin seo inniu.
If not all, then certainly the vast majority of people in this House entered into public life in an effort to serve. Whatever our individual beliefs and convictions, I believe there should be a degree of parliamentary respect based on this. Stooping to the level of accusations of economic treason as was the recent case, discredit the Houses of the Oireachtas and those who make them. The Taoiseach has been unfairly accused of many things over the past week and in recent years. As a fair and honest man he has also had the courage to express regret for those things which he would, with hindsight, have done differently.
I know that the Members of the Opposition share our commitment to the country and to making it a better place, but I challenge their representation of the decisions and motives of the Taoiseach and the Government in the lead-up to the financial crisis. While we may attack policies and become impassioned in that attack, resorting to personal and populist attacks that [498]call into question the personal integrity of the Taoiseach is never justified. The Taoiseach has given a lifetime of service to this House and to the country, and he will continue to serve until the people and not the Opposition or commentators judge otherwise.
Government policy, for as long as I have been a party to it, has been framed with a view to protecting the weak and vulnerable, allowing the young to make the best possible start in life and distributing what resources the State had available to it in line with the needs of its citizens. Economic growth was not pursued as an end in itself and was not pursued for the few, but for the many. Economic prosperity was the means by which employment might be created, the infrastructure of the country upgraded, the basic services upon which we rely — services provided by doctors, teachers, gardaí— improved and afforded, and living standards raised for all through shared prosperity.
There is no question but that living standards improved dramatically over the lifetime of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led administrations that governed since the mid 1990s. It is widely accepted that the seeds of this prosperity were sown during the more collegiate Dáil of 1987 — where the needs of the country and the common good were pursued at the expense of cheap political point scoring and a meaningless blame game. As identified in the Regling and Watson report on the banking crisis, the economic well being of the country led to an era of increased expectations and optimism for Irish society at large. One of the key challenges that the increased prosperity of the late 1990s and early part of the last decade produced was in the housing market. As many will recall, and as identified in the report on the banking crisis, there was and is a cultural predisposition in this country towards property ownership. Historically low and stable interest rates, low inflation, falling tax rates and increasing wages all contributed to higher disposable incomes and created a perfect storm that led to unprecedented demand for housing.
The Opposition contends that this and previous Governments took no action to cool the property market and that this, along with the failure to eliminate certain property-related tax incentives made a property bubble and crash inevitable. The first part of this thesis is factually incorrect and the latter part displays a wanton disregard or a lack of understanding of the role that tax incentives played in the property market.
The Opposition lays the blame for the property crash squarely at the door of the Government, largely for its failure to curb property-related tax incentives. While it is readily accepted that certain tax incentives could have been more targeted, it is important to be clear that these incentives were not introduced to enrich developers but rather to fulfil certain infrastructural needs that were identified by various Government agencies. Property breaks geared at increasing the number of hotels were introduced on the recommendation of the tourism industry as a need was identified in this area and some incentive was required in order to attract investment. Similarly crèches were required to empower working mothers and reduce child-care costs for young couples. Few would question the need to redevelop our inner cities or socially marginalised areas. Fine Gael and Labour introduced the seaside resort scheme. The late former Deputy, Jim Mitchell, said that I was the only Deputy he knew who successfully opposed the introduction of a property-based tax in his or her own constituency, which was the proposed islands property tax relief scheme. I would admit that in general without State stimulus through tax breaks the regeneration of these areas would not have occurred. Once the tax incentives that the Opposition so roundly condemn had fulfilled the purposes for which they were introduced, they were closed down by the Taoiseach as Minister for Finance.
The stark reality is that the most extravagant deals of the property boom were not fuelled by tax incentives but rather by easy credit provided through the irresponsibility of some of the [499]people in the financial institutions. The astronomical prices paid for the site of the Berkeley Court, for the Irish Glass Bottle site in Ringsend, for the Veterinary College in Ballsbridge, for the Burlington Hotel, for the Bank of Ireland head offices and the AIB bank centre, and for numerous other speculative development sites were not fuelled or funded by the Exchequer or by tax breaks but by easy, cheap credit, provided on “mates terms” to over-extended developers by what were, in retrospect, over-extended banks.
It is useful to consider what happened in the regulatory sphere during this period. As is noted in the Governor’s report, there was a shift towards a principles-based rather than a rules-based regulatory system. In essence, this meant a move away from detailed rules and administrative actions relating to how financial institutions should run their business and towards more engagement with the senior management of those institutions with a particular focus on the object to be achieved. The purpose of this system was to encourage substantial industry self-regulation with a focus on good governance rather than on detailed regulations with the regulator assuming the role of enforcer. Such an approach, it was argued, was more flexible, market-friendly and cheaper than a more formulaic regulatory framework and therefore contributed to the development of a thriving financial services sector. This in turn encouraged further inward investment in the sector and consequently further growth. The Financial Regulator was not alone in pursuing this course. On an international level this policy was pursued by many jurisdictions where it was believed that market forces would result in banks self-regulating without the need for an aggressive system of enforcement. Such light-touch regulation was regarded as international best practice.
In Ireland, the Financial Regulator pursued this agenda by seeking to ensure that banks implemented risk management procedures and put in place robust governance structures. It was reasoned that once such structures were in place, the banks would be in a position to adequately assess all risks facing their organisations and be able to act accordingly. What we know now is that lack of a credible enforcement threat led to the banks paying lip service to the regulator, a regulator that eschewed decisive action, avoided confrontation and instead comforted itself with vague assurances that everything was in hand. The trust that was so fundamental to the principles-based regulation system was betrayed by the boards of management of the credit institutions under its supervision who abandoned their own stated lending policies and engaged in excessive risk taking. Following the adoption of the single currency, an excess of liquidity in the market, low and stable interest rates, low inflation and the increased cross-border integration of the financial sector in the eurozone led to unprecedented access to cross-border funding.
To say that the Government ignored or failed to follow the advice made available to it, or that it ignored the warnings of economists and other experts, is wide of the mark. The Government, as should be expected, is guided by and relies on expert advice from the Department of Finance, the Central Bank and to a lesser extent on the view of external sources such as the ESRI, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. At no point did the Central Bank or the Financial Services Regulatory Authority believe there were underlying difficulties in the market. Even the international markets in 2008 priced Irish Government bonds at very low yields, a sure sign that the international markets — which we have seen can be so adept at spotting and capitalising on any perceived weakness to make a quick turn — did not see any fundamental or underlying weaknesses in the Irish economy.
The Government was considered by many to be fiscally too conservative. The then Minister for Finance and current Taoiseach was described as “Ebenezer Scrooge” and criticised for underspending. A common and recurring theme from the current Opposition during the last [500]term of Government and in the run up to the last general election was that the Government was underspending and that stamp duty should be reduced or abolished.
Deputy Ulick Burke: Does the Minister believe that?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I do and the record of the House shows it.
Deputy Denis Naughten: The Minister is talking about former Deputy Michael McDowell, who formed part of the Government.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We must bring order to our finances; our ability to borrow money to provide continued services in education, health and social welfare require this. We are not unique in the world in having had to stabilise our public finances and our system of money but thanks to the decisive leadership of the Taoiseach and this Government we have been ahead of many countries in doing so quickly. This will stand us in good stead as we seek to create new sustainable jobs.
Deputy Margaret Conlon: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution this evening. I welcome the reports and commend the expert analysis and assessment of the issues undertaken by Mr. Klaus Regling, Mr. Max Watson and Professor Honohan. We should not fool ourselves as everybody on all sides of the House knows mistakes were made. A number of factors contributed to the position in which we find ourselves, and the reports provide a timely insight into the factors that led to the current climate. Lessons should be learned in order to ensure that our children never experience another banking crisis of this magnitude.
In our clinics every day of the week we can see the effects of the banking crisis as we represent our constituents. I have lost count of the number of young couples who have approached me with pitiful stories about buying their dream homes at inflated prices, now to be saddled with enormous debt and an asset worth a fraction of what was paid for it. Some have lost one or even two incomes and their stories are very sad.
We can think that just a few years ago these people were some of the best-educated people in Europe with hopes and dreams and the world at their feet. As a public representative and a mother of teenagers, I do not want to again see such a reversal of young people’s fortunes. I do not want to again see this level of despair in young people, the unemployed and the heavily indebted. We must ensure that never happens again.
The banking crisis left the banks in a position where after years of unregulated and irresponsible lending, they are unable to lend to even the most creditable of customers. I have asked the question before in this House and I will pose again. What was the Financial Regulator doing at this time? He sat on his hands and closed his eyes, ears and mouth; he saw nothing and said nothing.
First-time buyers today may as well forget about applying for a mortgage and, crucially, small and medium enterprises are being strangled by the tightening of credit. Many people in business have come to me and told of banks cutting overdrafts overnight, with no hope of any further extension from any other financial institution. I have advised such people to use the credit review process and I believe their applications will be upheld. The result of all this will be the loss of jobs we can ill afford to lose if we are to maintain our economy’s development in the right direction. Once again it is the youth who will suffer.
I could continue ad nauseam about the consequences of the banking crisis but they are quite apparent for everybody to see. I do not believe we should get bogged down in the blame game, and as Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson stated to the members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee [501]on Finance and the Public Service, it would be easy to blame persons or institutions but it would miss a very important point and be too simple.
I have said before but will repeat that I hold no court for any banker who behaved irresponsibly. I believe in natural justice and when the process is completed, such natural justice will prevail, with those who did wrong by the taxpayers and good people of this country paying a heavy penalty.
Whatever the view on Mr. FitzPatrick and Mr. Fingleton, there is a time to move on from an atmosphere of reprisal and recriminations if we are to get our banks and economy moving again. I am proud to stand up as a Government Deputy and defend our record since the banking crisis materialised. If hindsight was foresight, nobody would ever make a mistake.
I welcome the reports, which provide a valuable insight from which lessons must be learned. Standing still or maintaining the status quo is not an option and as a Government Deputy I am happy with the course of action being taken by this Government to address the problems.
Deputy Frank Fahey: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and welcome the report from Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson, as well as the report from the Governor of the Central Bank. They are excellent reports and great lessons can be learned by everybody involved from them. The Government can learn lessons about macroeconomic and fiscal policy and parties on all sides of the House can benefit. The reality is that mistakes were made and I acknowledge that my party in Government made mistakes in the period between 2002 and 2007.
The greatest mistake was not to put in place the counter-cyclical policies necessary to deal with the stimulus created when we became members of the European Monetary Union and benefited from much lower interest rates — down to 3% from 6% — and the ability of banks to borrow from a large pot of euro currency having only been able to borrow in Irish punts before that. We had no borders, as has been well explained to us in the finance committee, and international borrowing became easy for Irish banks at much lower interest rates. There was no counter-cyclical policy put in place and that was the big mistake made from a macroeconomic perspective.
As the reports indicated, many mistakes were made. The key issue now is for all of us to learn the lessons. There must be a new approach to policy initiation and implementation from all parties in the Oireachtas and the Government of the day. This Government, and the Taoiseach in particular, has put up its hands and accepted some of the mistakes made on this side of the House and it is only right for the Opposition to acknowledge a number of fundamental mistakes made in their policies as initiated since the onset of the crisis.
We heard from the Governor of the Central Bank yesterday and the new chairman and managing director of Anglo Irish Bank today, who stated that to liquidate or run down Anglo Irish Bank would have been a clear and very significant mistake. They also indicated that this would have led to an additional cost of €20 billion on top of the €22 billion that has already been paid out.
Deputy Ulick Burke: What did they say about the €22 billion that has already been paid out?
Deputy Frank Fahey: There should be an acknowledgement on the part of Fine Gael and Labour that the suggestion that Anglo Irish Bank should be run down was wrong.
The Labour Party should also admit that it got it completely wrong in respect of the bank guarantee. Labour has made great play out of the fact that it was the only party which opposed the guarantee. The reports issued by Regling and Watson and the Governor of the Central [502]Bank indicate that there was a clear need for the guarantee. If it had not been introduced, our finances would have gone into a complete tailspin. I would appreciate it if Labour was honest with the people and admitted that it got it wrong in this regard.
Deputy Denis Naughten: I wish to share time with Deputies Burke, Doyle, O’Mahony and Deenihan.
An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Denis Naughten: I thank Deputy O’Donnell for moving the motion. I listened intently to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Ó Cuív, who referred to constructive opposition. He was correct in what he said. However, I recall what happened when Fine Gael introduced the Good Samaritan Bill, which dealt with those who might to go the assistance of people who suffered heart attacks or who were involved in road traffic accidents. Everyone agreed with the sentiments expressed in the Bill, which was originally proposed by the Law Reform Commission, but the Government voted it down because it was put forward by the Opposition. I take any suggestion from the Government in respect of constructive opposition with a large tablespoon of salt, particularly as it was not prepared to accept a simple item of legislation on which everyone was agreed.
Fine Gael also put forward a proposal in respect of a detailed job strategy, which would have created substantial numbers of jobs by means of investment in broadband and water and energy infrastructure. That proposal was welcomed by the then Government Chief Whip, Deputy Pat Carey, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. However, it was rubbished by the Taoiseach because it happened to come from the Opposition.
Those in opposition have been prepared to put forward positive, constructive ideas. However, the difficulty has been that the Government has not been prepared to listen to what is being said by those on this side of the House. We have put forward constructive proposals that are designed to fix the public finances and the banking system, address the appalling vista that is our health service, support and foster innovation and restore competitiveness within the economy. However, these were all rubbished purely because they emanated from this side of the House.
Let us consider the recently published reports on the collapse of the banking system. The Honohan report points out that fiscal policy and budgetary measures aimed at boosting the construction sector were significant factors in contributing to the unsustainable structure of spending in the economy. As we are aware, the policy to which I refer was developed in the Galway tent at Ballybrit. It all revolved around the lead party in government, Fianna Fáil, ensuring that its nest was feathered. It was a case of “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.
Deputy Bruton and other Fine Gael Members consistently pointed out that it was wrong to base permanent spending commitments on unsustainable tax revenues. However, the Government ignored what was said. The reality is that the Taoiseach and former Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and the banking and regulatory systems he oversaw were guilty of astonishing failures in the area of economic management. As a result, ordinary citizens are being obliged to pay the price through the imposition of pay cuts. These ordinary citizens include carers, disabled persons, the blind, young families who are being obliged to meet increased mortgage payments and those who have lost their jobs. FÁS has predicted that this year 335 jobs will be lost each day. As a result, many people are going to be obliged to emigrate.
[503]Ireland is facing major economic challenges as a result of the mistakes made by bankers, the regulators and Government Ministers. Those mistakes have caused hurt to families and small and medium-sized businesses. The Government has ignored the expert advice that was presented to it. A couple of weeks ago, the concerns of Professor Morgan Kelly — who previously issued warnings about what was going to happen — in respect of the possibility of the country going bust were again dismissed by the Department of Finance. The Financial Regulator was both complacent and complicit in respect of what happened in recent years.
One of my constituents recently told me a story about his mother in law, whose sole income before she died was a non-contributory old age pension. When she passed away, it was discovered that she was €3,500 in the red on her credit card. When I asked what had been her credit limit, he informed me that it was €5,000. How could an old age pensioner in receipt of the basic payment from the Department of Social Protection be given a credit limit of €5,000 by any financial institution? The answer is that a blind eye was turned in respect of such matters in the past. That is the fundamental flaw that existed and it is the reason so many families are struggling to cope at present. The banks, literally and irresponsibly, shoved money at people and the Financial Regulator merely stated, “Well done, lads, keep at it”.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I thank Deputy Naughten for sharing time. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion, which relates to the recently published reports into the banking sector and which refers to “the conclusion contained in the Honohan report that an excessively generous bank guarantee issued on 30 September, 2008, has cost the taxpayer more than was necessary to protect the stability of the financial system”.
Earlier today, the chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank, Mr. Mike Aynsley, informed the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service that the lion’s share of the €22 billion in taxpayers’ money that has been spent in rescuing the bank is gone and will never been seen again. This is the first evidence we have received from a senior bank official that the money in question has disappeared. In the past, we were informed that our activities in respect of NAMA and rescuing the banks might eventually yield profits. However, today we were presented with the first serious admission that this money has fallen into a black hole.
Deputies Bruton, O’Donnell and others on this side of the House previously stated that this would happen. However, those in Government denied it would be the case. Even though he was present at today’s meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, Deputy Fahey, when making is contribution to this debate, deliberately chose to ignore what Mr. Aynsley said and instead focused other matters.
Despite all of the denials that have been issued, the reports into the banking sector clearly show that the blame for what happened must be laid at the door of those in the banking sector. The directors, senior management, auditors and accountants all conveniently or deliberately — we will never know — missed or ignored what was going on and this must be investigated. It is recommended in one of the reports that where auditors and accountants who should have scrutinised banks’ accounts and lending procedures but did not do so this must be investigated, a recommendation which I hope will be acted on as quickly as possible. These auditors and accountants should have alerted the authorities of the weaknesses in banks’ lending and financial positions and they must be investigated in the near future. This is the reason the crisis emerged.
The Honohan report clearly states that responsibility lies with the directors and senior management of the banks which got us into trouble. These people are the first line of defence, the ones who should protect us having been entrusted with our funds. The bankers blatantly denied right up to the end that there was trouble looming despite the writing being on the wall for all [504]to see. There were numerous reminders in this regard from economists and Members of this House. However, when one highlighted this one was criticised and considered negative for doing down the country and the economy.
The other major cause of the crisis was the failure of the Central Bank and its regulatory functions. It was clear the banks were failing but this was ignored at all ranks within the banking structures and lending institutions. The Regling and Watson report clearly identifies the source of the banking crisis as a concentration on bank assets in terms primarily of their activities relating to the property market, in particular commercial properties. Thus, the banks were vulnerable to the bust that was obviously coming, about which they had been warned on many occasions.
I wish in the time remaining to me to highlight what the banks are doing to many small businesses in this country. Despite the fact that the banks have been supported and rescued with enormous and scarce resources of this country they are denying small businesses and those who were reliable clients in the past any leeway in terms of lending or funds to develop. This is causing serious havoc and serious unemployment in the country. It is incumbent on the Minister for Finance and the Government to ensure that once and for all the banking system releases funds to small businesses.
Deputy Andrew Doyle: I thank my colleague, Deputy O’Donnell, for moving this motion. The two reports on financial stability and the source of the banking crisis are to be welcomed. They are the first review we have had since the banking stability crisis of 2008. It is commendable that the reports are so detailed and informed given it is only four months since the Minister requested they be drawn up without the benefit of the documents needed owing to bank secrecy rules which, when one considers the Minister is now the sole shareholder in Anglo Irish Bank and is a prime shareholder in many of the other banks, should not be the case.
This crisis commenced in 2007 and came to a head in 2008. The basic questions that must be asked are why it has taken the Minister 17 months to commission a report and why he has avoided any review of the bank and Government actions since September 2008. There has been much talk about Iceland. Iceland has completed a full banking inquiry pre and post bank collapse which was published in April this year. We tend to forget — at least the Government does — that it is our duty and responsibility to account to every citizen in this country, who are paying the banks’ debts now and will continue to do so for many generations, for how this came about and the reason safeguards to protect the public against bankers’ debts have failed.
Both reports contain many illuminating facts that underline the essential conclusion that the bank crisis bears the clear imprint of global influences yet it was in crucial ways home made. It was stated in The Economist in November 2008, two months after the bank crisis, that Ireland’s economic difficulties are the result of a self-inflicted fiscal crisis that has been compounded by international factors. One would think listening to the Taoiseach and others during the past couple of days that the opposite was the case. The reports have found that the fiscal policies of the then Minister for Finance, our current Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, bank governance and financial supervision, or rather a lack of it, from the period 1999 onwards left the economy vulnerable to a deep crisis with costly and extended social fallout.
The Minister for Finance does not appear to have realised or to have been aware that it was his job to ensure the national stability of Ireland’s financial system following its having joined the euro in 1999. Nobody argues with the critical importance of having a proper financial and banking system. The Minister appears not to have been aware that he had the essential tools to supervise the banking system and the availability of credit, tools which were never used [505]effectively resulting in the runaway train of casino style banking with bankers’ principles based on how much they could lend to the highest bidder on the basis of receiving a bonus at the end of the year. What did the Minister do? He added to the out of control credit bill by introducing “extravagant and distorted subsidies for commercial real estate development”. By 2005, the Minister for Finance had introduced so many tax exemptions the revenue lost to the Government was larger than the remaining income tax receipts, which is hard to believe. We are now making cuts and increasing taxes to try to recover that revenue.
It is obvious that the out of control growth of the property and construction sector was an essential part of Government policy at the time as was the hands-off regulatory regime for the banks. One banker, Mr. Sean FitzPatrick, stated that over-regulation was stifling the Irish economy — he would say that — and, it appears, the Government believed all that he said. As stated in the Regling and Watson report, the Central Bank is also shown to have failed to sound the alarm to warn how severe were the emerging risks to bank soundness and, ultimately, the living standards of the ordinary citizen.
We were presented with these reports as though they endorse all that the Government has done. I fail to see how anyone can interpret that reading of the reports. Both reports end their review prior to end September 2008. If we are to move forward — I accept we cannot dwell on history — we need to know from where we came. We must know of all the mistakes made. The Icelandic Government has done this. Why are we any different? Why must examine all the practices that have taken place? We have had since September 2008 a rolling reaction and fire brigade response to the banking crisis. I am certain that not all the decisions made at that time were correct and proper. The least we should do is analyse them to ensure where wrong they are improved upon. Anything done right since then is acknowledged as being right. We on this side of the House have certainly acknowledged where prudent measures have been taken. However, this has not been the case all the time.
What we are left with is a legacy that intends to carry on regardless and to transfer the assets of the State from the people of Ireland to private investors in the banks, the greatest transfer since Cromwell landed in this country.
Deputy John O’Mahony: I am pleased to make a brief contribution to this debate. I was elected to this House three years ago and in that time I have listened to many debates and exchanges in this Chamber about the causes of the country’s dramatic economic collapse. The collapse was well flagged behind the scenes before that. As with all debate and argument, Government Deputies have said we were only scoring political points on this side of the House. Last week’s reports firmly put that issue to bed. The arguments in the independent reports are there for all to see. They clearly point the finger of blame at the mismanagement of the Government while it was driving the economy. All the arguments trotted out by Government spokespeople in the last couple of years have been shown to be false, flawed and inaccurate.
I was amazed when I read the reports last week and paralleled the events covered in the reports with political events that happened at the same time. In the run-up to the 2007 general election, we were told the economy was in overdrive and the good times were here to stay. A few months later, when Fianna Fáil was safely back in Government, we were assured that even if there was a slight downturn there would be continued growth and all would be well. Next we heard denials that there was a crisis, when the dogs in the street know that thousands of jobs were being lost throughout the country and across the economy. Then we were told it was not the Government’s fault. The latest spin is that they have taken decisive action, know how to solve the problems and have taken the hard decisions. This is unbelievable.
[506]One of the reports, referring to wages and competitiveness in the late 1990s, states that wage settlements accelerated markedly from the late 90s and in relative terms. The trilateral wage agreements continued but became less relevant as workers negotiated supplementary wage increases against the background of full employment and an overheating economy. Compensation per employee, which had grown more or less in line with the euro average until 1996, increased at two and three times the euro area average from 1997 to 2008. In nominal terms, annual growth wages in Ireland were the highest in the euro area except for Luxembourg. Ireland had the highest price level in the euro area, according to Eurostat statistics. Competitiveness deteriorated significantly. From 1999 to 2008, Ireland’s real effective exchange rate increased more than that of any other country in the euro area.
Is it a coincidence that a Fine Gael-Labour Government handed over an economy that was creating 1,000 jobs a week and was being led by huge increases in exports because we were competitive and could compete in the markets of Europe? All that progress was frittered away by reckless lending, 100% mortgages and tax exemptions left, right and centre. All of this ensured it was going to be a crash rather than a soft landing when the good times ended.
The reports go on to say the fiscal policy — considered to be exemplary, because of surpluses, until 2006 — was, in reality, deteriorating long before that. The economy was, in truth, in crisis in the early part of 2007. That is another significant date but, of course, we were not given the real story then either.
One of the real stories did not emerge until today. Deputy Ulick Burke has told the House how the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service was told by Mr. Mike Aynsley of Anglo Irish Bank that the €22 billion has gone down the drain and will never be seen again. Someone has to be held responsible for this. The cover-ups must stop. The truth must be released. This motion will, if passed, help the truth to emerge and place accountability where it rightly lies.
I have heard the argument made that we all made mistakes in the last ten years. Who made the mistakes? Who was in Government during the last ten years? There is an attempt to implicate the Opposition in these mistakes. It is incredible, on the day the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service is told that €22 billion has gone down the drain that the Government would vote against a motion which seeks to know the political and policy context for the failure of the Department of Finance and the Financial Regulator to stop Anglo Irish Bank from publishing financial results in December 2008 that misrepresented the strength of its customer deposit base, and the lessons that need to be learned.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Like previous speakers, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this motion. I have been listening to a number of speakers, including the Taoiseach yesterday. In the 1990s, I was associated with the seaside renewal scheme, which has come in for some criticism. The seaside renewal scheme revived and regenerated traditional tourist resorts which had gone into decline. It was a targeted scheme available to places like Tramore, Ballybunion, Salthill and Bundoran. It was in preparation when the rainbow coalition Government took over and was introduced by the Minister for Tourism, Deputy Enda Kenny. Where the scheme was properly administered and proper planning put in place, it was very successful. It has rejuvenated Ballybunion and changed the face of the town because Kerry County Council ensured that proper planning was put in place. One cannot blame the sprawls of County Clare, Achill Island and other places on the scheme itself. It generated economic activity and gave a facelift to places like Ballybunion but it was badly administered by some councils and devel[507]opers throughout the country. The scheme could have been very effective if it had been properly supervised and if there had been proper local planning. Each resort should have formulated a plan before the scheme was applied.
When President Bill Clinton came to Ballybunion, the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy Charlie McCreevy, unveiled a statue of President Clinton. Deputy McCreevy claimed responsibility for the seaside renewal scheme. I heard him say it was his scheme and he was glad it was so effective and successful in Ballybunion. The Taoiseach should ask his predecessor, Mr. McCreevy, about his support for the seaside renewal scheme before he points the finger at Deputy Kenny. Deputy McCreevy was adamant on that occasion that he was responsible for the seaside renewal scheme.
Some of the most effective tax incentives were the urban renewal schemes. The first scheme, which was introduced by the FitzGerald Government of the 1980s, rejuvenated the inner cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. It was a very successful scheme. Some schemes worked because we do need incentives. They went wrong when they became politically motivated and were not targeted but allowed to become too widespread. Both the report compiled by Klaus Regling and Max Watson and the report compiled by Patrick Honohan show quite conclusively that domestic macroeconomic policy got us into this banking mess. The regime of light regulation, bad governance and poor and reckless lending by the banks was supported fully by the Government.
I recall a statement made by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, at a banking conference three or four years ago — perhaps a year before he resigned as Taoiseach. He praised the banks as the real drivers of the economy. I remember seeing a report on his speech, which did not attract much comment, on the 6 o’clock news. During that period, the banks got every support and encouragement from the Government to give people as much money as they could. That is on the record of the national conferences of the banks at that time. I am glad to have had an opportunity to say a few words on this motion.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): That there is a need to learn and internalise the lessons of the crisis we have been experiencing is not disputed on either side of the House. This evening, we have started to debate the two excellent reports on the crisis. Of course, the reports do not represent the whitewash that was predicted by some Deputies. The motion proposed by Fine Gael is politically focused. The reality is that much broader national and international factors were at play. We need honesty and reflection on all sides. During yesterday’s confidence debate, I quoted the remarks of the President of the EU, Mr. Van Rompuy, in the Financial Times about the failure at EU level to understand how the euro was working and the imbalances it was establishing.
In the current situation, the Government has to be responsible out of necessity. For other parties, it is more of an issue of choices that will not necessarily have deep consequences. These reports should not be treated as a question of crude political reductionism. It has been amply demonstrated — I do not intend to argue it further — that there was, in aggregate, no superior foresight or virtue on the Opposition benches. I accept that Fine Gael’s NewERA document contains constructive proposals. I repeat that serious questions need to be asked about its compatibility with the widely recognised imperative to focus at EU level on reducing sovereign debt and indebtedness. One of the implications of the plan, in the short term, would be to increase indebtedness.
The report compiled by Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson referred to the culture of Irish society. They suggested that there is a strong and pervasive preference in Irish society for property as [508]an asset. Their historical point that Ireland had never before experienced a property crash is slightly more dubious.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: It is not correct.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: I am not quite sure about it. There was something of a crash in the 1980s, although it was disguised.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: There was a property crash that affected farming and land.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: There was a great depression in the late 1870s, although it was mainly the landlords who suffered.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Small farmers suffered too.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: Tenants suffered in places like Mayo.
Reference has been made to various incentives. A Deputy on the other side of the House was right to say that the former Minister, Charlie McCreevy, claims credit for the seaside resorts scheme. However, it was Deputy Kenny, as Minister for Tourism and Trade, who introduced the scheme. I suggest that it was one of the less satisfactory property incentive schemes, even on its own terms. It worked well in Westport, to be fair, but it was not particularly good in many other seaside towns. I was amused by the reference in the Minister’s speech last night to lobbying for tax relief for medical centres. When I was lobbied on that issue, I said a firm “No”. Apart from anything else, those in the medical profession, who are among the better paid in society, are well capable of funding health centres themselves.
Although counter-cyclical budgets could have helped to moderate the boom, the introduction of such budgets would mark a significant cultural shift on the part of all parties in this House and all Governments. Governments are advised to act in a strongly counter-cyclical manner the next time the economy begins to party, to use the terminology of the report. That may be some years away. We all know that when there are ample revenues in the Exchequer, substantial pressure is put on the Government of the day to spend them. That is what I mean when I say we need to internalise the lessons of these reports.
Deputy Michael Ring: I wish to share time with Deputies Perry and O’Donnell.
An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Michael Ring: I wish to begin by speaking about these reports. Anyone who has listened to certain economists over recent years will wonder whether they are living in the real world. Many economists told us the boom would last for another 14 or 15 years. It is hard to believe economists. The same guys are now preaching and blaming everybody. The economists who were advising the Government, the Minister for Finance and the banks let the country down badly. What went on in the banks was criminal. There was no regulation. We have discussed this previously. The blame game is taking place at present. These reports have been published. We know what the problems were. I hope we have learned lessons for the future. I hope we will have strong regulation without any interference from the Government. The banks let down the people and the country. They have got away with murder. I spoke on these matters yesterday.
[509]I read a report about tax defaulters in a newspaper today. They did not do half as much damage as the banks to this economy and this country. Their names are in black and white in one of today’s newspapers. It is rare to see professional bankers brought to justice. Party colleagues of mine have advised me not to give out in the Dáil about bankers. They say we should never give out about bankers. If some bankers do not end up in jail, it will be clear that there is no law and order in this country. The people are telling me the law is for the poor but not for the rich. I hope the fraud squad, the enforcement officers and the Garda Síochána do their jobs sharply. It is very easy to catch petty criminals and bring them before the courts. The Director of Public Prosecutions has no difficulty sending out warrants for them so they can be prosecuted in court. We want to see bankers prosecuted in the courts by the end of the year. It is not enough for their homes or offices to be searched by gardaí, in the presence of RTE cameras. We want to show the people of this country that law and order applies to the rich man as much as it does to the poor man. That has never happened in this country in the past.
This is not the first time we have bailed out the banks. We had to bail them out on many other occasions. Why would they not do it again, given that they got away with it previously? These reports have identified that the Taoiseach, the Government, the bankers and the regulators all failed to do their duties. The regulator was given a reward in the form of a big cheque. The Minister for Finance was made Taoiseach. The bankers were sent on holidays out to Spain. That is the kind of reward we have given to the people who put this economy and this country in the state it is in. Young families will be forever paying back their debts for property they will never own, for which they paid too much and which is now undervalued.
Deputy John Perry: How can anyone have confidence in a terms of reference for a commission of investigation into the banking crisis when the Fianna Fáil-led Government decides to exclude an analysis of the root causes of the crisis and to evade its role and responsibility in its creation? We now have the two independent reports into the Irish banking crisis, one of which addresses the causes of the crisis while the other addresses regulatory and financial stability policy in the period 2003 to 2008. The Government has now decided to draft the terms of reference for a commission of investigation in a very selective manner. All references to the role of successive Fianna Fáil Governments and the Department of Finance in the making of the crisis are excluded.
One of the most disastrous consequences of the economic crisis brought upon us by the Fianna Fáil-led Government is the loss of jobs and rising levels of unemployment. For every parent and grandparent in the country, the rising level of youth unemployment is one of the most obvious signs of Government incompetence. Today’s school leavers and graduates are experiencing the worst employment market for many years. They are ready and anxious to work, but now they cannot find jobs. They do not want social welfare. The lack of domestic job opportunities is forcing many young Irish people to take one-way tickets abroad to find jobs. This is a national tragedy.
Local small business, retail outlets and tourism and hospitality services are struggling and many of them are closing down. Thousands have lost their jobs as a direct consequence of misguided Government policies. A thriving SME sector is one key to Ireland’s recovery, but the Government is doing nothing to help this sector protect and create jobs. Two independent reports, from the titles on the cover pages through to the last pages of the appendices, state clearly that this was a home-grown crisis and the sole responsibility of the Government. The reports clearly state that Ireland’s leaders were guilty of pursuing policies that proved catastrophic for the nation. The independent reports make it clear that the Fianna Fáil-led Govern[510]ment was the chief architect of the catastrophic failures of policy that led directly to our current economic crisis. It cannot avoid this.
The Honohan report states in paragraph 1.3: “The Government’s procyclical fiscal policy stance [and] budgetary measures aimed at boosting the construction sector [. . .] were significant factors contributing to the unsustainable structure of spending in the Irish economy.” Those in Fianna Fáil were intent on helping their friends and backers in the building industry — the Galway tent — and they continued with this policy for far too long. The construction sector became a cash-recycling pyramid scheme. For every €100 million of investment in the construction sector, €40 million came back to the Government as revenue. Superficially, it looked great, but we have ended up with enough retail space for a population of 42 million people. The UK has 1,000 sq. ft. of retail space per head of population; the equivalent in Ireland is 13,000 sq. ft. We have 900 hotels and more housing and apartment space than we know what to do with.
People deserve answers about the root causes of this disaster. They deserve public accountability and not a private cover-up. If we are to move on, the public need to know the truth about how the country was brought to its knees. The consequences of Fianna Fáil’s policy failures will be felt for generations to come. In that context, we deserve the truth about who is responsible and we need to hear it in public. We must hear the details of how and why the Government and the Department of Finance got it so wrong.
The proposed terms of reference for the investigation into the greatest economic crash this country has ever experienced lack credibility and are completely inappropriate. They are designed exclusively to shift onto the banking sector the perception of how and why things went so badly astray. We heard this evening that €24 billion is gone. Can it be got back? If any valid lessons are to be learned from an investigation into this crisis, the terms of reference for the investigation must be widened to include the political content of budget and taxation policies, including the official advice given to the Department of Finance in the past number of years. The Government is in the dock and it is guilty. It cannot get away with it no matter what spin it puts on it.
Deputy Terence Flanagan: Hear, hear.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Well done.
I thank Deputy Perry for his contribution, which encapsulated the essence of our motion, and I thank all other contributors from Fine Gael and elsewhere in the House.
The reason we tabled this motion is simple. Two excellent reports have been published but, as the Minister of State mentioned earlier, they are scoping reports. They are not conclusive. Within these scoping reports, a couple of things come to the fore. The Government is not responsible for everything; however, what we have been hearing from various Government spokespersons is that it is responsible for nothing. We now need to establish a commission of investigation that has credibility, is independent, and deals with all the issues so that the public can have total confidence in the findings. According to the draft terms of reference provided by the Minister for Finance to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, the commission will deal with the area of banking and the advice provided to the Department of Finance about financial regulation. However, the one element that is missing is that of macro economic policy. The Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Honohan, is on record as saying the Government makes policy, while the Central Bank and officials such as himself implement it.
[511]We have suggested a certain number of items that need to be dealt with by the commission of investigation in addition to those specified by the Government. It should deal with macro-economic Government policy between 2005 and 2008, including the official advice provided to the Minister for Finance. It should also deal with tax incentive schemes. One topic missing from the scoping reports is the motivation that was behind the decisions made by the then Minister for Finance, which is critical. The Minister sits down with advice from his officials, which we need to see. Klaus Regling has stated that it is good that such information is available in many other countries. What were the sources of the advice based on which the Minister made his decisions?
The one criticism I have of both reports is that the Minister for Finance during the period under scrutiny, who is now the Taoiseach, was not interviewed. It is like “Hamlet” without the prince. The terms of reference should also include the bank guarantee scheme. Professor Honohan stated that the scheme was necessary but he was critical of the wide coverage of the scheme, including subordinated debt, which has resulted in the imposition of additional cost on the taxpayer. Within the report, Professor Honohan stated that the records of meetings that took place at the time the guarantee was established were “sketchy”. As Deputy Connaughton said this evening, if a farmer was trying to obtain a grant he or she would have to provide many long documents; yet the most monumental financial decision in the history of the State was accompanied by sketchy records. We are entitled to know what was discussed and decided.
We must find out what happened, why it happened, who made the decisions and whether all advice was considered. The chairman and management of Anglo Irish Bank, who appeared today before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, stated that Anglo Irish Bank will cost the taxpayer a minimum of €24.5 billion.
Deputy Terence Flanagan: Shameful.
Deputy John Perry: Money for nothing.
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: That is the equivalent of three times the budget of the Department of Education and Skills. The money is down the toilet — it is gone. It would have cost €2.5 billion to set up a good bank, as we proposed. The only difference is that we wanted professional investors to take their share of the pain. What has happened here? The taxpayer is taking it. Services for children, the elderly and the vulnerable will be affected.
I commend this motion to the House——
Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: ——and I hope that when Deputies across the House consider it, they will agree that in the interests of fairness and completeness, and as a House that represents all people, we should ensure the commission of investigation will get to the truth of what happened, so that we can learn lessons and establish controls to make sure it never happens again. They will say that in the interests of fairness, completeness and inclusiveness and as a House that represents all people, we should ensure a commission of investigation is set up to get to the truth so that we can learn lessons and put in place controls so that this never happens again.
[512]The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 71.
| Tá | |
| Ahern, Dermot. | Ahern, Michael. |
| Ahern, Noel. | Andrews, Barry. |
| Andrews, Chris. | Aylward, Bobby. |
| Blaney, Niall. | Brady, Áine. |
| Brady, Cyprian. | Brady, Johnny. |
| Browne, John. | Byrne, Thomas. |
| Carey, Pat. | Collins, Niall. |
| Conlon, Margaret. | Connick, Seán. |
| Coughlan, Mary. | Cowen, Brian. |
| Cregan, John. | Cuffe, Ciarán. |
| Curran, John. | Dempsey, Noel. |
| Devins, Jimmy. | Dooley, Timmy. |
| Fahey, Frank. | Finneran, Michael. |
| Fitzpatrick, Michael. | Fleming, Seán. |
| Flynn, Beverley. | Gogarty, Paul. |
| Gormley, John. | Grealish, Noel. |
| Haughey, Seán. | Healy-Rae, Jackie. |
| Hoctor, Máire. | Kelleher, Billy. |
| Kelly, Peter. | Kenneally, Brendan. |
| Kennedy, Michael. | Killeen, Tony. |
| Kitt, Michael P. | Kitt, Tom. |
| Lenihan, Brian. | Lenihan, Conor. |
| McDaid, James. | McEllistrim, Thomas. |
| McGrath, Mattie. | McGrath, Michael. |
| McGuinness, John. | Mansergh, Martin. |
| Martin, Micheál. | Moloney, John. |
| Moynihan, Michael. | Mulcahy, Michael. |
| Nolan, M.J. | Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
| Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. | O’Brien, Darragh. |
| O’Connor, Charlie. | O’Dea, Willie. |
| O’ Donoghue, John. | O’Flynn, Noel. |
| O’Hanlon, Rory. | O’Keeffe, Batt. |
| O’Keeffe, Edward. | O’Rourke, Mary. |
| O’Sullivan, Christy. | Power, Peter. |
| Power, Seán. | Roche, Dick. |
| Sargent, Trevor. | Scanlon, Eamon. |
| Smith, Brendan. | Wallace, Mary. |
| White, Mary Alexandra. | Woods, Michael. |
| Níl | |
| Bannon, James. | Barrett, Seán. |
| Behan, Joe. | Breen, Pat. |
| Broughan, Thomas P. | Burke, Ulick. |
| Burton, Joan. | Byrne, Catherine. |
| Clune, Deirdre. | Connaughton, Paul. |
| Coonan, Noel J. | Costello, Joe. |
| Coveney, Simon. | Crawford, Seymour. |
| Creed, Michael. | Creighton, Lucinda. |
| D’Arcy, Michael. | Deenihan, Jimmy. |
| Doyle, Andrew. | English, Damien. |
| Enright, Olwyn. | Feighan, Frank. |
| Ferris, Martin. | Flanagan, Charles. |
| Flanagan, Terence. | Gilmore, Eamon. |
| Hayes, Brian. | Hayes, Tom. |
| Higgins, Michael D. | Hogan, Phil. |
| Howlin, Brendan. | Kehoe, Paul. |
| Kenny, Enda. | Lynch, Ciarán. |
| Lynch, Kathleen. | McCormack, Pádraic. |
| McGinley, Dinny. | McGrath, Finian. |
| McHugh, Joe. | McManus, Liz. |
| Mitchell, Olivia. | Morgan, Arthur. |
| Naughten, Denis. | Neville, Dan. |
| Noonan, Michael. | Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. |
| Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. | O’Donnell, Kieran. |
| O’Dowd, Fergus. | O’Keeffe, Jim. |
| O’Mahony, John. | O’Shea, Brian. |
| O’Sullivan, Jan. | O’Sullivan, Maureen. |
| Penrose, Willie. | Perry, John. |
| Quinn, Ruairí. | Rabbitte, Pat. |
| Reilly, James. | Ring, Michael. |
| Shatter, Alan. | Sheehan, P.J. |
| Sherlock, Seán. | Shortall, Róisín. |
| Stagg, Emmet. | Stanton, David. |
| Timmins, Billy. | Tuffy, Joanna. |
| Upton, Mary. | Varadkar, Leo. |
| Wall, Jack. | |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, on Wednesday, 16 June 2010:
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Kathleen Lynch is in possession.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: How much time remains to me?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: There are 14 minutes left in the slot. I understand the Deputy is sharing ten of those with Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh so she has four minutes.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I shall resume where I left off. The Minister——
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Let the House come to order.
[514]Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I assume the Minister does not agree with my point about creating a discrimination in regard to children but I make it all the same and hope that on Committee Stage we can take a serious look at this issue. We should not go backwards regarding children. If we take the adult claimant out of the picture and look at the two children of two separate groupings, discriminating between the child of a married relationship and the child of a non-marital relationship——
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask Deputies to clear the lobbies so that Members can be heard.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: To reintroduce this discrimination into our legislation at this stage would be a retrograde step, especially in view of the fact that we are about to put before the people an amendment in regard to the rights of the child. It will be challenged and I believe that challenge will succeed.
A number of months ago I could not understand why, having been disallowed jobseeker’s benefit or allowance, a person who went to the community welfare officer was disallowed again, on the basis that the decision made by the Department of Social and Family Affairs applied equally to the community welfare officer. That used never be the case because community welfare officers are always the people through whose net one never falls. They always give the baseline payment. They are the people who protect us from having no income at all.
Clearly, however, a circular was issued by the Department in June 2009 which stated that social welfare payments were not now to be considered as temporary or interim payments if a claim had been disallowed by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I understand perfectly that the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, may not know about this because he is not very long in the job. A second circular was issued stating that the first circular was not to be taken as a guideline in not allowing a person payment in terms of the habitual residence clause. Unfortunately, this is still being applied to people who are not affected by the habitual residence clause. An additional circular needs to be sent, to clarify that. At one stage in a case of a person with whom I was dealing, we were dealing with two appeals on the same decision. We were dealing with the appeal to the then Department of Social and Family Affairs and a second appeal to the superintendent community welfare officer on the same decision. That is crazy, because the person involved was left with absolutely no money. If the Minister needs to change that, then he needs to be very clear.
The Minister should also examine the cut-off point for children. I dealt already with an area where I think there is a discrimination being reintroduced in the Bill and I hope we can tease it out on Committee Stage and put it to rights. The parents of a child with a disability that does not require domiciliary care allowance will not receive a payment when the child reaches 13 years of age. The Minister has inherited much of this and he could not have possibly have meant this to be the case. I hope that when we are on Committee Stage, he will take on board much of what has been said. It has been said with a view to improving the system and not to frustrate what he wants to do.
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: This Bill puts the cart before the horse. It threatens welfare cuts at a time when sufficient education, training, child care and job opportunities simply do not exist, either for the 361,000 claimants affected by this Bill, or for the almost half a million on the dole as a whole. This Bill is mean spirited, nasty and counterproductive. Nobody can have a problem in principle with activation policies moving people from social welfare to paid employment. The vast majority of those dependent on social welfare would prefer to be in paid employment, paying their way in society and having an income that could contribute to enhancing their lives and their children’s lives. Regrettably, the Minister’s approach in this Bill is not activation, but compulsion. It is penal. It is all stick and no carrot, because there are no jobs, [515]there are too few educational courses and fewer still training opportunities. Of course, there is always an Bád Bán, the Government’s safety valve for decades, namely, emigration. The Minister is confirming the message of the Minister for Finance in last year’s budget when he cut young adults’ jobseeker’s allowance. He basically said to them, “Young people of Ireland, you know where the boat is. Get lost.”
The intention of this Bill is to punish the unemployed, those on jobseeker’s allowance and the supplementary welfare allowance. The Minister intends to punish them, mainly young people, many of them with families, for his Government’s failure to create jobs. They will be punished for refusing to take up non-existent jobs or courses. Is the Minister telling us that all these courses, training opportunities and jobs will be in place by the time this Bill is passed? There is not a hope in hell that half a million job opportunities, courses or training places will be created by July when he intends to have this Bill rammed through the Dáil.
We will have a repeat of the AnCO glory days when courses were set up by the Government to massage the unemployment figures. These courses required the long-term unemployed, including many graduates, to sit in classrooms pretending to learn telephone skills with bananas because they did not have enough telephones. They had to sit there for hours on end twiddling their thumbs because there was no purpose to the course. The reward for such suffering was to languish on the dole, because the jobs were not there in the 1980s, just like today. Not only is this Bill ill conceived and puts the cart before the horse; it is also a fraud. It is about cutting costs and not about getting people back to work. The jobs are not there.
I do not know whether the Minister has noticed that the Government has fucked up the economy; he should look around him. The Government has gambled away the jobs and used the money needed to create new jobs to bail out the banks, its developer cronies and Greek shipping magnates. From the Government’s point of view, somebody had to foot the Bill, and it was not going to be its friends. That is what this Social Welfare Bill is really about. It is about picking the pockets of the poor to give to the rich in order to repay their gambling debts.
What is the definition of a ‘suitable’ job offer? It is not defined in this Bill and it is another discretionary power for social welfare inspectors. What constitutes an education and training offer? These are important questions, as they could be the difference between life and death, the difference between being on the bread line and under it. Living in poverty is a daunting prospect and a daunting reality already for many in Irish society today, yet the Minister is looking to condemn more to that reality with this Bill.
What about the minimum wage? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no reduction in the national minimum wage? I doubt it, because the indication to date is that this is the next target for cuts.
With this Bill, the Government is putting on its shoes before it puts on its socks. Getting people back to work will not happen as a result of unfair cuts to the jobseeker’s allowance. It will happen when there is meaningful and appropriate training, education or work placements for everyone within three months of becoming unemployed. It will happen with the creation of jobs. There is a gaping hole where appropriate education and training opportunities should be. We are now over two years into an unprecedented economic crisis and this Government cannot even come up with a proper jobs creation strategy. Such ineptness deserves to be punished, and hopefully it will be. Roll on the election.
What about the Government’s much hyped work placement programme? It is not delivering with less than half of its minuscule 2,000 places filled. Of the 2,500 college places supposedly created for jobseekers in the budget of April 2009, 35% remain unfilled because the supports are not there. These are the activation measures that are required. I urge him to talk to the Minister for Education and Skills about those places and the need to increase that number.
[516]The Government’s logic of penny pinching has been exposed by its decision on the sly to cut the job retention fund , known as the enterprise stabilisation fund, by €22 million last month. That fund was established to support viable but vulnerable export companies and to keep people in employment.
What about those half way through their apprenticeship? The 3,000 apprentices who were within six to 12 months of completing their apprenticeships and who now have no work placement, and the 5,000 former apprentices who were made redundant must be facilitated and supported to complete their courses. The public and private sector must be incentivised to take them on. ESB Networks has shown the way by agreeing to take on 400. Much more needs to be done to help apprentices who have suffered because of the downturn.
Os rud é go bhfuil an Bille seo á bhrú tríd ag an Aire sa tslí atá molta aige ag an am seo, is léir nach bhfeiceann sé ní hamháin gur cur amú ama agus fuinnimh dóibh siúd atá dífhostaithe cursaí atá mí-oiriúnach dóibh, ach is cur amú airgid cáiníocóirí na tíre seo é chomh maith, nach cuideoidh in aon chor leis an ghéilleagar. Is éard atá de dhíth ná cúrsaí traenála agus oideachasúla oiriúnacha atá dírithe ar phoist, nó a chuideoidh leo poist a fháil. Tá gá le réamhsmaoineamh chun é sin a dhéanamh —áfach, tá fíorbheagán de sin le fheiceáil go dtí seo ón Rialtas. Where is the jobs strategy? What are the future job opportunities which will be available? What are the companies which will be attracted to Ireland in the future? What indigenous goods and services will characterise the future Irish economy? What are the skills that economy will require? A recent FÁS report found that many of its courses have lost focus and are of little use to young people in terms of getting work. I urge the Minister to read our document, Getting Ireland Back to Work -Time for Action, Jobs Creation and Retention. It is time for this issue to be dealt with.
I have run out of time. There is much that I would like to say on changes with regard to lone parents and I will address them on Committee Stage. That is another absolutely disgraceful stance to take at this time. The preparatory work has not been done to ensure these activation measures, as they are called, will not have a detrimental effect on those surviving on either the lone-parent scheme or social welfare allowances.
Deputy Cyprian Brady: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill because such Bills are crucial in the situation in which the country finds itself. The Bill is about providing people with opportunities and choices. For many years I have heard people regularly saying that they had no alternative but to sign on, and that there was nothing else they could do. There will always be a certain cohort of people who for a myriad of reasons, cannot find employment or simply cannot work. They are the disadvantaged and vulnerable people we have to look after. There are also those who take advantage of the system and by fraud or other means, prevent resources from being used to help those most disadvantaged and those who need the most assistance.
Fianna Fáil has always sought to look after the most vulnerable in society. Over successive Governments we have substantially increased social welfare across the board. Although we are in very tough and challenging economic times, we must ensure that the most vulnerable in our society continue to be protected, particularly the elderly. As we know, everything we have is built on the effort and commitment of our senior citizens. Over the past 12 years, we have increased pension rates by approximately 120%, unemployment benefits by almost 130% and child benefit payments by more than 330%. Difficult decisions have been made and remain to be made. However, this side of the House should not make any apology for increasing those payments.
[517]The Bill affects various parts of the social welfare system in particular ways. Sections 17 and 18 make changes for those on long-term allowances, such as the supplementary welfare and jobseeker’s allowances. The key word in this legislation is “appropriate”. An appropriate course in training or a programme of work under the employment action plan must take into account a number of factors. The client must be suitable for the course as well as the course being suitable for the client and this is crucial for the future.
Issues such as accessibility, child care matters and other family circumstances must all be taken into account before an offer of a course or placement is made. This is where the staff in the Department of Social Protection play a crucial role. There have been a number of approaches to this. The National Youth Council of Ireland raised the issue of a fair and transparent appeals mechanism. This has to be put in place and from discussions with the Minister I know that every effort will be made to ensure that when people go through an appeals mechanism they are given every opportunity to put their case fairly and to be heard and that a fair and equitable decision will be made at the end of the process. This is crucial.
The staff in the Department have a crucial role to play and as a former staff member of the Department of Social Welfare, I remember the Jobsearch programme introduced in the 1980s. At the time there was massive unemployment. The claims of people on the live register were assessed and they was interviewed by a senior member of staff. Their educational and training requirements were assessed and they were offered a position with FÁS, then called AnCO.
I agree that incentives have to be given to people, particularly to young people, to make the effort to seek employment. It is very easy for an individual, particularly a young person, to fall into the rut of having nothing to do and having no reason to get up in the morning. In parts of the country, including parts of my constituency, there have been generations of unemployment and there are no incentives for people to get up in the morning and that is passed down from generation to generation. In some areas, there is an expectation that the State will support as is needed. That is not in the interest of the client, never mind in the interest of the State.
We live in changing times and one can look at the make up of family units compared with what they were 20 or 30 years ago. Section 24 of the Bill deals with the phased changes to the Department’s one-parent family payment. From April 2011, the one-parent family payment will be made until the youngest child reaches 13 years of age instead of the current arrangements whereby it is paid until the child reaches the age of 18, or 22 in the case of somebody in education or college. We have to encourage those parents, and ensure they are in a position to take up opportunities of employment or further education. This is not about putting a barrier in somebody’s way; it is about trying to eliminate welfare dependency and encourage independence.
I understand that many of these parents find themselves in very difficult financial circumstances at present and we have to be fair and equitable about whatever changes we make to this payment. Under the Bill, there will be a six year phasing out period for existing customers with the age 13 cut-off point coming into effect for them in 2016. If the child is in full-time education, there is also a special provision for existing one-parent family payment recipients and this is only right. Many of us are blessed to know how expensive raising a child is and what resources it takes. There must be fair and equitable implementation of this part of the Bill.
I have listened to the debate over the course of the day. There has been much talk about activation and we must look at what it is and what it means. Naturally enough, the measures proposed in the Bill will no doubt be seen as harsh by some groups. It is crucial that those who find themselves in the very vulnerable position of having to claim a welfare payment are treated with courtesy and have their dignity recognised and supported. Many people are now signing on who had never before experienced the trauma of redundancy, a reduction in working hours or a change in working conditions. The sooner those people get back into the workforce, the [518]better for them and their families and every effort has to be made to minimise the time they are on welfare payments.
Joblessness, and the enforced inactivity that goes with it, is one of the biggest challenges facing many households at present. I look forward to the Minister bringing a joined-up approach to all the issues faced by unemployed people and doing so in conjunction with suitable and adequate income supports.
The proposals in the Bill on reducing jobseeker’s payments where people refuse training, or disqualifying them from jobseeker’s payments where they refuse a reasonable offer of suitable employment are not about punishing the vulnerable. They are about ensuring that social welfare resources get to the many people who are in very difficult circumstances because of joblessness.
I welcome the Minister’s plans to place more emphasis on the area of job activation and work schemes. There are many unemployed people who would appreciate meaningful work activity. A requirement for work activity would act as a deterrent to the minority of people who might claim a jobseekers payment and earn and undeclared income at the same time. Significant savings have been made in fraud prevention. Those who take advantage of the system are in the minority. This Bill is balanced in the sense that it gives people an opportunity to further themselves if they find themselves in a position where they cannot find employment. There are opportunities and it give people choices, something which is to be welcomed. When one considers that this year the State will spend just under €21 billion those resources have to be managed.
Deputy Chris Andrews: I thank Deputy Brady for sharing time. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is a very tough and imaginative Bill and there is nothing wrong with that when one is being fair, and the Minister is fair in every aspect of this. I welcome it and hope we see more of it over the coming months and years under his stewardship.
Fianna Fáil in Government has had the best interests of the most vulnerable at the core of our budgets over many years and despite the recent economic downturn, we have continued to ensure that people most at risk are provided for. This is borne out by the fact that €500 million more has been spent on welfare this year than in 2009. The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010, introduced into the house by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Ó Cuív, contains a number of amendments to existing social welfare legislation. One of the main provisions set out in sections 17 and 18, is the change to unemployment benefit payments if a person refuses to accept a job or training deemed suitable. That is not unrealistic or unfair. If somebody is offered a job and is unwilling to interact and be proactive in terms of seeking training and education, why should they not be penalised to a degree? In some ways I would go further but that may be for another day. I welcome what the Minister has initiated.
This Government is committed to getting as many people back into employment and training as possible. For example, this year the total number of training and work experience activation places funded by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation will be approximately 147,000. A question was asked on whether the places would be there when people were offered suitable training courses, and the answer is clearly “Yes”. Some €20 million has also been allocated to a labour market activation fund, which will seek to support innovative proposals over and above mainstream provision for the unemployed and it is expected that it will provide at least 3,500 training places this year alone.
In the area of youth unemployment the work placement programme is available which comprises 2,000 places, of which 1,000 are for graduates in addition to community centre and VEC schemes. This is just a small fraction of the various schemes being driven by Government. We are providing training and work placement opportunities and where there are appropriate work [519]and training opportunities, people who choose not to participate should be sanctioned. Most people would agree that one cannot have a system without a sanction mechanism in place.
One of the current conditions to obtain jobseekers allowance is that the person must be available for and actively seeking work, and this new provision will ensure that people who are in a position to work or participate in training will be far more incentivised to do so. Another provision is the change to the one parent family payment. Now the one parent family payment is payable until the youngest child reaches 18 years of age or 22 years of age if in full-time education where means and other conditions are met. From April 2011 payments for new customers will only be made until the youngest child in a lone parent family reaches the age of 13. In comparison to other countries which have similar schemes, the Irish system of support until the child is 22 years of age while in education or 18 years if not in education is extremely generous and well above the norm. We are making changes but we will still be above the European average and are very competitive in terms of these aspects.
There is a special provision for married and cohabiting couples who are recently bereaved and who have children aged 13 years or older. They will continue to receive the payment for up to two years or until their child is 18 years old to enable them to come to terms with their changed circumstances. That is a particularly welcome provision because it shows that it is not a one size fits all approach. Exceptions are made and there is compassion within the system. There will also be special provisions for families with children for whom domiciliary care allowance is paid.
The reason for these changes is that the Government believes the current system encourages long-term welfare dependency and does not encourage movement away from income support. The changes in this Bill will bring Ireland’s support for lone parents more in line with international provisions. The EU countries that are achieving the best outcomes in terms of tackling child poverty are those that are combining strategies aimed at facilitating access to employment and enabling services such as child care with income support and this is the type of system that the Government wants to move towards. Whether we have economic difficulties, this is the system towards which we should move. The Bill also provides for the Minister to appoint persons other than serving staff to be appeals officers. This will allow for the employment, on a temporary basis, of retired appeals officers as appeals officers to clear the huge backlogs of appeals office, which is another welcome aspect in the Bill.
The Opposition attempts to give the impression that it is the guardian of the vulnerable, but as the recent decision by Dublin City Council to abolish the bin waiver scheme proves, this simply is not the case. This unnecessary and disappointing decision was taken in late 2009, when the majority Fine Gael and Labour Council voted in favour of it, and its full impact is now starting to be felt. The six Fianna Fáil councillors voted against the budget but were unfortunately outnumbered. Under the new system, those people who were previously entitled to a waiver do not have to pay a standing charge, but have to pay for their bin lifts. If people keep up to date with their payments they will receive four free lifts a year. Individuals who use the bag system and were receiving free bag tags will now get 36 tags a year and will have to pay for any tags over that amount. This move, which was passed by the majority Labour vote on Dublin City Council, has unfortunately exposed the old and the vulnerable to more expense, and could have been avoided if the Labour Party and Fine Gael had worked to re-organise rather than abolish the scheme and the waste management section in Dublin City Council.
The Government is committed to protecting the most vulnerable in society. The provisions in this Bill, as well as continuing this protection, will encourage people who are in a position to do so to enter training, education and work and move away from State reliance. It is important to put it into context, in terms of the increases in pensions and welfare payments over the years. In the past decade, pension rates and unemployment benefits have increased [520]by 130% and child benefit increased by more than 330%. During the same period, the cost of living increased by 40%. This is a tough, fair and imaginative Bill and I welcome it.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: I propose to share my time with Deputy Catherine Byrne.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: Deputy Chris Andrews raised the issue of the bin waiver scheme in Dublin. The effects of this issue will be felt throughout the country, as I know from being involved in budget processes in Cork. The Minister is probably wondering why we are discussing this issue but it will come across his desk.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: There are no bin waivers out in the country where I live. There never was.
Deputy Cyprian Brady: They burn it all.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: Cork City Council has provided them for a number of years. Private operators are taking business from local authorities with the result that customers have to bear the cost of the waivers. Waste collection is dominated by a private operator in Limerick and similar issues will arise elsewhere sooner rather than later because the local authority system is not sustainable. Those who are now in receipt of waivers will be turning to their community welfare officers for support in this area.
The two main elements of the Bill are changes to the jobseeker’s allowance and the supplementary allowance for those between the age brackets of 18 to 21 and 22 to 24. I have spoken to a large number of people since these proposals were first made. One woman I met was delighted because it would get her 19 year old son off the couch. She felt he was getting too much money while living at home. However, questions arise in regard to appropriate training and suitable employment.
Many of the young men I come across were lured from education by high wages in the construction sector. Now they have lost the opportunity to finish their apprenticeships and have nowhere to turn. The thought of retraining within the construction sector seems pointless to them.
Education and training have to be the next step for these young men but they will need adequate services and facilities if they are to be successful. I served as a member of the Cork VEC and on the boards of two further training colleges. Cork has three excellent further training colleges, Coláiste Stiofáin Naofa, St. John’s Central College and Cork College of Commerce. It was refreshing to see how the staff and principals of these colleges responded to the market demands by developing new courses. They are extremely flexible in reacting to the market and the service they provide is second to none in terms of training young people and those who are on a career path that no longer exists. I am disappointed that they have not been allowed to expand sufficiently in response to the strong demand for training.
Sections 17 and 18 refers to what is termed “appropriate training”. Does this relate to the qualifications an individual possesses or ones which may help him or her to find employment? We will have an opportunity to answer this question on Committee Stage.
What exactly does the term “suitable employment” involve? If somebody is qualified and has worked for a decade in a certain profession which now offers limited employment opportunities, will he or she be required to take up alternative employment? The definition needs to [521]be clarified because it will be the basis for decisions that will be made in social welfare offices across the country.
I am aware of a 19 year old who had the option of working for three months but chose not to do so because he would be put on the lower rate when he reapplied for benefits. Young people under the age of 20 who qualify under existing schemes face this hurdle if they take up short-term employment.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is a fair point but it is not intended.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: Perhaps I will put down a parliamentary question on the matter.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I will clarify it on Committee Stage.
Deputy Deirdre Clune: I am glad the Minister can clarify it.
A new employer PRSI incentive scheme was announced in December and was supposed to be in place earlier this year but there is still no sign of it. With 439,000 people on the live register and a further 70,000 expected to join them this year, the scheme is worth implementing. Fine Gael made a similar proposal in our pre-budget submission because it is expensive for employers to hire staff and an incentive scheme may support them in doing so.
The changes to the lone parent’s allowance gives rise to difficult issues. Lone parents are at serious risk of poverty because it is not easy to raise children alone. The State has recognised that single parenthood is challenging and it is willing to support lone parents. In this Bill, however, the Government is making a statement that such support will no longer be provided once a child reaches 13 years of age. Anyone with knowledge of the education system will be aware that the transition from primary to secondary school is a difficult time for the children involved, many of whom are aged 13 years. The State is now demanding that single parents with a child of this age, primarily mothers, should be available for work. I question that approach.
Deputy Catherine Byrne: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, which will result in significant changes in social welfare payments this year as the Government tries to tackle social welfare costs, which currently stand at €20 billion per annum.
In the past, social welfare was associated with the poor and disadvantaged. Now, in more difficult times, social welfare recipients come from all walks of life, including people who find themselves unexpectedly out of work or struggling to pay bills. For this reason, with Government revenue dwindling by the day, we need to allocate social welfare payments to genuine cases involving the greatest need.
Budget 2010 introduced a raft of cuts to social welfare payments, including an excessive reduction in the dole payment and cuts to child benefit, disability benefit, illness benefit and treatment benefit. These cuts had a knock-on effect on thousands of people who were already struggling to survive and now face further changes to the jobseeker’s payment, supplementary welfare payments and the one parent family payment.
Essentially, the Bill restricts access to three payments and makes qualification for payments more difficult. While I understand the need to reduce Government expenditure following the reckless waste of billions of euro in recent years, some of the changes proposed in the Bill do not make sense.
On the proposal to cut social welfare support for young people, I do not agree that reducing jobseeker’s payments for people under 25 years who do not take up an offer of training or suitable employment will result in real savings. On the contrary, it will make life more difficult for young people. Where is suitable employment to be found? As we all know, there are [522]437,000 people on the live register, 85,000 of whom are under the age of 25 years. Many of these young people are highly skilled and have third level qualifications or trades. The vast majority of them want to work and earn a living and do not want to rely on the State. If they are lucky , they receive €100, or a little more depending on their age, from social welfare and struggle to pay their bills and make ends meet.
I agree that we must support and encourage young people who wish to return to education to upskill and hopefully find employment. However, forcing young people into training which is not entirely suitable merely to tick a box is not the answer. We need jobs to back up the many new training places available but such opportunities are in short supply.
The proposal to reduce unemployment benefit by between €25 and €35 for young jobseekers who do not take up a reasonable offer of education or training is not a quick fix. Has the Minister considered whether sufficient suitable education and training places are available for young people? Penalising a person by reducing his or her dole payment because he or she does not return to training is not the way to solve the problem of unemployment.
I also have concerns about changes to the one parent family payment. The proposals in this regard are simply cost-cutting measures which do not address the complex issues surrounding one parent families. While reducing the qualifying age from 22 years to 13 years has its merits in certain cases, we must consider the bigger picture. The one parent family payment is designed to help single parents cope with all of the demands of a young child. It is of great assistance to a single parent who is genuinely raising a family alone.
Bringing up a child or children can be difficult, both emotionally and financially. I fully support the provisions made by social welfare to help families who need financial assistance to feed and clothe their children. However, the elephant in the room is the considerable number of young women, many of whom are still teenagers, who consider single parenthood a choice which can be financially rewarding. We need to tackle the mentality that having a baby outside a committed relationship is a ticket to social welfare support and leads in many cases to the allocation of a local authority house or generous rent supplement payments. I do not seek to make life more difficult for one parent families but we need to eliminate the culture of dependence and promote education, training and a work ethic which would help people to find employment and escape from the poverty trap. The entire system must be reformed to ensure those most in need can benefit from adequate State support in the form of the one parent family payment. I do not propose to repeat the story I related to the Minister earlier.
I continue to be surprised by the large amount of money spent each year on rent supplement. The figure has increased in recent years. In 2010, the Government will pay landlords €509 million in the form of rent supplement. This money could be spent in a more sensible and productive way. For example, thousands of empty apartments and houses around the country could be taken over by local authorities and given to people on rent supplement. The beneficiaries could pay the council a set amount each week and would then have a place to call home. I am baffled that such a step has not been taken and wonder what we must do to realise this proposal. The Government must think outside the box on this issue, rather than continuing to line the pockets of landlords, many of whom do not give a damn about the maintenance of their properties or how they appear in the community. We need long-awaited statutory standards imposed on landlords.
Following budget 2010, a number of welfare payments were reduced, including the blind pension. It is incredible that blind people are means-tested before receiving the blind pension. Blind people suffer from what is probably the greatest disability, yet we put even more obsta[523]cles in their way. How can the Government, in good conscience, continue with this practice? We need to support the most vulnerable and weak in our society, including the blind.
Another area in which reductions have been made is the supplementary welfare allowance. The home heating supplement, which falls under the supplementary welfare allowance, is granted in cases of exceptional heating needs. What does the Minister consider to be exceptional heating needs? I have raised this issue on many occasions in the House and in committee. I know many elderly people who live in senior citizens’ complexes in this city in which the heating is switched off at 10 p.m. and is not switched on again until 7 a.m. The residents are not allowed to adjust the heating controls and are forced to rely on alternative sources of heat, such as electric fires, at night. This is a dangerous practice. I know many people who, if they wake up at night, must sit at home draped in blankets or return to bed because they are unable to switch on their heating. Many elderly people are afraid to switch on electric heaters because they cannot afford to pay higher electricity bills. The Government has not taken a sensible approach to this issue.
I refer to people who have been made redundant after many years in the workplace. A large number of people aged in their 40s and 50s who have worked since they left school now find themselves without a job, with few prospects of finding more work. They have paid their taxes through the years and while they are entitled to jobseeker’s benefit for 15 months, what happens when the 15 month period elapses? They are means-tested and in many cases they are not entitled to any benefit because their spouse works. This is very demoralising for men and women who find themselves with no income after decades of paying their dues and taxes. Naturally they want to continue to provide for their families but the door is closed to them and they are turned away once again.
I know the Minister is a compassionate man; I have heard him speaking at many meetings. I urge him to consider the many issues that have been raised in this House, not only by me but also by other people and to deal with those that have real merit. We all want a fairer and more transparent welfare system, but we do not want to penalise people who need our help most.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: I wish to share time with Deputy Conlon.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: I want to be associated with the comments the previous speaker made about our new Minister for Social Protection as I know he is a very compassionate, understanding and decisive man. He is a man of great courage and responsibility. I compliment him on two issues in which he has made a real difference since getting his new portfolio. For a long time the farmers’ spouses were in a very precarious position. While I know his predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, had done some work on it, he swiftly showed his compassion and understanding, and dealt with that. The second issue is one in which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle may be interested. This evening the Minister informed an all-party group of how he is dealing with the miners who have suffered long since their mines closed and ceased to work. It is a delicate situation for many of them. I pay tribute to him for dealing with this issue so swiftly — under present legislation rather than trying to shape something new. I thank him for that.
Job creation needs to be a priority for us all now and our social welfare system under the Bill will reflect this focus. As a society we need to protect the neediest and try to ensure all our citizens have a reasonable standard of living. At the same time we want to avoid long-term welfare dependency so we need to make choices in how we direct our supports. The provisions of the Bill relating to the one-parent family payment are fair. There are almost 90,000 lone [524]parents in receipt of the one-parent family payment at an estimated cost of €1.1 billion. As a parent of a large family, I recognise how difficult it is for single parents. Even with two parents it can be difficult and challenging. This payment developed at a time when single parents faced severe disadvantages and discrimination. Our society has changed so much in recent decades that this is no longer the case and the changes to the system will remove long-term welfare dependency and bring Ireland into line with other EU countries.
From April 2011, payments for new applicants will only be made until the youngest child in a lone-parent family reaches the age of 13. For existing claimants there will be a tapered six-year phasing out period. The EU countries that are most successful in tackling child poverty are those that combine income support with strategies aimed at facilitating access to employment such as child care. I welcome the special provision for married and cohabiting persons who have recently been bereaved and who have children aged 13 years or older. They will continue to receive the payment for up to two years or until the child is 18 years old to allow them to come to terms with their changed and difficult circumstances.
If a person refuses an offer of suitable employment, he or she will no longer receive jobseeker’s allowance. This provision just reinforces the existing arrangements. At the moment one of the conditions to obtain jobseeker’s allowance is that a person must be available and actively seeking work. Likewise if someone refuses to participate in an appropriate course or training, or to participate in a programme under the national employment action plan, he or she will have his or her jobseeker’s allowance or supplementary welfare allowance reduced. At the moment a person who refuses a training place is disqualified from payment for nine weeks. This new provision instead reduces the rate.
While I support the Bill, I highlight the lack of access to any social welfare supports for previously self-employed people. These people are now being punished for their entrepreneurship, a quality we are trying to promote and stimulate through various policies. The message we are sending out is anti-business, anti-innovation and detrimental to many families who are struggling to make ends meet. I know the Minister is looking at this matter. It is very unfair on people who had a good businesses idea, had the courage and vision, went to the bank manager and may have gone into debt, found work for themselves, paid for themselves and supported their families, may have extended and expanded their businesses, and gave valuable employment. Those are mainly the SME and small business people. We need these people now more than ever. Given that they have paid all their taxes, are C2 compliant and have paid PRSI for their employees, it is very unfair and demoralising for them to be left on the back foot.
I am a board member of Muintir na Tíre. Muintir na Tíre, in its role of community development, has identified four key areas of concern to communities in the past three months. Through its vision for the future development it proposes to embark on a phased programme of community action over the next two years consisting of the following elements. The first element is a community education programme addressing carbon dioxide emissions. If supported and driven from within the community, it will create awareness resulting in persons, households and communities taking responsibility for reducing their carbon footprint, which in turn will reduce fuel bills and State carbon liabilities. This programme will be delivered by Muintir na Tíre staff and a trained panel of volunteers.
The second element covers an expansion of the SEAI low-income housing warmer homes scheme. This programme will meet the needs of households not being met by the current low-income housing programme. If supported, the benefits of the programme will be enormous, the most obvious being the generation of much needed employment predominantly for males from the construction sector, a group with a strong work ethic, skills and experience, many of [525]whom were self-employed and employers and are now unemployed. They are ready willing and able to take up the challenge.
The third strand is the employment programme for jobseekers. All persons in receipt of any form of State benefit — jobseeker’s allowance or benefit, farm assist and so on — who have been out of work for a minimum of six months would be allowed to work 19.5 hours a week and retain their social welfare payments. This is vital because as we all know there are countless jobs to be done in transforming communities.
The fourth element is a community experience-qualifications-skills exchange programme. This programme will allow communities to provide a community-based programme utilising the existing community skill base of people who are currently unemployed. It will cover: adult literacy; basic computer skills; homework clubs; European languages; stone work; carpentry; plumbing; painting and decorating; gardening skills “grow your own” allotment management; community development skills; and preparation for second chance education. The scope is wide and the field is large.
The people with the ideas and work ethic are there. It must be possible for Government to allow these people who now find themselves unemployed to do the work and transform our country. They will be engaged in any works of benefit to the local community especially utilising the participants’ core skills. Payment of the benefit would be channelled through the local community organisations. These are the people on the ground who are capable and have understanding of the needs of the community and the unemployed.
Muintir na Tíre is a national voluntary organisation dedicated to promoting the process of community development. Canon John M. Hayes founded the organisation in 1937. It aims to enhance the capacities of people in communities — rural and urban — to become involved in local social, economic, cultural and environmental development. It aims to enhance the capacities of people through its core principles of neighbourliness, muintreas, self-help and self-reliance, and its whole-community approach — rural and urban — to become involved in local social, economic, cultural and environmental development and to represent the interests of local communities in different levels of policy making. The late Canon Hayes always felt it was better to light a candle than to curse the dark. We now need to light many candles and need to keep many flames burning.
Deputy Ulick Burke: Are people in the dark then?
Deputy Mattie McGrath: The Fine Gael Members have been trying to find their way for a few days and I wish them well with that.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We should keep our focus on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: The Deputy is trying to distract me. He came in for peace from the canvass but he has started to turn on me.
The organisation’s vision for the development of Muintir na Tíre is that while retaining its position in the heart of community development throughout Ireland it will develop its services to become even more relevant to the needs of communities. Muintir na Tíre will support communities to unite their efforts with local regional and national structures, thereby creating integration of community development at community, local and national levels. It operates two services. These include the promotion of community development through a process of empowerment and participation, supporting and representing more than 200 community councils and other voluntary groups, and it is vital that there are so many constituent organis[526]ations on the ground. There is also community safety, with 1,351 community programmes doing tremendous work. There is a national organiser in Mr. Liam Kelly and four regional co-ordinators but it is mainly a voluntary team looking after themselves, their families and their communities. That is the way forward and we cannot do without them. Ní neart go chur le chéile and we must work together.
Deputy Margaret Conlon: I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute this evening and I welcome the presence of Deputy Ulick Burke. Having looked around me I thought for one awful minute I would speak without a member of the Opposition being here to benefit from my pearls of wisdom.
I commend the Minister on bringing forward a Bill that is fair. There is no doubt that we live in changed times, going from a period during the Celtic tiger when there was full employment, with people earning high wages and plentiful incomes to a position where more than 400,000 people are unemployed. The difficulty is that people’s expectations changed during the Celtic tiger years and they did not foresee a day when this would happen.
The other difference to the period during the 1980s when we experienced a severe recession is that we have almost 2 million people still in work, an important fact people tend to overlook. It is very important that we say this to people at every available opportunity.
I know many people in the country who want to work; they want a reason to get up in the morning and to make a positive contribution to the economy. It is very important for their dignity and self-worth. We all love a holiday and it is lovely to have a few days off, especially if income is earned along with it. By the end of the holiday there is an itch to get back to work and make a positive contribution. We can imagine the opposite, which is to have nothing to do all day, every day, and having no income. Not alone is there no stimulation, dignity or self-worth from working but there is no income either.
The corollary is that no matter how many people work in this country, there will always be a level of unemployment. Even when the maximum number of people are working, there will be a level of unemployment. There are some people in this country who, through no fault of their own — they may have an illness, disability or other circumstances — are not in a position to work. That is regrettable but it is important to recognise such people deserve and need to be supported. This Government is committed to providing that support.
The other side of that, which I will say without fear or favour, is that some people, who we all know, have made a full-time occupation from claiming welfare. They have perfected the art and know every scheme of getting money; they are masters at it. What is more, they have never had and never will have any intention of working. Somebody said to me a number of years ago that such people would not work on batteries and I would be inclined to agree with that comment.
We cannot continue to support those people. Taxpayers in this country are providing money for those people and their actions must stop. I am not afraid or ashamed to say that or put it on record. There must be benefit reforms to ensure that work is always a much more attractive option. As a Government, we must do everything possible to provide support and incentives to those entering the labour force, or in some cases, who wish to avail of further education.
The people I meet in my constituency clinics are no different from the people Deputy Burke or other Opposition Members meet in theirs. The mantra we hear is jobs, jobs and more jobs. It must be our sole purpose to find meaningful work for people, and that is why the Taoiseach created this Department and gave the remit to the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív.
[527]I have always held the contention that if one believes something is right, it can be defended. I do not say something to be popular. I agree with the idea that if a person is on jobseeker’s allowance or any other benefit and is offered an appropriate job or training but refuses it, the benefits should be reduced. Why should we pay a benefit from taxpayers’ money if people refuse a job or turn down an educational opportunity? We must be clear on this because the Government must make every effort to encourage people to take up these opportunities; if people do not take them up they should suffer the consequences.
Unfortunately, we have all heard about FÁS in rather unflattering terms over the past number of months and years. I commend the many good people who work in FÁS, as their morale, self-worth and dignity has been severely damaged because of the actions of a few people. They are doing tremendous work and providing a tremendous service. I have met with these people, heard from them and dealt with them on a regular basis. They feel that the actions of a few people in this country have severely damaged the reputation of FÁS, which is regrettable.
These good people work at the coal face and their sole determination and motivation is to get people back to work or education and training. I make no apology for the person in FÁS who calls somebody in and asks him or her what he or she has done to get a job after a period receiving jobseeker’s allowance. If a person has not made an effort and cannot demonstrate how he or she has sought work, the FÁS representative is entitled to take certain actions. In this country there has been a cycle and culture of dependency which must be broken. In breaking it, those people who need support and are most in need will be looked after.
Deputy Mattie McGrath spoke about the self-employed and many such people took significant risks during the Celtic tiger. They now find themselves with no income, no social welfare and no prospect of a job. From speaking to those people I know that if any of them got a telephone call from the FÁS office offering a job, they would be very happy to take it.
I welcome the Minister’s decision to transfer the rural social scheme and the community services programme to his Department. These programmes have been invaluable in supporting communities the length and breadth of this country. They have addressed disadvantage and provided local opportunities in employment for people. This Department is their natural home. Without such schemes, much good work in our communities would not be done. Like others, I would advocate increasing the numbers on these schemes.
I commend the Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Mary Hanafin, on their commitment to anti-fraud measures. Any person who defrauds the social welfare system is ensuring that somebody in genuine need of assistance is not getting it. Such people put their hands into the pockets of taxpayers and take money from them. They must face the consequences and I am delighted to see that we have stepped up our efforts in that regard. We cannot tolerate the process as it stands and we must redouble our efforts to ensure such abuse is wiped out. It angers the honest and hard-working taxpayers, as well as others on welfare benefits who appreciate such contributions. That is correct.
I have much more to say but I must cut my contribution short. I welcome the Minister’s decision to appoint people other than serving staff to appeal officer positions. There are significant backlogs causing major hardship for people. The methodology that appears to apply is that if one is not sure about a claim coming through the system, one should disallow it without first subjecting it to closer examination. Such claims end up in the appeals system and in the majority of cases, the appeal is granted. This gives rise to a logjam.
I am also of the opinion that there should be greater interaction among social welfare offices, community welfare officers and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. In many towns, these entities [528]operate independently of and do not communicate with each other. They possess valuable information which should be shared.
I have been approached by many people on disability who have been called to appear before the chief medical officer. Again, this gives rise to major levels of distress because people are of the view that they are not being given enough time to have their documentation reviewed. As a result, their claims are disallowed and they are then obliged to engage with what is a lengthy appeals process.
I make no apologies for raising the concerns that my constituents bring to my attention. I am a public representative. It is my duty to represent the people who elected me. The media can refer to this as parish pump politics but I will continue to engage in it. Not only am I a legislator, I am also a public representative and I must strike a balance between the two roles. I will continue with my work in both areas.
The Minister adopts a common-sense approach and listens to the views not only of Government backbenchers but also to those put forward by the Opposition. From my dealings with him when he was Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, I am aware that this is the way he operates. I am confident that he will continue to operate in this way in his new Department.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I am delighted Deputy Conlon has conditioned the Minister to listen to people on the Opposition benches. I am pleasantly surprised that he has been present for the entire debate on the Bill. I welcome the fact that this Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has been introduced. However, I disagree with many of the provisions it contains.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Social Protection. When we contact these individuals, they are always courteous, helpful and fair. There are a few exceptions in this regard and I intend to highlight one in a moment. The conditions that obtain in the offices in which those to whom I refer work are Dickensian, to say the least. I saw the queues outside the Department’s offices in Gort, Loughrea and Tuam in the past couple of years. The personnel in these offices were obliged to deal with huge numbers of people and administer various schemes while operating in extremely poor conditions.
The language used in the Bill could in large part be classified as jargon. Essentially, it dresses up social welfare cuts in ambiguity. In that context, the Minister referred earlier to incentivising participation in training and education programmes and the programmes provided under the national employment action plan. There has been much discussion to the effect that various Departments should co-ordinate both their business and schemes in order that they will not be pulling against each other. In that context, I wish to read one sentence from a letter one of my constituents received from the community welfare services section, primary care, of the HSE and the Minister’s Department. The constituent to whom I refer is a single parent who has three children and who lives in rented accommodation. The letter states, “As you commenced full-time education on 1 October 2009, and as your circumstances do not fall within those specified, I regret to inform you that you are not eligible for the allowance you applied for”.
That is the type of message the Department of Social Protection is sending to people while the Minister refers to incentivising them to participate in various programmes. How can he describe the letter sent to my constituent as providing an incentive? The woman to whom I refer was previously employed in Galway city in the Minister’s constituency but she lost her job. She tried her best to upskill and pursue further education. Academically, she is in the top rank but she is being denied the opportunity to remain in further education. Another 15 of my [529]constituents outlined similar circumstances to me. These people embarked on courses while anticipating that the financial support they were receiving would be continued. However, that support has been withdrawn. The individuals to whom I refer are due to enter their third year in further education next September but they are being denied the opportunity to do so. Instead of being included, they are being excluded.
Reference was made to social inclusion. This piece of jargon has been uttered by those on the Government benches on numerous occasions in the past 12 months. However, what is being done is anti-social in nature. The Minister is denying those to whom I refer the opportunity to be included on schemes that are designed to allow them to upskill.
I accept that the Minister has only been in the Department for a short time and that the legislation may have been prepared prior to his arrival. I ask that he introduce drastic amendments to it in order that its provisions might be seen as being fair. I know the Minister wants all of the legislation relating to social welfare to be reasonable and fair.
I agree with Deputy Conlon’s comments in respect of fraud. However, she also stated that people want to be in permanent employment. There are those among the 450,000 who are currently out of work who will never be employed again. God knows that they and the staff of the Department are aware of this fact. We are being informed that opportunities to upskill and enter further education exist. However, there are many barriers in place in this regard and the higher one goes, the worse it gets in this regard. The Minister can shake his head but that is the reality.
I am sure the people to whom I refer visit the Minister’s clinic on a regular basis. He made an appearance at a meeting at which I was in attendance and when I challenged him about people on further education and back to education courses, he stated that I should tell them to come to his clinic and that he would sort matters out for them. The Minister is on the record as having said that.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I never said that.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I know the Minister’s intentions were good but one must consider how what he had to say sounded. Is there a national scheme in respect of which they can apply or is it the case that if they make personal representations to him, he will see to it that they are catered for?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: On a point of order——
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): The Minister on a point of order.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: ——I never said that.
Deputy Ulick Burke: Did the Acting Chairman prompt the Minister to raise a point of order?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I did not say what the Deputy indicates I said.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I do not suffer from deafness.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: However, the Deputy alleged that I said it. Let us get the record straight. I was informed about what the Deputy said at the committee meeting. What happened was that a group of students on the Access scheme approached me and I informed them that I was interested in sample cases. They told me that there was a problem——
[530]Deputy Ulick Burke: I wish to raise a counter point of order. The Minister is using jargon again. I now realise that he did have an input into the drafting of the Bill.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Those to whom I refer were representing students in general. I subsequently met representatives from the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, here in Leinster House——
Deputy Ulick Burke: The students to whom I refer are not members of the USI.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: They were representing students from the Access scheme in Galway and from all over the country.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: They made the case that the withdrawal of the higher education grant would give rise to hardship. I clearly explained that, in regard to single people living near a college, I did not believe that was true but that I could understand there were cases where this might cause hardship and if they, because they had come to me, gave me examples of cases I could generally examine the whole——
Deputy Ulick Burke: The Minister is eating into my time.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I could generally——
Deputy Ulick Burke: On a point of order, the Minister is making a speech.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Deputy made a speech.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I ask, Chairman, that you allow me extra time.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): I will.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I could generally examine the issue to make a national change. I made it clear from the outset that any change would have to affect everybody. I subsequently met with the USI and the Tánaiste. We are examining this issue. As I explained to the Deputy in the House on the previous occasion he made this allegation, any change will be announced publicly and will apply to everybody in similar circumstances. I am long enough a Member of this House to know it is unacceptable practise not to treat everybody equally under any scheme operated by a Department. I have never done otherwise. This is similar to an allegation the Deputy made a number of years ago in regard to selecting roads when it was Galway County Council who were doing so.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): I call Deputy Burke to continue.
Deputy Ulick Burke: The Minister should not bring me back that far or he will be opening another can of worms.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Deputy was wrong then too.
Deputy Ulick Burke: If the Minister has committed himself to the introduction of an equitable scheme that will treat all people the same why then——
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I would not do otherwise.
[531]Deputy Ulick Burke: ——is he incentivising training and education programmes? There are 15 other cases I could bring to his attention.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Does the Deputy want an explanation for that?
Deputy Ulick Burke: No. It is inconsistent. I do not want an explanation. All I am asking is that the inconsistencies in this proposed legislation be amended and that fairness be applied.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: If the Deputy comes back tomorrow when I am replying to the Second Stage debate I will explain it.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I will. I am open to that suggestion.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I look forward to seeing the Deputy here.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): The Deputy might be otherwise engaged.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I will be here if doing so does not interrupt other activities. I might have other priorities.
The Minister stated that the Bill deals with “the small but significant cohort who refuse opportunities”, an aspect of the provision which I welcome. Many young people and people recently made redundant, and not as a result of a lack of desire to work, want to train and to have access to training. They want access to further education and opportunities to return to education. I ask that the Minister and the Tánaiste, whom I know is fair, investigate these matters and eliminate the anomalies and barriers that exist in this regard. The Minister may not believe they exist.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I know what the Deputy is speaking about.
Deputy Ulick Burke: All we are asking is that in the current climate these people are given an incentive to work in terms of access to training so that when the upturn comes and work is available they can return to work. The Minister says that he is going to penalise under this Bill people who are offered work and refuse it. Who will offer them this work? There are people leaving this country who would work at any level despite that they may previously have been in receipt of high salaries, good working conditions and so on. They cannot get work and would sweep the roads if given the opportunity. Is the Minister incentivising them to do so?
Deputy Ulick Burke: I agree with Deputy Conlon’s remarks in regard to FÁS. Perhaps it is in this area the Minister could have serious input. The Minister could try to eliminate, even on a temporary basis, the criteria that denies people an opportunity and the dignity of work. People are being denied work because they have been three or five years on a scheme. The working age limit has been extended to 70 years and beyond in some cases yet people who have been displaced and who want to work are being denied an opportunity to do so. These people have done outstanding work.
The Minister will be aware of the FÁS schemes in County Galway which have brought about much improvement, environmentally For the past three years, the village where I live has been, as a result of work done under a FÁS scheme, declared the tidiest village in County Galway. This will continue as a result of the work being done by FÁS.
[532]Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Should a person who refuses work or a position on a FÁS, RSS or CSP scheme continue to be paid?
Deputy Ulick Burke: The clause “Should they be entitled to continue” is what eliminates them and prevents them doing valuable work in so many areas. I ask that the Minister with his colleague, the Tánaiste, co-ordinate these schemes. This has not been done to date. We are sick and tired of what is happening owing to a lack of co-ordination between the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Skills. People are falling between the stools of those two Departments. This will be replicated here unless the Minister gets a handle on it. I hope he does.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: They are all transferring to one Department.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): Minister please allow Deputy Burke to continue.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am trying to be helpful.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I will move on to the one parent allowance. There is not a Member of this House who has not met a single parent. How can the Minister seriously expect a single parent, who for whatever reason is single and has one or two children, to go out to work? If such person refuses, will the Minister curtail or reduce his or her allowance? From my understanding of the provisions in this regard, that is what the Minister is going to do. How can the Minister do that?
I welcome the child care provisions in the Bill, with which I will deal later. How can the Minister expect single parents to go out to work? How can he justify reducing such person’s allowance? Is that what the Minister is going to do?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: They will get the same allowance if unemployed.
Deputy Ulick Burke: I refer the Minister to my earlier argument in regard to the jargon used in this Bill and one’s interpretation of it.
As regards interpretation, where a person applies to the Minister’s Department for a disability allowance and his or her application is rejected he or she on appeal must appear before a medical officer. Perhaps the Minister will say if such medical officer will be a medically qualified person. I was approached by a person who had appealed a decision and was afraid to attend an appeal because of the experience of her husband, an applicant in Ballinasloe town, who has been confined to bed and has been for the past eight years refused an allowance. The woman concerned applied for the carer’s allowance because her husband is confined to bed but the Department of Social Protection disallowed the claim. I attended the appeal with her and likewise felt intimidated. I was asked why I was there even though the Department allows a person to be accompanied. The treatment meted out to that woman was intimidatory and was not good. There must be a serious assessment of some of their activities. Their object is to deny people the allowance rather than help and support them. That attitude prevails in certain centres throughout the country. I hope the Minister will send out a message that people should be fair.
Would this family have to cut off a leg or an arm to qualify as disabled in that person’s eyes? That is the reality as I witnessed it that day. The claim continues to be disallowed, simply because of the applicants’ background and their inability to produce accounts. This woman has gone to country markets all her life. These markets are prevalent now but they were unusual some time ago. Her claim was denied because she could not produce verifiable accounts. She would get no more than €10 or €20 for her produce, because of the items she sells. It is [533]unrealistic to expect her to produce furnished accounts. It is not as though the assessor was not aware of her background and her activities. No fraud was involved.
The Minister must deliver equality of access to training and education. He should encourage and incentivise it. The criteria used by appeals officers and assessors must be examined by the Minister, in co-operation with his colleague, the Tánaiste.
Some of the conditions in which people have to work are appalling. When the opportunity arises, I hope he will upgrade those conditions. There are towns in County Galway where people must collect a form in one place and take it to two or more other places before the claim is finally assessed. That is not a good scheme. It is not the fault of the personnel on the ground but it must be addressed in the near future.
Deputy Charlie O’Connor: I have enjoyed listening to Deputy Burke for the last ten minutes. I wish him well and I hope when he returns to Galway tomorrow night that he is still in good form.
I am pleased to speak on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010. I make so secret of my admiration for the work of the Minister and I wish him well. One of the Minister’s first acts as Minister for Social Protection was to visit Tallaght, where I live. I was delighted to welcome him the Fettercairn Community Centre to meet a group of people who did not spare him and told him exactly how they felt and what he should do. I suspect the Minister enjoyed the occasion. It was great to have him come to Tallaght. People were pleased to have the opportunity to tell him how they felt about social welfare. I will return to this in my remarks tomorrow.
The core business of the Department, which is the provision of a range of income supports, impacts on the lives of almost every person in the State, including many in my Dublin constituency. Almost 1.4 million people, each week, claim a social welfare payment. When qualified adults and children are included, a total of almost 2.1 million people benefit from a weekly payment. More than 600,000 families receive child benefit payment in respect of more than 1.2 million children each month.
As the Minister stated earlier today — and I compliment him on his speech — the Bill contains many technical amendments to existing social welfare legislation. It also provides for changes to the one-parent family payment, and this is what I would like to speak about for the next few minutes.
I know many lone parents, in my own constituency and in the wider community. The new proposals in the Bill, which will be phased in over time, are of particular interest to me for that reason. These new proposals will, I hope, help one-parent families get out of the poverty cycle, which many of them are in. The cycle of poverty is detrimental and cannot continue. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to that fact.
The number of claimants receiving the payment from the Department rose from 59,000 in 1997 to 91,300 at the end of April this year, a 55% increase. I understand that 98% of these claimants are women. Despite significant State spending on one-parent families, as well as improvements to the one-parent family payment by successive Fianna Fáil Ministers, the results have been poor in tackling poverty and social inclusion and encouraging economic independence. The cost of the one-parent family payment scheme in 2009 was €1.2 billion.
A large proportion of lone parents and their children continue to experience poverty. The latest figures available show that in 2008, almost 18% of lone parents were experiencing consistent poverty, compared to 3% of two-parent households and a little over 4% of the population as a whole.
[534]The best route out of poverty is through paid employment. Work, and especially full-time work, may not be an option for parents of young children. However, supporting parents to participate in the labour market, once their children have reached an appropriate age, will improve their own economic situation and the social well-being of themselves and their families.
This is the one issue about which people are contacting me. Lone parents are asking what will be done about their concerns, who will look after their children and what will happen in this regard. The Minister must engage with these people and given them clear assurances as to how they will be assisted.
The Government believes the current arrangement whereby a lone parent can receive the one-parent family payment until their child is 18, or 22 if in full-time education, without any requirement for the parent to engage in employment, education or training, is not in the best interest of the recipient, their children or society. Despite State spending in this area, the results have been poor in tackling poverty, with the child of a lone parent being four times more likely to be in consistent poverty than the population overall. This is something we should be deeply concerned about on all sides of the House.
For new customers, from 2011 it is proposed that the one-parent family payment will be made until the youngest child reaches 13. I am told there will be a six year tapered phasing out period for existing customers. Like other colleagues, I welcome this. The vast majority of new customers for the one-parent family payment are parents of new-born babies. Therefore, the change in the payment from April 2011 will not affect them until 2024, when their child reaches their 13th birthday. A cut-off point of seven years was recommended in the 2006 Government discussion paper proposals for supporting lone parents.
I am told the new proposals will bring Ireland’s support for lone parents more in line with international provisions, where there is a general movement away from long-term and passive income support. A number of countries do precisely that.
I look forward to continuing the debate tomorrow.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): The Select Committee on Transport has completed its consideration of the Road Traffic Bill 2009 and has made amendments thereto.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has completed its consideration of the following Revised Estimates for Public Services, for the service of the year ending 31 December 2010: Votes 28 and 29.
Deputy Brian O’Shea: Between January and May of this year, 193 visits by prospective foreign direct investors were made throughout the country, at the invitation of IDA Ireland. Six visits were made to the south-east region — three to Waterford, one to Dungarvan and two to Carlow. This is absolutely appalling. The serious neglect of Waterford and the south east must be brought to an end quickly. There has been a drain of jobs from the Waterford constituency in recent times, following big and small closures and big and small layoffs. In the [535]past year, there has been an increase of 1,046 in the overall live register figure for the Waterford constituency. As of 31 May last, the live register figure for the Waterford exchange area was 12,294, while the figure for the Dungarvan area was 2,346. The total figure for the whole constituency was 14,640. The breakdown of these figures shows that in the Waterford exchange area, 1,742 men and 1,038 women under the age of 25 are on the live register. The comparative figures for the Dungarvan area are 306 males and 141 females under the age of 25. These figures do not include those who have emigrated. There were eight prospective investor visits to the Waterford area in 2009, with two visits to the Dungarvan area.
I asked a parliamentary question on 9 June last about the promotion to potential investors of the former cheese factory site at Kilmeaden, County Waterford. In response, the Minister, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, informed me that the promotion of land banks to investors is the responsibility of IDA Ireland, which will promote the site for mobile overseas investment as appropriate. He also informed me that Enterprise Ireland has made its regional and international staff aware of the availability of this land and continues to offer support within the realm of its remit. The Kilmeaden task force was established in 2009 by the company in question. Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Waterford County Council and Waterford Chamber of Commerce are actively involved in the task force, which holds meetings on an almost monthly basis. The real issue is whether IDA Ireland has come up with any potential investors. To the best of my knowledge, it has failed to do so.
I wish to compare Waterford and the south-east region with other regions, with regard to foreign direct investor visits at the invitation of IDA Ireland in the first five months of this year. The north-west region, with seven visits, is the region with the next lowest number of visits, after the south east. There was one visit to Donegal and six to Sligo. The midlands came next, with 14 visits. The mid-west and the north east had 16 visits each, east Galway had 18 visits, the south west had 22 visits and the east region had 94 visits. The figures provided by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, revealed that Dublin city and county had 92 visits over the period, Cork city and county had 22 visits, Galway city had 18 visits, Limerick had 11 visits and Waterford city and county had four visits.
The figures I have given the House prove that Waterford and the south east are being scandalously neglected when it comes to job creation. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Waterford and the south east must get a fair share of the foreign direct investor visits organised by IDA Ireland. There is a vital strategic need to develop the job creation capacity of Waterford and the south east, so that the region’s potential can be maximised. I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that if this is to be achieved, Waterford Institute of Technology must be upgraded urgently to constitute the university of the south east. I demand that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation ensure that Waterford and the south east get a fair share of promotion to foreign direct investors.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I thank the Deputy for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe. Waterford has a long and strong track record as a centre of manufacturing expertise. It is also an important transport hub. It has an excellent institute of technology, with higher ambitions. It is the capital of the south-east region, which happens to be my region. County Waterford has a key strength in engineering in both the indigenous and overseas sectors. In recent years, there has been significant growth in advanced manufacturing, particularly in the life sciences sector, and in the international and financial services sector. In recent years, the business environment has become more challenging for companies in lower value manufacturing.
[536]The Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills today welcomed the announcement by the European Parliament of its approval of Ireland’s application for assistance under the European globalisation adjustment fund, EGF. The application encompasses more than 650 workers who were made redundant at the Waterford Crystal plant in Kilbarry and ancillary enterprises in 2009. The EGF application is for just under €4 million, of which the Government is providing almost €1.4 million, with the remainder coming from the EGF. This is the second EGF application in support of redundant Irish workers affected by the adverse impacts of globalisation to be approved for assistance under the fund. It responds to the strong case made by the Government and the EU recognition that the measures to assist workers formerly employed in Waterford Crystal justify financial support. Since the Kilbarry and related redundancies last year, the relevant State agencies have been implementing measures in support of the workers. For example, FÁS has provided occupational guidance and interview skills to more than 480 redundant workers. To date, almost 250 redundant workers have availed of training places in a variety of disciplines. The vocational education committees, Enterprise Ireland and the city and county enterprise boards are also offering a range of educational and enterprise supports to former workers.
It is clear that we are operating in a very difficult economic environment. In addition to the normal level of job losses, many IDA Ireland client companies announced significant reductions in their global workforces as they came under increasing pressure to survive. A number of such companies are being supported by IDA Ireland to retain substantial employment. In the case of Waterford, IDA Ireland gave direct support to companies in 2009 to maintain approximately 2,000 jobs which were at high risk. We must remember that there are 31 IDA Ireland-supported companies, employing approximately 5,960 people, in Waterford city and county. IDA Ireland is committed to balanced regional development. One of the high level goals of the agency’s strategy document, Horizon 2020, which was published earlier this year, is that 50% of all foreign direct investments will be located outside Dublin and Cork by 2014. The challenge in achieving an even spread of investment intensifies as the sophistication of investments increases. Competition for foreign direct investment comes not just from other countries, but from city regions with populations in excess of 1 million people. Dublin is the only recognised city region in Ireland that meets this criterion. If foreign direct investment is to continue to contribute to balanced regional development, other regions of the country must be promoted as regions of scale with urban centres that provide the range of infrastructure and services that high value investment projects demand.
In the case of Waterford, IDA Ireland is concentrating on the gateway city of Waterford and the town of Dungarvan. In addition to marketing the area for new inward investment, IDA Ireland is actively engaged with the existing IDA Ireland client base in Waterford city and county to encourage a transition to higher value activities and to promote further investment in Ireland. Clear evidence of the transition to more knowledge based and higher value activity can be seen in the resilience of companies such as Bausch & Lomb, Honeywell and GlaxoSmithKline, as well as newer additions to the county’s portfolio such as Citi Hedge Funds, Genzyme and Sun Life Financial. In marketing County Waterford for new foreign direct investment, IDA Ireland is focused on attracting overseas companies in the services and knowledge-based industries, including advanced manufacturing. Sectors of focus in the medium term will be life sciences, information and communications technology, international services and high technology engineering.
IDA Ireland also provides tailored property solutions to its clients and potential clients. In Waterford, the agency has developed the 28 ha. Waterford Business and Technology Park and [537]the Dungarvan Business Park. In addition, it is developing a large-scale 55 ha. greenfield site in Belview which is specifically targeted for larger-scale utility-intensive overseas investments. A further 20 ha. site, the Knockhouse lands, is available adjacent to the Genzyme facility on the Kilmeaden Road.
IDA Ireland continues to work closely with third level educational institutes in the region so that the skill sets necessary to attract high-value employment to the county are developed. IDA Ireland maintains a close relationship with FÁS to ensure the requirements of industry, particularly in the area of training and skills, are met. While IDA Ireland actively encourages new investments in Waterford, it is ultimately the investor who decides where to locate.
According to the latest figures available, there are 183 Enterprise-Ireland-supported companies in Waterford, employing more than 3,600 people. So far this year, more than €1.8 million has been paid out to Enterprise Ireland client companies in County Waterford. In 2009, the City and County Enterprise Boards in Waterford issued €400,000 in grant support to 56 micro-enterprise projects and 1,113 people took part in CEB-organised training programmes.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): The Minister of State has gone over his time.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: I will just finish the last couple of paragraphs, if I can. Some of the other replies are shorter.
Deputy Jack Wall: That is a bad sign.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: My priority is to ensure that the business environment is supportive of Irish enterprise generally and that we continue to attract high-value foreign direct investment and assist the development of indigenous industry.
In addition, the Government has taken decisive action to restore the flow of credit to business, particularly small and medium enterprises, which are the main source of employment in the economy. Undertakings required of the main banks in the recent recapitalisation exercise will ensure that these banks repay the debt they owe to the Irish taxpayer by restoring the flow of credit to enable business to exploit the opportunities offered by recovery in global markets. The Minister has met with representatives of the banks and will continue to monitor their activities closely to ensure they fully honour the commitments given in this regard. These actions taken by the Government will ensure that the Irish economy is well placed to take advantage of the international recovery and restore growth in economic activity and employment.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity of raising this important issue which is of concern to women and families throughout the country. I regret that the Government has not provided time for this to be addressed in the Dáil in a more substantive way. I reiterate my call on the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, to address the House on the issue and take questions from Members.
When Melissa Redmond courageously spoke out about her experience in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda she was followed by other women across the State who had similar experiences. The common factor was that the women were not properly listened to when they raised their concerns about their diagnoses of miscarriage. They trusted their own instincts and sought second or further opinions. All were women who had previously experienced pregnancy and, in some cases, miscarriages. They had learned from experience. They [538]were in a position to make their own judgment and seek a second opinion. They had happy outcomes, thank God, and their children are alive and well today.
However, our thoughts must go also to the many women who are now living with the dreadful thought that their pregnancies may have been terminated based on a misdiagnosis of miscarriage. This is not just about the Melissa Redmond case or the women who have spoken out. They would be the first to acknowledge that, because the very reason they spoke out was to alert people to the wider implications.
The Minister has stayed largely silent on the issue, which is a cause of great concern and grief to many women. Now, for the first time, the Minister, in reply to a Dáil question from myself, has admitted that she had known of the Melissa Redmond case since August 2009, the month following the mistaken diagnosis of miscarriage. In her reply yesterday, the Minister described how her Department and the HSE handled the Redmond case. Crucially, however, she gives no indication that the wider implications were considered, or the possibility that women had similar experiences in other hospitals.
The Minister needs to explain why it was only after the issue received widespread national publicity that the HSE ordered its review of cases over the past five years. Why was it only after the story broke in the media that the HSE wrote to all public and private maternity units advising them to establish immediate measures to ensure that decisions to avail of drugs or surgical intervention with women who have had diagnoses of miscarriage must be approved by a consultant obstetrician? Why have different standards and practices apparently been applied in different regions and maternity units? HSE West has said that second scans in cases of suspected miscarriage in early pregnancy are now standard. Is that the case in other regions? Is the HSE setting standards?
This will be a highly traumatic experience for possibly hundreds, if not thousands, of women who may find that their viable pregnancies were terminated after being wrongly diagnosed as miscarriages. The Minister stated in her reply to my parliamentary question that the HSE is——
Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady): The Deputy has one minute remaining.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I urge Members of the House to listen to this. The Minister’s words were that the HSE was “in the process of initiating the review of cases over the past five years to determine the number of patients who were recommended drug or surgical treatment when the diagnosis of miscarriage was made in error, and where subsequent information demonstrated that the pregnancy was viable”. Will these women be contacted directly, and how soon? This issue has been known to the Minister, her Department and the HSE at least since August 2009. It is a classic case of patients not being listened to. We must have full disclosure of the truth and we must endeavour to ensure that such tragic misdiagnoses will never again occur in any of our maternity units.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: I am replying to this matter on behalf of the Minister for Health and Children. All incidents of this kind are serious and are treated as such. They are distressing to the women and families involved and I express my sincerest sympathies to all those affected.
On 7 August 2009, solicitors for the couple concerned wrote to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, seeking certain assurances about the woman’s care and other actions to be carried out by the hospital. On the same day, the solicitors wrote a short letter to the Minister for Health and Children enclosing a copy of that letter. This was also copied to the CEO of the HSE and to the State Claims Agency. The case was handled by the Department of Health and Children in line with the patient safety protocol adopted in September 2008, [539]which deals with correspondence on issues of patient safety from patients, doctors, health service staff and solicitors. In view of the fact that a medical assessment of any potential patient safety issue is required, this is managed by the chief medical officer on behalf of the Minister for Health and Children.
Within one week the HSE responded to the solicitors, and a further letter was sent on 24 August. The Minister for Health and Children was copied on both these letters. The case was placed on the patient safety register and was reviewed regularly. In line with the protocol, the Department of Health and Children followed up with the HSE by telephone and letter to determine whether any risk issues had arisen from its investigation of the case. Following these contacts, the hospital’s risk management unit advised the Department in January that a number of measures had been put in place to ensure that the chances of such an error being repeated were minimised. The Department requested further details, which were received in April 2010.
The Department’s patient safety protocol meeting of 6 May 2010 reviewed the hospital’s action in the case and was satisfied that it had been dealt with in a suitable manner and that a patient safety risk for other users of the service did not arise. It was determined that follow-up actions to enhance patient safety had been put in place at the hospital, and the chief medical officer was satisfied that the case had been dealt with appropriately.
I must point out that there has been no other case of this type on the patient safety protocol register since its inception in October 2008; neither was it indicated to the Department that any other such cases had been identified. However, as a result of media coverage in recent days a number of other cases were brought to the attention of the Minister for Health and Children.
As a result, a number of actions have been agreed by the HSE in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children to ensure the safe management of early pregnancy loss across the country, as follows. The HSE is in the process of initiating a review of cases over the past five years to determine the number of patients who were recommended drug or surgical treatment when the diagnosis of miscarriage was made in error, and where subsequent information demonstrated that the pregnancy was viable. The terms for the conduct of the review are being finalised at present and the HSE hopes to make them public in a matter of days. A joint letter from the Department’s chief medical officer and the HSE’s national director for quality and clinical care has been issued to all public and private obstetrics facilities advising them to put in place immediate measures to ensure the decision to use drugs or surgical intervention in women who have had a miscarriage diagnosed must be approved by a consultant obstetrician.
In addition, a clinical programme for obstetric care has been established by Dr. Barry White, the HSE’s national director of quality and clinical care. The obstetrics programme will define standardised care for early pregnancy loss and other aspects of obstetric care. This programme is led by Professor Michael Turner of the Coombe Women’s Hospital, who was appointed last month and will develop a guidance document for the management of early pregnancy loss in conjunction with the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
Any objective look at the initiatives the Minister for Health and Children has taken and is taking demonstrates a determination and an earnestness to improve the safety and quality of care for all patients across the broad spectrum of health services activity. Under her stewardship key steps in this regard include statutory establishment of the Health Information and Quality Authority; the introduction of competence assurance for clinicians; the establishment of the commission on patient safety and quality assurance to set the agenda for change to improve the experience and outcomes of service users; the enactment of legislative provisions for protected disclosures by employees in the public health services who have concerns about safety of patients; preparation of legislative proposals to support open disclosure, adverse event [540]reporting and clinical audit, which will be included in the Health Information Bill published this year; and legislative proposals for standards-based licensing of public and private health care providers, which are to be the subject to public consultation early next year.
I assure the Deputy careful attention will be given by the Department of Health and Children and the HSE to promoting learning from these incidents in order to improve patient experiences and outcomes.
Deputy Jack Wall: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for accepting this Adjournment debate. There is major concern about the changes that will take place in respect of respite care in the Kildare and west Wicklow area. Respite care will no longer be provided at the Drogheda Memorial Hospital. There are concerns about people who have attended the hospital for a period of time. In that time, people create friendships with staff and others in receipt of respite care. Changes are now being implemented and patients are being told that the liaison public health officer or a nurse will be in touch with them. Patients are not sure if the dates on which they were entitled to respite care will be honoured or where they will be sent. This is a major upsetting factor for senior citizens. The families involved are deeply concerned about the upset and torment this creates for senior citizens.
The Drogheda Memorial Hospital has served Kildare well. It was originally referred to as the jockey hospital. Anyone involved in the bloodstock industry who was injured was brought to the jockey hospital and the facility progressed to what it is today, a wonderful facility with wonderful staff and care. The INMO is deeply concerned about the suggestion that respite care will be stopped and the uncertainty about the future of the hospital now that there will be ten empty beds. I hope the Minister for Health and Children, through the Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh, can give us a clear indication that there is no threat of closure to the hospital and that this is a short-term solution to financial circumstances of the HSE.
I am loth to hear arguments about why this hospital should be closed. It would have major implications for health care in Kildare. At the moment there is Baltinglass District Hospital and St Vincent’s Hospital, Athy, which is practically impossible to get into for long-term geriatric care. Nevertheless, there are ten beds that seemed to be unused. That the HSE has determined there will be no more respite care provided at the facility adds to the worries and concerns. I hope the reply clears up the position in respect of the hospital, the patients, the families and the staff involved. I hope the Minister of State indicates this is a short-term solution to a financial position. I hope the hospital is not under threat so that we can move forward and see the hospital retained as a central focus point in the services supplied at the three hospitals in Kildare and west Wicklow. Those three hospitals are of paramount importance to providing services to senior citizens, especially to those in receipt of respite care.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: I will take the Adjournment debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney. The overarching policy of the Government is to support older people to live in dignity and independence in their homes and communities for as long as possible. Where this is not possible, the HSE supports access to quality, long-term residential care where appropriate.
In line with this overall approach, a priority of Government in recent years has been to develop a range of community-based supports such as home help, home care packages, and day respite care. Between 2006 and 2010, additional investment of more than €200 million was provided to the HSE to develop community based services for older people. Without these initiatives, many older people would spend longer than necessary in acute hospitals or would be admitted to residential care earlier than might be required. The HSE service plan 2010, [541]approved by the Minister for Health and Children in February, commits the HSE to providing agreed levels of service nationally for these key community support areas. The plan includes respite care provision, often available via day care facilities or as part of a home care package. These services are delivered either directly by the HSE, or in partnership with the voluntary or private sectors.
Broadly speaking, the level of community supports for older people in 2010 is in line with the 2009 provision. This includes an increase this year in the number of home care packages available, due to an additional funding of €10 million given for this purpose in the last budget. The key activity targets contained in this year’s HSE service plan are almost 12 million home help hours to around 54,500 people; increased home care package provision from 8,700 recipients at any one time in 2009, to 9,600 in 2010; and a total of 21,300 day care places, which is estimated to cater for up to 80,000 people. While this target is slightly down from a comparable figure of 21,600 places last year, the respite element of day care would be generally compensated for in the overall 2010 home care service picture. It should be noted that any changes to these national target commitments, as part of the agreed HSE service plan, must be notified to the Department.
The HSE provides more than 750 designated respite care beds benefiting an estimated 19,000 people. It also provides in excess of 1,000 dedicated rehabilitative, convalescence and assessment beds within its own facilities. In addition, the HSE is currently working to reconfigure services within its own facilities to ensure that the best possible use is made of public resources with regard to the provision of both long-term and short-term residential care services. The Department of Social Protection provides a respite care grant which may be used to purchase short-term care in private nursing homes.
Other important initiatives are also being undertaken at a strategic level to improve community based services for older people. Arising from an evaluation of home care packages, published by the Department last December, the HSE established a task group to progress various improvements in home care provision this year. The Department accepts the need for a more standardised approach to home care generally, whether by public or private provision. This year the HSE intends to introduce standardised access and operational guidelines for the delivery of home care packages; adopt a voluntary code of quality guidelines for home care support services for older people; and progress a new procurement framework for home care services. These initiatives will, as I have indicated, facilitate the HSE to implement a more standardised approach generally to home care services, including respite care, in the context of interlinking with the wider range of services throughout the acute hospital and primary care areas.
With regard to the particular case raised by the Deputy, I understand that the facility in question is still providing some respite and other care services, but faces challenges from new standard requirements and staffing issues. The HSE locally is arranging replacement care at present, as required, in local private nursing homes, or in St. Vincent’s, Athy. This is done through the local public health liaison nurse who manages individual requests for respite.
As the Deputy is aware, the HSE has operational responsibility for the delivery of health and social services nationally. He will appreciate that all developments relating to older people, including respite care, have to be addressed in the light of the current economic and budgetary pressures. The HSE has been asked to make a rigorous examination of how existing funding might be reconfigured or re-allocated to ensure maximum service provision is achieved. This requires a stringent ongoing review of the application of the resources currently available. It is, consequently, a matter for the HSE to manage the services I outlined, at national, regional, or local level, bearing in mind all relevant factors such as overall resources, local circumstances, [542]or evolving service priorities. This includes the provision of services at individual facilities within County Kildare, or elsewhere.
Deputy P.J. Sheehan: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this important issue to be raised tonight. I represent the people of West Cork, particularly, on this issue, the people of Bandon and Skibbereen who were so badly affected by flooding last winter. I am delighted the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, is present to hear me on this important matter because he has first-hand information, from his visit to both towns in early January this year, when he saw the amount of damage done there. I wish to concentrate on Bandon and the Bandon River to highlight the issues that need immediate attention. These problems also exist with the Ilen River which flows through Skibbereen. I hope the Minister of State will not give me and the people of Bandon and Skibbereen in his prepared reply a list of excuses about feasibility studies and co-ordination plans instead of action. I need not remind him it only takes a couple of hours from the start of rain to having water flowing through the doors of homes and business premises in both towns.
The Government immediately must have the following works carried out. It must oversee the removal of all obstructions from river beds and banks, including trees, rocks and debris from the Bandon River from Dunmanway to Innishannon and from Caheragh to Skibbereen and the Ilen River. It must provide emergency dredging along the length of both rivers. It is 30 years since any shovel of gravel was taken out of these river beds which is a shocking state of affairs. It must ensure the cleaning of all drains and road shores in the affected areas and provide the necessary funding for the proposed sewerage schemes so that construction can start immediately, especially where these separate farm water from sewage. It must replace all breached flood walls immediately and investigate areas where drainage problems occurred such as the Bridewell area and the Riverview development in Bandon and must provide remedies. No programme dredging or clearance of shrubbery has been undertaken of both those rivers during the past 30 years.
I spoke on this issue last November in the emergency debate in this House and raised this issue again as an Adjournment matter in January when I proposed local emergency plans. The national emergency committee was very slow to react in the case of the flooding and also during the period of sub zero temperatures in January. This is only a fire brigade Government in that it only reacts when the smoke is swirling all around it.
I call on the Minister of State to create local emergency co-ordinating committees on a pilot basis in Bandon and Skibbereen where these events occurred. These would, in the first instance, investigate the cause of the flooding, propose remedies to prevent or limit recurrences and draw up a plan to cope with the consequences of a recurrence. They should be able to create a local centre for emergency services co-ordination with a designated office on a safe site having basic essential services. They should create the position of a local director of emergency services to work in conjunction with and under the guidance of the national emergency co-ordination centre in drawing up a plan to respond to further events.
The good people of Bandon and Skibbereen need these steps to be taken now and not be bogged down in a paper mountain of bureaucracy. These measures need to be completed by the end of the summer so that the people do not have live under the threat of being flooded every time it rains next winter. The time for action is now. I call on the Minister of State to cut out red tape bureaucracy and act immediately. Actions speak louder than words.
[543]It is of paramount importance that the rivers concerned be dredged immediately. How can flood waters subside when the rivers are choked with gravel and debris? More than six months have elapsed since the Minister of State visited Skibbereen and Bandon to view for himself the damage done to both towns. The only hotel in Bandon has been closed since New Year’s Day. This is a sad reflection on a Government that has failed hopelessly to deliver the necessary precautions to avoid future flooding occurrences. I am delighted the Minister of State is here to answer my question.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: I am delighted on this occasion to speak on my own behalf in reply to this Adjournment matter. Following the severe flooding which affected the general Cork area in November 2009, I visited both Bandon and Skibbereen in January of this year. At that time I announced that the Office of Public Works is fully committed to working in partnership with Cork County Council, including providing expertise and guidance on flood solutions for the area. Our aim is always to ensure the preferred solution is one that will afford the required level of protection while also addressing any environmental issues and providing the best value for money.
Following an initial assessment by Cork County Council of the November 2009 flooding event in Bandon it was decided that an in-depth feasibility study was needed to identify and assess the various options available to address flooding in the area. OPW set up a steering group with Cork County Council to commission the procurement of consultants to undertake the study. The process of procuring the consultants is well under way and an appointment is likely to be made in the third quarter of 2010. The study is likely to take approximately nine to ten months to complete. At the core of the study will be an evaluation of the economic and environmental impacts of possible flood defence options which will be identified by the consultants. The best acceptable solution that emerges from the study will then be brought forward by the OPW, in conjunction with Cork County Council, for public consideration. Subject to any proposals being acceptable locally, detailed design will then commence which will allow construction to begin in 2012. This timescale is in line with those for all major flood relief projects undertaken by OPW. It is dictated by the complexity of the projects and the multi-stage process which must be complied with to ensure that they accord fully with public consultations and EU, Department of Finance and statutory requirements. When I was in Bandon, I made it clear that the town would be in line to receive the level of protection that towns like Fermoy, Mallow, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Ennis and so on have received. That announcement was very well received by the people of Bandon and by the local press. They want proper defence works and I flatter myself that the day I visited Bandon in January 2010 will be well remembered when these works finally come to fruition and provide the people of Bandon with the protection they deserve.
I am aware of local concerns about the build up of silt and debris in the river. Responsibility for maintenance and for removal of such items from the River Bandon is a matter, as the case may be, for Cork County Council or any riparian owners along the course of the river. Cork County Council has examined the scope for maintenance work to be carried out on the river in advance of the implementation of any major flood relief scheme. It is my understanding that it has secured some funding locally and intends to carry out some minor channel works before the end of the year. If further beneficial urgent or high priority works are identified, it is open to the council to apply to the OPW for consideration under the minor works programme, of which three tranches have already been announced since last November.
The OPW and Cork County Council have also discussed the possibility of providing an interim early flood warning system for the town of Bandon ahead of the implementation of a flood relief scheme. The council is currently preparing a proposal for the development of a [544]system with University College Cork. In principle, the OPW is agreeable to part fund a system with Cork County Council. This exists in Clonmel and is very beneficial as it provides several hours notice.
With respect to the problem in Skibbereen, the OPW has approved an application from Cork County Council under the 2010 minor works and coastal protection programme to procure a flood risk assessment and management study of the Ilen River. The sum of €120,000 has been allocated to Cork County Council to complete the study, which will examine the cause of the flooding problem and identify appropriate cost effective solutions. Cork County Council estimates that it will take approximately eight months to complete. It is envisaged that this study will also examine the viability of installing a flood warning system for Skibbereen. It is not possible at this stage to give a definitive timescale for implementation of any works recommended by the study. However, every effort will be made to move forward their implementation as quickly as possible, in line with normal procedure.
I am committed fully to securing effective and appropriate solutions to the problems that have been experienced by the people of Bandon and Skibbereen. I am confident the approach being followed by the OPW and Cork County Council offers the best prospect of this objective being achieved.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 June 2010.
———————— The following are questions tabled by Members for written response and the ministerial replies as received on the day from the Departments [unrevised]. ————————Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, answered orally.
Questions Nos. 7 to 33, inclusive, resubmitted.
Questions Nos. 34 to 44, inclusive, answered orally.
45. Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the actions that he is taking to increase trade with Asia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24481/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Government’s Asia Strategy, which ran for the ten years up to the end of 2009, was instrumental in developing Ireland’s Trade and other links with the key Asian economies.
The success of the Asia Strategy has been striking. Exports to the eight countries has risen from €4bn in 1999 to €9.6bn in 2009, well ahead of the target of €9bn. The number of Irish companies with a presence in these countries has risen fivefold, from 54 to 272, well ahead of the target of 215.
In addition, growth has been achieved on other targets relating to Tourism, specialist food exports, developing inward student numbers, academic partnerships and a range of other links and developments. These outcomes, together with progress in wider awareness-raising, have been greatly assisted by focused high-level visits. Over the last five years, Taoiseach-led Trade Missions have been organised to China, India and Japan and other Ministerial-led Trade Missions have taken place in China, India, Japan, Malaysia and Singapore. In addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs has expanded their network of Embassies and Consulates in the region.
An example of our success is that Ireland now has a Trade surplus with China, a dramatic turnaround from the position only three years ago when we had a trade deficit of €2.9bn with that country.
The Government is committed to developing and expanding this engagement, as the key Asian economies represent an exciting and continuously developing market for Irish goods and [546]services. To this end and in response to the Smart Economy Framework, my Department is both reviewing the achievements of the Asia Strategy, as well as working with other relevant Departments and the development agencies to prepare a new Trade, Tourism and Investment Strategy. The new strategy will be broader in reach than the Asia Strategy, yet it will still be focused on key high growth emerging markets such as China, India, Japan, the Gulf States and Brazil, as well as on our existing key trading partners, and its aim will be to increase our engagement in these three key areas, with these exciting markets. The Strategy will boost our exports, tourism and investment performance and bring further focus and coherence to Ireland’s single-minded pursuit of our international economic and commercial interests. It will be implemented by way of an Action Plan.
The Strategy and Action Plan will be completed by mid-year.
46. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the programmes and policies in place within his Department or organisations and agencies under the aegis of his Department to encourage and support entrepreneurship; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24425/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): As Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Innovation my priority is to ensure that the business environment is supportive of enterprise and export growth and encourages growth in all areas of the economy including entrepreneurs.
The Government’s sustained investment under the Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation has led to year on year increases in R&D and innovation projects in indigenous companies and the growth in the number of spin out and incubation companies.
The State enterprise agencies provide a range of direct financial and non-financial supports to entrepreneurs.
As part of its overall strategy for indigenous industry, Enterprise Ireland’s remit includes the stimulation and development of start-ups that have the potential to employ more than 10 people and achieve €1 million in exports. Such start-ups are typically highly innovative and are in a position to sell globally from their earliest stage.
Over the last decade, the Government has made significant investment in development in the broader environment for start-ups. This has included substantial investment in incubators, seed and venture funds, angel networks and mentors. Enterprise Ireland has supported between 50 and 70 start-ups each year over the past decade, 50% of which are located outside Dublin.
In 2009, Enterprise Ireland supported the business plans of 73 High Potential Start-up Companies. These young companies are an integral part of the Government’s blue print for the Smart Economy and are from sectors as diverse as life sciences, bio-tech and medical technology, food, telecommunications and internet services.
They are expected to create over 900 new jobs over the next three years, bringing total employment in these businesses to almost 1,500. Total sales over the same period are expected to reach €600 million, with exports accounting for over 80% of this figure.
EI’s Business Partners Programme provides funding to enable entrepreneurs to work with researchers who have technology with real potential. The funding allows them to undertake due diligence on the technology and the market and where appropriate spin it off into a new start up.
[547]The CEBs stimulate enterprise potential at local level, play a key role in creating a thriving enterprise sector and promote entrepreneurship.
The County and City Enterprise Boards provide support to indigenous micro-enterprises, employing up to 10 people, in the start-up and expansion phases by both financial and non-financial assistance.
In 2009, the CEBs assisted the micro-enterprise sector through the provision of €10.365 million in grant assistance to 1,120 client projects as well as providing over 25,000 participants with a variety of training and mentoring programmes.
We also want to ensure that entrepreneurial individuals are identified, appreciated and cultivated at an early stage. The Student Enterprise Awards organised by the CEBs attracted almost 15,000 participants this year with representation from 400 schools. Under the programme students researched, set up and managed their own enterprises identifying solutions to business problems.
47. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the initiatives he has taken or intends to take to create incentives for employers particularly those taking on extra employees; if his attention has been drawn to the existence of a large number of highly skilled, experienced and well motivated persons who have recently become unemployed and whose skills and leadership are invaluable in the context of economic recovery; if he has considered a mechanism to avail of the services of such people rather than consigning them to the unemployment register; his proposals to address these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24422/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Government has implemented a comprehensive new, sustained growth in business, exports and jobs, based on increasing levels of productivity, competitiveness and innovation.
In terms of direct supports to companies, last year the Government introduced the Employment Subsidy Scheme (Temporary) in the context of rising unemployment to help employees retain their jobs while at the same time assisting employers in retaining their productive capacity.
The Enterprise Stabilisation Fund was established to support viable but vulnerable companies who have experienced difficulties due to the current economic climate. The scheme is implemented under the EU State Aid Temporary Framework Guidelines. The aim of the initiative is to help those companies survive the current global downturn by supporting their drive to reduce costs and to sustain employment.
Companies supported under the Employment Subsidy Scheme and the Enterprise Stabilisation Fund have committed to maintaining over 100,000 jobs to the end of November 2010.
Additionally, Enterprise Ireland continues to support the growth of new and existing internationally trading Irish enterprises. A new Fund for Job Expansion has been launched by Enterprise Ireland, which will provide support of up to €150,000 to eligible clients taking on a development plan, which will increase employment. The first call for this competitive Fund closed in May with a further two calls scheduled for September and November of this year. The Fund will assist companies with regard to capital, technology acquisition, training, the recruitment of key managers, employment and consultancy.
The introduction of a scheme of tax exemption on the income and gains of new start-up companies over the first three years of operation is further evidence of the Government’s [548]commitment to offer incentives for employers to both create new enterprises and in turn create additional employment opportunities.
The Department of Social Protection are finalising arrangements for the PRSI exemption scheme which is applicable in certain circumstances where a person has been unemployed for six months.
Additional measures targeted at the unemployed include the Work Placement Programme, which is designed to offer unemployed people, including unemployed graduates, the opportunity to obtain quality work experience. Participants on the programme retain their social welfare status and entitlements.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills, Mary Coughlan, recently announced that some 6,589 training places will be made available to the unemployed under the Labour Market Activation Fund, 2010.
Courses will be provided in a range of different locations targeting the less-skilled, and those formerly employed in declining sectors such as construction, retail and manufacturing, with particular emphasis on the under 35s and the long-term unemployed.
I am confident that the initiatives outlined above under the remit of my Department and my Government colleagues' Departments will create an appropriate environment, which will encourage employers to develop and grow their business ventures, and in turn assist in the creation of employment opportunities in the future.
48. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the progress made regarding the commitment given in the Renewed Programme for Government to expand the role of innovation vouchers in allowing growing local enterprises bridge the innovation gap in getting their products or services to the market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24339/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Conor Lenihan): The objective of the Innovation Voucher Initiative is to facilitate and encourage enterprises, in particular small enterprises, to engage in research or development by availing of the services available from research institutions.
Through this initiative Irish companies are being supported to rapidly and effectively develop and commercialise new processes, products and services profitably. They are helped to acquire, develop and integrate the technologies and supporting knowledge required. They are also supported in developing the leadership skills and capability of company management necessary to drive innovation.
The initiative is already both successful and popular with small Irish businesses. It is playing an important role by opening up access for small companies to a wide source of innovative acumen. It has also encouraged a transfer of knowledge between Third Level educational institutions or research providers to the business community, very often at local level.
The level of interest and engagement by companies speaks for itself — 891 Vouchers worth almost €4.5 million have been redeemed by small companies since the programme was launched in mid-2007. That is potentially 891 new ideas or processes developed with the support of professional expertise.
In addition, feedback from companies has been positive confirming that the application procedures, level of funding, the low level of bureaucracy and the frequency of calls are welcome [549]features of the initiative. Enterprise Ireland has improved the support and assistance provided to assist the engagement of companies with the third level sector. A website was introduced to assist companies in identifying the location of the various areas of skills and knowledge in academic and research institutions.
In 2010, my Department will ensure that Enterprise Ireland will continue to support, manage and grow this initiative with a raised profile. The budget for Innovation Vouchers in 2010 is €2.5 million, representing a 37% increase on the amount spent in 2009. Improvements will continue to be put in place, to make participation easier as experience is gained, and to help business people identify the key researcher who is best placed to address their proposal.
49. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the steps he is taking to combat the continuing high level of unemployment as indicated by the live register figures in respect of May and ongoing announcements of job losses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24341/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): While I am very concerned at the continuing high level of unemployment as indicated by the May Live Register figures, it has to be regarded as positive that the figures have largely stabilized in recent months and the current priority for Government is recovery and growth.
As the Taoiseach made clear in a recent speech, the whole thrust of Government policy in relation to the restoration of fiscal stability and a properly functioning banking system is to create the conditions in which economic growth will recommence and jobs will be created. It is clear that the decisive action taken to date is bearing fruit. The latest exchequer returns show that tax returns are on target for the period to end April indicating that this Government’s firm action to correct fiscal imbalances has taken effect. The evident determination of the Government to take the necessary actions, however unpopular, to tackle this problem and our equally determined actions in the banking sector have significantly restored international confidence in Ireland as evidenced by recent announcements of further investment in Ireland by IDA clients.
At every level of Government activity jobs are at the heart of our strategy. For example,
The public capital investment programme for 2010 is expected to support almost 70,000 jobs in the economy and non-exchequer capital investment for 2010 will be €3.4bn, which is expected to support a further 30,000 jobs.
IDA Ireland has launched a new strategy, which sets the target of 62,000 new jobs over the next five years — which will generate an additional 43,000 knock-on jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Enterprise Ireland is targeting the creation of 40,000 new jobs over the next five years and through the multiplier effect, this is expected to lead to an additional 28,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
The Report of the High Level Action Group on Green Enterprise, published in November 2009, has identified the potential to create approximately 80,000 new jobs in Ireland over the coming years.
Implementation of the recommendations of the Innovation Taskforce will create the environment for even more jobs to be created in new, innovative sectors of the economy.
[550]In addition, the Government has taken decisive action to get credit flowing again to business particularly to Small and Medium Enterprises which are the main source of employment in the economy. Undertakings required of the main banks in the recent recapitalisation exercise will ensure that these banks repay the debt they owe to the Irish taxpayer by restoring the flow of credit to enable business to exploit the opportunities offered by recovery in global markets. I have met with the banks and will continue to closely monitor their activities to ensure that they fully honour the commitments given in this regard.
These actions taken by this Government will ensure that the Irish economy is well placed to take advantage of international recovery and restore growth in economic activity and employment.
50. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the options he will consider to reduce spending in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25443/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Minister for Finance has previously indicated that a €3 billion adjustment in spending will be required in 2011 to continue the process of stabilising the public finances.
In this context, I am currently reviewing all programme areas under my Department’s remit to identify any potential expenditure reductions that might contribute to the Minister for Finance’s target. The outcome of this review will be a matter for consideration by the Government in the context of formulating the 2011 Estimates.
The Deputy may be aware that significant administrative savings have already been achieved across my Department and its agencies since 2008. Prior to the transfer of certain functions between my Department and the Department of Education and Skills on 1st May, my Department’s allocation for this year reflected pay and associated savings of €34.9 million compared to the 2009 allocation.
I will continue to drive for efficiencies and cost savings through the use of collective procurement and shared services arrangements for my Department and agencies.
For example, my Department already provides shared payroll services to a number of agencies under its remit.
Furthermore, Forfás provides certain shared services to IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland, and the Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government. These shared services are provided in areas where Forfás can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these services. These include aspects of financial and accounting services, human resources, pensions, facilities, property management and management of the FOI network for the enterprise Agencies and some other public bodies.
In addition, my Department has engaged in a series of initiatives designed to reduce energy costs. In recent years, and in consultation with the Office of Public Works and other Government Departments, we have switched electricity suppliers which has resulted in substantial savings. A number of the buildings occupied by the Department have participated in an energy saving programme which has resulted in additional savings of between 5% and 10% in electricity charges in those buildings and I am proposing to extend this initiative to other buildings of the Department.
[551]Following on from the successful cost saving initiative driven by me in the Education sector, I have also asked my officials to examine the possibility of shared procurement between my Department and relevant agencies for electricity and other services. This is intended to increase our bargaining power and securing the best possible value for taxpayers money.
51. Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his views on the recent number of cases highlighted by the National Consumer Agency in which some branches of the country’s four biggest retailers were charging customers more than the prices displayed; if he is satisfied that the law is adequate to deal with such practices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24342/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): Consumer protection law obliges traders offering a product for sale to indicate the selling price and, where appropriate, the unit price of that product and to ensure that the indication of the selling price and of the unit price is clearly visible. Complaints in relation to products being offered for sale where the price or unit price is not clearly visible should be brought to the attention of the National Consumer Agency who have responsibility for enforcing consumer law.
Insofar as instances where a wrong indication of price is concerned, traders who provide false information in relation to the price of a product may be engaging in a misleading commercial practice and may, therefore, be committing an offence under consumer law. Again instances of such practices should be referred to the National Consumer Agency in order that they can be investigated.
I understand that the cases referred to by the Deputy follow on from concerted enforcement activity by the Agency in this area in the course of the latter half of 2009 which involved the Agency visiting 280 retail premises, arising from which a total of 62 separate enforcement actions were taken, including 19 compliance notices issued to traders who charged more for consumer goods than the price displayed.
I very much support the Agency’s proactive approach in this area which I am sure will act as a salutary reminder to those who would seek to mislead consumers through the provision of false information.
I am satisfied that the law provides strong protections against traders who would seek to mislead consumers through the provision of false information, such as by the wrong indication of prices.
52. Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his views on the report, Mapping the Golden Circle, published by the research body TASC, which showed that Ireland’s corporate world was dominated by a small number of interconnected business people, which the report said posed a serious threat to corporate governance; the action he will take to ensure that corporate power does not remain concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24358/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I note the findings of this report.
As regards listed companies (those on the main market of the Irish Stock Exchange), these are subject to the provisions of the Combined Code which applies on a “comply or explain” basis. The code has recently been reviewed and revised in light of the financial crisis. The [552]revised code recommends that all directors of such companies should be subject to annual re-election by shareholders. This would give shareholders a regular opportunity to take account of the number of directorships held by an individual director and whether or not he/she is in a position to give sufficient time to the company to discharge his/her responsibilities effectively, in deciding whether they should be re-elected.
In addition the Irish Stock Exchange (ISE) and the Irish Association of Investment Managers (IAIM), who represent institutional investors here, jointly commissioned an independent and detailed review of the level of compliance by Irish listed companies with the Code in Quarter 4 2009. The review showed that while listed companies are meeting disclosure obligations, further steps could be taken by boards to enhance the quality/meaningfulness/usefulness of disclosures contained in annual reports. The ISE and IAIM published a report in the matter in March 2010, which contains a number of recommendations for consideration by the Boards of listed companies. The recommendations for enhanced disclosure include board balance and board refreshment.
The ISE will be consulting shortly on the revised code and the recommendations of their own report with a view to having both applying to Irish listed companies by the end of 2010 for their 2011 financial year.
In relation to financial institutions and insurance companies, which are the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Finance and the Financial Regulator, the Regulator recently published a consultation paper setting out proposals for a corporate governance regime for these sectors. One of the proposals in this paper is that the number of directorships of credit institutions and insurance companies held by a director should be limited to three.
In addition, the consultation paper proposes certain restrictions on the number of directorships a director of a financial institution or insurance company may hold overall. I understand this consultation paper is open for comments from interested parties up until 30 June 2010.
On 3rd June, the European Commission published a discussion paper relating to corporate governance in financial institutions. This paper is suggesting that board members of financial institutions be restricted to three overall. No doubt the Minister for Finance and the Financial Regulator will consider the discussion paper and respond in due course taking account of the results of their own consultation paper.
53. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the progress made regarding the commitment given in the Renewed Programme for Government to act on recommendations contained in reports of the Competition Authority within nine months of their publication; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24338/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The October 2009 Renewed Programme for Government committed the Government to act on recommendations contained in Competition Authority reports within nine months of their publication.
The recommendations made by the Competition Authority result from studies it carries out on various sectors or professions at regular intervals and usually contain a suite of recommendations, aimed at improving competition in the relevant area and are addressed to the responsible Government Department or body.
[553]Following the above commitments given by the Government, my Department drew up an initial prioritised list of 21 recommendations, based on their impact on competitiveness. These 21 recommendations related, directly or indirectly, to five Government Departments.
The Government has reviewed the progress made by these Government Departments in responding to the 21 recommendations and a Government Statement to this effect issued in April 2010.
In the statement the Government also noted that 40% of the total number of recommendations made by the Competition Authority between 2000 and 2009 had been implemented, with a further 9% being progressed.
Since the review by Government earlier this year the Competition Authority has confirmed the following as the current position. Out of a total of 163 recommendations, 69 (42%) have been implemented with a further 13 (8%) recommendations currently being progressed.
The remaining number of recommendations (81 in total; 50%) can be classed as either not implemented; currently being considered by the relevant department or body; no longer relevant; not requiring action; or status unclear.
An exercise is currently underway to clarify the precise status of all of these ‘outstanding’ recommendations in order to facilitate decisions on whether to reject or pursue each remaining recommendation.
In line with a recent Government Decision, I intend to bring to Government twice-yearly updates on the implementation of these and any further recommendations made by the Competition Authority.
I should point out that since the October 2009 commitment contained in the Renewed Programme for Government, the Competition Authority has issued one report — in two parts — containing 2 recommendations. The report relates to GP services and of the two recommendations one has already been implemented with the remaining one currently being progressed.
54. Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he intends to publish legislation to address employee representation at work which was promised by June 2009 under the Review of Towards 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24352/10]
68. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he intends to publish anti-victimisation legislation, designed to protect those workers who choose to join a trade union, and which was promised by March 2009 under the review of Towards 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24351/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): I propose to take Questions Nos. 54 and 68 together.
The Towards 2016 Review and Transitional Agreement 2008-2009 (paras 9.1-9.3) provides for the establishment of a review process to consider the legal and other steps necessary to enable the employee representation mechanisms that had been established under previous agreements — and in legislation — to operate as they had been intended. The Agreement (para 9.4) also commits the Government to bringing forward legislative proposals to prohibit the victimisation of trade union members and to prohibit the incentivisation of persons not to be members of a trade union.
[554]In furtherance to these commitments, two informal meetings took place late last year, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, at which my Department, the Department of Finance, trade unions and employers were represented. Position papers were prepared by the employer and trade union representatives on the issues which they saw as requiring to be addressed by any new legislation in this area.
While consideration will continue within Government on proposals to address the issues involved, progress in bringing the work to a conclusion will have to take account of other priority legislative commitments to be delivered in the employment area, resource constraints within Departments, and the extent of agreement between the trade union and employer sides in this area.
55. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the action he is taking to ensure that the targets set by the Industrial Development Authority to attract foreign direct investment are met after it was revealed that developers cannot secure finance to build appropriate properties for multinational companies; the way the IDA document Horizon 2020 is being re-evaluated since an audit revealed a risk of regional development targets becoming unachievable due to the lack of property solutions in target towns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24293/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Government has taken decisive action in order to get credit flowing again. The Bank Guarantee Scheme, the 2009 Recapitalisation Scheme, the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and the establishment of the National Assets Management Agency have all contributed to the stabilisation of the banking sector with a view to facilitating the flow of credit. The 2010 Recapitalisation package builds on earlier initiatives and includes additional supports for enterprises, including SMEs. In particular, AIB and Bank of Ireland have both committed to making available not less than €3 billion each for new or increased credit facilities to SMEs in both 2010 and 2011. This must include funds for working capital for businesses. Both banks have recently produced plans that include a sectoral and geographic breakdown of how they intend to divide up this new lending. These plans are currently being reviewed by the Department of Finance and the Credit Review Office.
This funding will be a significant increase on the figures reported by the banks for 2009 and will help to sustain the economy and foster growth. This figure can be reviewed as the needs of the economy change.
On the second point relating to the availability of property solutions, this was a concern raised by internal auditors following an internal audit of IDA’s property division, completed in early 2009. The audit was clean but the internal auditors raised a concern around the availability of property solutions in Regional towns. At the time, the Agency responded that it did not have concerns in this regard.
The current downturn in the property market has significantly increased the availability of buildings for marketing to clients at more competitive prices and more flexible terms than has been seen before. IDA’s property Division has in place a comprehensive suite of IDA owned and private sector solutions to meet the needs of potential investments in Regional locations. Indeed, Ireland’s property costs have become more competitive against many of our international competitors. In line with the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), IDA will continue to make smart use of its property portfolio in regions targeted for investment and will continue to work with local authorities to make potential sites as attractive as possible for investors.
[555]The Agency is fully committed to balanced regional development and, as outlined in its recently published strategy document “Horizon 2020”, the IDA is confident that between 2010–2014, 50% of FDI projects will be located outside Dublin and Cork.
56. Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the action being taken to assist struggling businesses who are finding it hard to file their accounts on time in view of the fact that the Companies Registration Office has announced that it will not waive sanctions on companies who breach the rules even if economic hardship was the cause; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24290/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): Under the Companies Acts every company is required to file an Annual Return with the Companies Registration Office (CRO). The filing of this return ensures transparency for all interested parties conducting business with a company. Almost 85% of companies now have a current return filed with the CRO compared with 13% of companies in 1997 filing an annual return on time.
The CRO has introduced a number of initiatives over recent years to assist companies meet their filing obligations under the Companies Acts. These initiatives include: the introduction of a range of electronic or e-forms; incentives in terms of either no filing fee or 50% of the manual equivalent were introduced to encourage take-up and now 60% of all forms lodged are submitted electronically; increased auto-registration of forms speed up processing times and public access to documents; the CRO and Revenue have worked closely in recent months to facilitate companies wishing to file electronically with the CRO to use the Revenue eSignature. In addition the CRO will shortly accept annual accounts in pdf format.
I am satisfied that all of these initiatives reduce the administrative burden on business in their interaction with the CRO.
57. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he will report on his meeting on 18 May 2010 with executives of a company (details supplied) regarding the future of jobs here; if he received assurances regarding the security of the jobs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24336/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I am pleased to report that the outcome of the meeting was extremely positive. The takeover company has committed to investments already planned by the acquired company and this investment programme will be implemented over the next two years. Agreements have been reached with all key employee groups at locations in Dublin and Kerry regarding a redundancy programme which will reduce the workforce by approximately 200. This redundancy programme was announced by the company in June 2009, seven months prior to its acquisition.
The Government and Enterprise Ireland have communicated to the takeover company that they are anxious to work in partnership with it to explore and capitalise on strategic opportunities that can be delivered so that growth ambitions are maximised. Enterprise Ireland will continue the process of engaging with the takeover company in relation to building research and innovation capability, improving competitiveness and strengthening manufacturing operations.
58. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the progress made regarding the commitment given in the Renewed Programme for Government [556]to establish community and development agencies as a one stop shop for advice on grant supports, business opportunities, training and development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24340/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The commitment referred to covers a wide range of support services and grants provided through a number of different Departments, including my Department, the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and through their respective agencies.
Insofar as my Department and its enterprise development agencies are concerned, work is at an advanced stage in considering the recommendations contained in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes. I would hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly in respect of some of these recommendations.
At present the County And City Enterprise Boards provide a one stop shop facility for start ups and micro enterprises and can direct clients to other agencies where they are not in a position to offer supports.
59. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the steps he has taken to improve the competitiveness of the economy; if he will set out in order of one to five the most serious factors currently impacting negatively on the situation in this regard; the degree to which he has had discussions with the various stakeholders with a view to identifying the most suitable and strategic intervention to address the situation in both the manufacturing and service sectors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24423/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The National Competitiveness Council’s report, “Benchmarking Ireland’s Performance”, provides a comprehensive assessment of Ireland’s competitiveness on an annual basis. Our competitiveness is derived from a complex set of factors, not all of which are within our control. The factors with the greatest influence on our competitiveness are costs, productivity and exchange rates with our trade and investment partners, and the overall business environment. The business environment covers areas such as regulation, infrastructure and the availability of necessary business services.
Since January 2008, Ireland has regained competitiveness as domestic inflation remains below that of our main trading partners and the euro weakened. We are seeing lower business costs, which is easing pressures on the business sector. Wage costs, asset prices and energy prices are all on a downward trend. Annual inflation fell by 2.5% in the twelve months to April, in contrast to the rest of the euro area where it rose by 1.5%. The Irish consumer price level relative to its trading partners is now back to levels last seen in 2000/2001.
The price of services to business fell by 5.7% in Q3 2009 compared to Q3 2008, with the largest price reductions in architecture, engineering & technical testing (-9.8%), and computer programming & consultancy (-8.5%). The European Commission forecast that our Unit Labour Costs will fall by 9.4% over the 2009 to 2011 period, against a projected increase of 3.5% for the Eurozone. This equates to a positive swing of 13% in Ireland’s favour over the three year period to 2011.
The Government introduced an extensive package of measures to contain energy costs last summer — and this is reflected in a much improved position relative to competitors. Data released in May shows that electricity and gas prices fell for all types of energy consumers in the second half of 2009, and have moved closer to the EU average for most business users.
[557]Competitiveness also includes boosting the total productive capacity of the economy. We are doing this, for example, through targeting R&D and Innovation to drive productivity and ensure that we have the skills and technologies available in Ireland that will give us a competitive advantage. The entire Irish economy must be a smart economy, that is to say, a high-productivity and technologically advanced economy if we are to compete with the rest of the world. The Taoiseach appointed me to Chair the group tasked with implementation of the recommendations of the Innovation task force and this met for the first time earlier this month.
We are focussed on opportunities for growth in a number of key sectors. For example, the Green Enterprise report estimated that 80,000 new jobs could be created in the coming years and there are other opportunities for growth in high-end manufacturing and services. Since my appointment as the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, I have met with a range of stakeholder groups, including individual companies and business people both in Ireland and abroad. In my discussions, I have underlined that my priority is to ensure that the business environment is supportive of Irish enterprise, both manufacturing and services, to grow exports and to continue to encourage high value foreign investment.
60. Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the number of redundancies notified to his Department in respect of each year from 2002 to 2009 and to date in 2010; the number of projected redundancies for 2010; the money paid out in statutory redundancy payment in respect of each year from 2002 to 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24349/10]
78. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the number of claims for redundancy payments waiting to be processed at the latest date for which figures are available; the average time taken to process a claim; the steps that are being taken to speed up this process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24350/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): I propose to take Questions Nos. 60 and 78 together.
My Department administers the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) in relation to redundancy matters on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are two types of payment made from the SIF — rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees, and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation.
Table 1 below sets out the number of redundancy claims received in the years 2002 to 2009 and provisional figures up to end May 2010. These figures reflect the number of employees who actually qualified for statutory redundancy lump sum payments. They do not reflect those who lost their jobs with less than two years service in employment. It is not possible to project the number of redundancies which will arise in 2010 as this will depend on a number of factors, including economic factors and the rate of recovery in the economy. However, the figures available for the first five months of 2010 suggest that the pattern, at an average weekly intake of 1,400 new claims is down on the weekly average of 1,500 claims experienced in 2009.
Table 2 sets out the monies paid out of the Social Insurance Fund in respect of redundancy claims for the years 2002 — 2009 and provisional figures up to end May 2010. It is not possible to project the amount which will be paid out in 2010 as this will hinge on a number of variables including the number of claims received, the length of service of the claimants etc.
Figures available to the end of May 2010 indicate that the number of redundancy claims on hand and awaiting processing stands at 34,881.
[558]The Redundancy Payments Section of my Department is currently processing rebate claims submitted from November so that the waiting time is approximately 7 months. In respect of lump sum payments paid directly to employees in instances where employers are unable to pay the statutory redundancy entitlements, the Section is, in general, processing claims dating also from October 2009.
Efforts continue to be made by my Department to deliver more acceptable turnaround processing times for Redundancy payments given the difficulties that this gives rise to for both individual employees and the business community. Measures already taken in the Department in 2009 to alleviate the pressures on the Payments area include: almost doubling the number of staff through reassignment to a current level of 52 full time equivalents; prioritisation of the Department’s overtime budget towards staff in the Section to tackle the backlog outside normal hours; establishment of a special call handling facility in NERA to deal with the huge volume of telephone calls from people and businesses concerned about their payments; better quality information relating to current processing times on the Department’s website; engagement with the Revenue Commissioners to facilitate the offset of redundancy rebate payments by employers against existing outstanding tax liabilities which those employers owe to the Revenue Commissioners.
The backlog and waiting times remain at unacceptable levels. However, improvements are evident. I should point out that my Department has, in 2009, processed 50,664 claims, up 70% on 2008, and made corresponding payments totalling €336m which results in average weekly payments to the value of €6.5m being issued. In the period 2007-009, the level of new claims lodged with my Department has increased cumulatively by 200%. This contrasts with the previous two-year period 2005-2007 in which period the increase in new claims lodged was just 10%. New claims in the first five months of 2010 amounted to 28,587 — a fall off of almost 20% on the corresponding 5 month period in 2009 when 35,559 new claims were lodged. This reduction in incoming claims is welcome. Inroads are being made into the backlog of claims which has reduced from 42,591 in December 2009 to a current level of 34,881 at end May 2010. In the first five months 34,036 claims were processed, up 130% on the same period last year.
Responsibility for the payment of redundancy and insolvency payments is due to be transferred to the Department of Social Protection. The intention is to transfer by Government order, the payment functions arising under the Redundancy Payment and Insolvency Payment schemes. In transferring the functions between Departments, it is the intention that this will operate seamlessly and without any adverse impact on the service levels being experienced by individuals or the business community awaiting payment of redundancy claims.
61. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the level of compliance with the 15 day payment rule throughout Government Departments by percentage of invoices, as well as by general value; the amount of late payment interest that has been incurred across all Departments in respect of non-payment within 30 days for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24296/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): In accordance with the Government’s decision of 19 May 2009, all Departments are required to pay their business suppliers within 15 days of receipt of a valid invoice. Departments are also required to report quarterly to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation on their performance in meeting the target. Composite details of the information received are published by my Department.
This ongoing publication of composite details by my Department provides clarity on the performance of individual Departments in meeting the terms of the Government decision. While there is some variation between the performance of individual Departments and fluctuations across the different quarters, overall performance has been positive. Table 1 below gives details of payments of invoices by value and by number, paid within 15 days and paid within 30 days. Departments are required to publish in their Annual Reports, details of late payment interest paid by them. My Department does not collate details of late payment interest paid by other Government Departments.
In respect of late payment interest paid by my Department, Table 2 below provides the information sought by the Deputy. No late payment interest arises in cases where payments are made by central Government Departments after 15 days, but within 30 days.
| Year | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 4,971.02 |
| 2006 | 579.07 |
| 2007 | 5,019.46 |
| 2008 | 2,405.33 |
| 2009 | 878.43 |
62. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when the credit supply clearing group was established; the number of businesses which have made contact with the group to date; the impact that current availability or lack of availability of credit is having on businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24424/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Credit Supply Clearing Group was established in May 2009, with bank, business and State representation. The Group is responsible for identifying patterns of events where the flow of credit to viable businesses appears to be blocked and for seeking to identify credit supply solutions relating to these patterns. The Group works to provide a clear picture of any emerging lending patterns while facilitating direct discussion by all the relevant interests in addressing problems.
As part of the ongoing work of the Group, a dedicated e-mail contact point was established in August 2009 to specifically deal with access to bank credit issues. A total of 18submissions have been received via this contact point. In addition, a small number of cases have also been referred to individual banks on the Group for follow-up action, following representations received.
The Government has taken decisive action in order to get credit flowing again to business. The Bank Guarantee Scheme, the 2009 Recapitalisation Scheme, the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Banks and the establishment of the National Assets Management Agency have all contributed to the stabilisation of the banking sector with a view to facilitating the flow of credit. The 2010 Recapitalisation package builds on earlier initiatives and includes additional supports for enterprises, including SMEs. In particular, AIB and Bank of Ireland have both committed to making available not less than €3 billion each for new or increased credit facilities to SMEs in both 2010 and 2011.
This funding will be a significant increase on the figures reported by the banks for 2009 and will help to sustain the economy and foster growth.
Outside of the banking sphere, my Department’s continuous support for enterprises arises through maintaining a positive business environment and through particular interventions from the State development agencies such as Enterprise Ireland, and the County and City Enterprise Boards. The significant allocations in my Department’s Estimates for 2010 for the development agencies ensures that we can continue to build on this strategy for the future.
The Government has also introduced formal arrangements to reduce the payment period by central Government Departments to their business suppliers from 30 to 15 calendar days. This commitment has effect on all valid invoices received on and from 15 June 2009 and is helping to ease cash flow difficulties for SMEs.
[563]SMEs are central to our economic development and the range of measures and supports in place will be kept under review to ensure that they continue to help the sector adapt to the current economic climate. The performance of the recapitalised banks in providing credit to businesses will also be monitored in order to ensure that they meet their commitments.
63. Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he expects to publish the promised legislation referred to in an interview (details supplied) to clamp down on crony capitalism to restrict cross directorships and to prevent one person fulfilling the dual role of the chair and chief executive of any company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24346/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The remarks attributed to the Minister for Finance in the interview in question would, no doubt, have been made with the banking sector in particular in mind. Policy responsibility for the banking sector is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Finance.
In this regard, the Deputy may be aware that the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator have launched a consultation paper recently on corporate governance standards for financial institutions and credit undertakings. The matters referred to by the Deputy are among the issues being addressed in the consultation paper. For example, one of the proposals in the consultation paper suggests to limit the number of directorships of credit institutions and insurance companies held by a director to three. The consultation paper also proposes certain restrictions on the number of directorships a director of a financial institution or insurance company may hold overall. The Financial Regulator has invited interested parties to comment by 30 June 2010.
On 3rd June, the European Commission published a discussion paper relating to corporate governance in financial institutions. This paper is suggesting that board members of financial institutions be restricted to three overall.
In the area of company law that falls within my responsibility, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is currently drafting the Company Law Consolidation and Reform Bill. It sets out the corporate duties of directors, company secretaries and auditors on a general basis across all sectors. The Bill will implement the recommendations of the Company Law Review Group in that the fiduciary duties owed by directors to the company will be stated in the new companies code.
Currently, company law does not prohibit cross directorships, whereby a person is a director of more than one company at the same time. The general position is that a person may not be a director of more than 25 companies subject to certain specific exceptions. Directorships of public limited companies (plcs) are not included in the limit of 25. Any consideration of a change in this position for the general cohort of companies operating in Ireland would need to take account of the contribution that non-executive directors make by imparting their mix of expertise and the cross fertilisation of ideas from other areas of the business community.
The Companies Acts do not prevent a person fulfilling the dual role of chair and chief executive of a company. This would in my opinion be unworkable for smaller companies. However, the Combined Code of Corporate Governance which applies to companies whose securities are listed and traded on the Irish Stock Exchange does provide that the roles of chairman and chief executive should not be exercised by the same individual. The “comply or explain“ principle, which is now enshrined in law under Statutory Instrument 450 of 2009, requires companies to meet the best practice guidelines or explain publicly why not.
[564]The Government and I are committed to ensuring that our corporate governance regime for the corporate sector generally, accords with best international practice. We will take account of the lessons which emerge from current enquiries and reviews arising from recent developments and we will address, as appropriate, any concerns in this area including by way of legislation if necessary.
64. Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the progress made in drawing up a voluntary code covering the relationship between the major multiples and suppliers to the retail grocery trade; and when he expects the code to be in place. [24406/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Renewed Programme for Government contains a specific commitment to “implement a Code of Practice for doing business in the Grocery Goods sector to develop a fair trading relationship between retailers and their suppliers” and “to review progress of the Code and if necessary to put in place a mandatory code”.
The Government will give effect to this commitment by including a specific provision in the legislation, currently being prepared to merge the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority, which will allow for the introduction of a statutory Code of Conduct in the grocery goods sector. I expect to publish this legislation later this year.
In the interim period, until the legislation is enacted, the opportunity will be taken to explore with all relevant stakeholders the possibilities of agreeing a Voluntary Code. To this end I recently appointed Mr. John Travers to facilitate discussions with all the relevant stakeholders with the aim of agreeing the terms of a Voluntary Code. I have asked Mr. Travers to report back to me in relation to his engagement with stakeholders by the end of the summer. I would strongly urge all stakeholders to engage constructively with Mr. Travers as a Voluntary Code offers stakeholders the opportunity to develop a Code most suited to the dynamics of the Irish grocery goods sector and which respects the interests of all parties, including those of the consumer.
65. Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the action being taken to make Irish small medium enterprises aware of the European research and development fund FP7; the Enterprise Development Agency that has been tasked with helping SMEs in their application and advising them of the processes involved; if there will be equal access for all enterprises to make an application in this fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24289/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Conor Lenihan): The Research Framework Programme is the EU’s main instrument for funding research in Europe and successive programmes have been operating successfully since 1984. They have played a particularly important role in bringing European researchers (in academia and in industry) together in collaborative research projects, in facilitating the mobility of researchers across Europe and in supporting economic and social development. Irish participation in the Framework Programmes over the last 20 years has provided essential funding and collaborations, which have fostered the growth and development of the Irish research base.
[565]The current Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) has a budget of over €50 billion, covering the seven-year period 2007 to 2013 and it has been designed to build on the achievements of the previous programmes towards the creation of the European Research Area and carry it further towards the development of the knowledge economy and society in Europe. There is a specific focus on SMEs under the programme. The aim is to enable at least 15% of the funding for collaborative projects under the programme to go to SME participants. To help achieve this a specific scheme under the programme involves dedicated measures to support SME participation.
In order to extract the maximum benefit from the opportunities available within FP7, a National Support Network has been put in place, headed by a National Director for FP7 who leads a team based in Enterprise Ireland. This support structure ensures that a coordinated and coherent approach is adopted towards FP7 across all of the government departments, agencies and other organisations involved. Through this support structure, a mix of guidance, advice and financial assistance is available to encourage researchers and companies, large and small, to avail of the opportunities within the programme. As well as having national contact points specialising in specific areas of research, there is a national contact point within Enterprise Ireland dedicated to supporting SME participation in the programme.
The range of financial supports available through the National Support Network to potential participants include travel support, which assists researchers to meet with potential partners, and proposal preparation support for academic coordinators and companies, covering all costs associated with submission of FP7 applications. Further information, including contact details, is available from the website of the FP7 National Support Network, www.fp7ireland.com.
66. Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the specific efforts he, the Industrial Development Authority, or Enterprise Ireland have made to encourage or provide jobs in County Monaghan over the past five years; his views on whether it is unfair that so little effort has been made and the fact that there are fewer than 400 IDA related jobs in County Monaghan; his further views that County Monaghan, because of its location, suffered more as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles and deserves some degree of special attention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24288/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): Enterprise Ireland activity in County Monaghan is focussed on the creation of new jobs through supporting entrepreneurs in manufacturing and internationally traded services companies, the retention and creation of new jobs in existing companies and in enhancing the innovation capability of Ireland at a national and regional level.
With this in mind, Enterprise Ireland is working closely with Monaghan County Development Board and Monaghan County Enterprise Board, holding monthly clinics in County Monaghan on the first Monday of each month to advise potential entrepreneurs on the supports available from the different agencies. Enterprise Ireland client companies in County Monaghan were approved a total of €1.25 million to date in 2010 and total payments made to companies in the same period amounted to €2.5 million.
During the last five years Monaghan County Enterprise Board has issued over €1 million in grant support to 89 micro-enterprises, resulting in a net jobs increase of more than 130 in CEB-supported companies in the county. In 2010, Monaghan CEB has continued to support enterprise development in the area through the provision of both direct and indirect assistance [566]and will ensure that available funds are targeted to maximise entrepreneurial development at county level.
One of the high level goals set out in the recently launched IDA strategy document, entitled “Horizon 2020”, is that, in the period 2010 to 2014, 50% of FDI projects will be located outside of Dublin and Cork. This initiative supports national policy as outlined in the National Spatial Strategy. If FDI is to continue to contribute to balanced regional development, the other regions of the country must be promoted as regions of scale with urban centres that provide the range of infrastructure and services that high value investment projects demand.
I can assure the Deputy that IDA continues to vigorously promote such regions, including Monaghan, to potential investors. I am pleased to say that the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement has resulted in the creation of opportunities for the attraction and development of foreign direct investment to the entire border region, including Monaghan, and there is a wide range of cross border activities aimed at economic development. As a result of discussions that I had with Minister Arlene Foster, my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland have agreed on the need to develop a joint proposal for submission to the Special EU Programmes Body for funding under the Enterprise Theme of the Interreg IVA Programme. I understand that Invest Northern Ireland and Enterprise Ireland have met in order to progress this as a priority.
67. Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he has received any report from the Labour Court regarding a possible change in the national minimum wage; if not, when she expects to receive its report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24348/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): In November 2008, ICTU requested the Labour Court to review the national minimum wage and to make a recommendation concerning its adjustment. The Court subsequently invited submissions on the issue. Various submissions were received, including from IBEC, ICTU and the Department of Finance. The Labour Court also held discussions with these parties.
Under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000, the Labour Court can seek to establish, in the context of such consultations, whether a general agreement can be reached between the parties. If, however, the Labour Court is satisfied that such a general agreement cannot be reached, it may still make a recommendation.
The Labour Court has not made any recommendation in relation to the application made under the National Minimum Wage, 2000. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further while the matter is still with the Court.
Question No. 68 answered with Question No. 54.
69. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the position regarding the work of the Company Law Review Group; the timeframe for the publication of legislation following the reports of the group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24344/10]
[567]Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): In accordance with Section 70(1) of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001, the Company Law Review Group’s (CLRG) Work Programme is assigned by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation every two years. I have received the Review Group’s Report at the conclusion of its 2008-2009 Work Programme and I am considering its recommendations in the context of the drafting by the Office of the Parliamentary Council (OPC) of the Companies Consolidation and Reform Bill. The Report is available on the CLRG’s website at www.clrg.org.
While there is no obligation on my part to legislate in respect of any recommendation from the CLRG, the main focus of the Group’s work to date has been in relation to the General Scheme of the Companies Consolidation and Reform Bill which was published in July 2007. The proposed Bill will consolidate all the existing Irish Companies Acts, dating from 1963 to 2009, as well as other Regulations and common law provisions relating to the incorporation and operation of companies into a single Act, comprising more than 1,300 sections. Given its size and complexity it is envisaged that the Bill will be published towards the end of 2011.
70. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he will elaborate on his policy for job creation, specifically the approach recently announced by the Taoiseach to improve competitiveness by allowing wages to fall; if he intends to cut the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24294/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The “Jobs and Growth 2010” policy statement, which was published in March, brings together the Government’s key strategies for growth, economic renewal and the development of a sustainable, internationally trading enterprise base for the creation of jobs. The Strategy focuses on the policies and actions which are being taken in a number of critical areas. It has at its heart policies targeted at new, sustained growth in business, exports and jobs, based on increasing levels of productivity, competitiveness and innovation. These are the policies that are firmly at the top of my agenda as Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Innovation, and I believe that these policies will continue to show results.
Labour costs are an important factor. At an economy wide level, Irish labour wage rates — when adjusted for productivity — are becoming more cost competitive. The European Commission forecast that our Unit Labour Costs will fall by 9.4% over the 2009 to 2011 period, against a projected increase of 3.5% for the Eurozone. This equates to a positive swing of 13% in Ireland’s favour over the three year period to 2011.
Under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000, the Labour Court can seek to establish, in the context of such consultations, whether a general agreement can be reached between the parties. If, however, the Labour Court is satisfied that such a general agreement cannot be reached, it may still make a recommendation.
In November 2008, ICTU requested the Labour Court to review the national minimum wage and to make a recommendation to the Minister for Labour Affairs concerning its adjustment. The Court subsequently invited submissions on the issue. Various submissions were received, including from IBEC, ICTU and the Department of Finance. The Labour Court also held discussions with these parties.
The Labour Court has not yet made a recommendation in relation to the application made under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further while the matter is still under consideration by the Court.
71. Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the efforts that are being made to retain jobs in existing industries especially in the small indigenous factories; his views on whether some of the structures put in place to support employment are geared towards larger employers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24287/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The 35 County and City Enterprise Boards provide support to indigenous micro-enterprises in the start-up and expansion phases by both financial and non-financial assistance. In 2009, the CEBs assisted the micro-enterprise sector through the provision of €10.365 million in grant assistance to 1,120 client projects. In addition, the Boards also provided 25,819 client participants with a variety of soft supports such as training and mentoring, management development and start your own business courses. All of this contributes to job creation by boosting the survival rate amongst micro businesses and facilitating the future growth and employment potential of those businesses. In 2010, with the €28.3 million funding secured by my Department, the CEBs will continue to assist micro-enterprises throughout the country to stimulate the development of indigenous enterprise, to boost employment creation and to maximise entrepreneurial development.
Enterprise Ireland’s remit is to support start-ups that have the potential to employ more than 10 people and achieve €1 million in exports. These are start-ups that are typically highly innovative and are in a position to sell globally from their earliest stage. Stimulating the flow of new High Potential Start-ups and supporting their growth is one of the fundamental policies within Enterprise Ireland’s overall strategy for indigenous industry.
In 2009, Enterprise Ireland supported the business plans of 73 High Potential Start-up Companies. These young companies are an integral part of the Government’s blue print for the Smart Economy and are from sectors as diverse as life sciences, bio-tech and medical technology, food, telecommunications and internet services. They are expected to create over 900 new jobs over the next three years, bringing total employment in these businesses to almost 1,500. Total sales over the same period are expected to reach €600 million, with exports accounting for over 80% of this figure.
72. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the steps he will take to prevent the exploitation of domestic workers, particularly migrant workers in such positions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24356/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): Ireland’s body of employment rights legislation protects all workers in Ireland. The Protection of Employee’s (Part-Time) Work Act, 2001 provides that all employee protection legislation applies to a person, irrespective of his or her nationality or place of residence, who has entered into a contract of employment that provides for his or her being employed in the State or who works in the State under a contract of employment.
A Code of Practice for Protecting Persons Employed in Other People’s Homes has been prepared under the Industrials Relations Acts 1990. The code seeks to:
Set out certain employment rights and protections
[569]Encourage good practice and compliance with the law and
Increase awareness of the application of relevant legislation and code.
NERA Inspection Services plays an important role in promoting employment rights. Interpretation resources are available to inspectors as required. NERA provides information through a variety of other channels—
24 hour telephone information service provides lo call 1890 80 80 90 — www.employmentrights.ie, — recorded over 1.5 million web page impressions in 2009. Many of the booklets available for downloading are in several different languages.
NERA also liaises with a number of organisations, including the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland. NERA has also appointed a member of its management team to liaise with the MRCI on matters of common interest and to maintain open communications between the organisations. In 2009 €2.5 million in unpaid wages were recovered for over 6,000 workers. This would have included migrant workers.
Power to enter private dwellings
There are considerable protections in the constitution to protect the privacy of personal dwellings. However, NERA Inspectors can enter a private home with the consent of the occupier. It can also, apply to the District Court for a warrant to enter a private home to examine records. Such warrants may only be issued if a judge of the District Court is fully satisfied that the application is valid in all respects and is based on the sworn information of an Inspector that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that information required by an Inspector is held on any premises or any part of premises.
NERA uses information available from a number of sources, including the employment permits database, to identify potential employers of domestic employees. It will also investigate any complaints of suspected breaches of employment legislation received.
73. Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the steps that are being taken to reduce the incidence of and costs associated with red tape in relation to the establishment and maintenance of small business in this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24407/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The administrative procedures relating to the establishment of Companies is under the remit of my Department and is the responsibility of the Companies Registration Office (CRO). The CRO processed over 380,000 statutorily required documents in 2009 of which13,320 were new company registrations. The customer service target deadlines of five, ten and fifteen working days for the three company incorporation schemes operated by the Office were consistently met and regularly exceeded during 2009.
I can assure the Deputy that every effort is being made within current resources to ensure that all customers of the Companies Registration Office receive the best possible service.
The red tape costs associated with maintaining a business in Ireland are, in my view, a key competitiveness issue. That is why my Department has a multi-faceted approach to dealing [570]with these administrative costs, and finding ways to reduce them as much as possible, without damaging the policy goals of the regulations underpinning them.
The High Level Group on Business Regulation was set up in 2007 to act as a standing dialogue between Government, business and unions. The Group’s Work-Programme consists of specific red tape issues arising from business workshops and submissions, as well as suggestions fed in directly by the business organisations on the Group.
The Group is effectively a clearing house for these concrete issues. Since its inception, the High Level Group has tackled almost 70 such issues; 38 of these have already been processed to finality to the satisfaction of the business members.
In addition, my Department is leading and coordinating the cross-Government drive to measure and reduce administrative burdens for all business in Ireland. In March 2008 the Government set a 25% target to reduce administrative burdens on business, arising from regulations, by 2012.
This is being done in a prioritised way, drawing from the experience of other Member States involved in administrative burden reduction.
During 2009, a prioritised list of more than thirty Information Obligations in Company Law, Employment Law and Health & Safety Law, which fall within the remit of my Department, were measured. The results of this exercise were validated by business in December 2009.
My Department is running a series of simplification workshops to identify ways to reduce burdens in the three measured areas. The purpose of the workshops is to identify the best practical ways to make real reductions in the red tape burden that businesses face in Ireland.
The ideas generated at these workshops are feeding in to the development of simplification plans in the three areas of regulation. It is intended that these will be presented to the High Level Group on Business Regulation, for their inputs and validation in the Autumn.
At Inter-Departmental level, Departments that have regulation that affects business are identifying the information obligations contained in their legislation that are likely to be causing the biggest burdens for business. A consolidated priority list of information obligations will be agreed and then measured in a single cross-Government project. I expect that this measurement project will be completed in 2011.
Simplification plans will then be developed to reduce the administrative burden by 25% by 2012.
74. Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when his attention was drawn to the plan by a company (details supplied) to shed up to 785 jobs at plants in this country; the discussions he has had with the management; the steps that are being taken to try to save these jobs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24357/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): While the takeover of Wyeth by Pfizer was only recently completed, IDA Ireland had maintained close contact with senior Pfizer and Wyeth personnel both in Ireland and in the company’s corporate HQ in order to minimise the negative impact any rationalisation decisions could have on the Irish operations. IDA Ireland kept me informed of their discussions. Details of the impact on Pfizer’s Irish operations, arising from its worldwide review, were advised to me on 17th May, 2010.
The new enlarged Pfizer reviewed all operations worldwide with a view to rationalising production and support operations. As a consequence of the review the company, on 18th May, [571]announced 6,000 jobs cuts worldwide. The aim of the plan is to integrate the Pfizer and Wyeth manufacturing and supply organisations, which have significant overcapacity following the Pfizer takeover of Wyeth late last year.
I have asked the State agencies to do everything possible to provide training and re-employment services to the 275 workers losing their jobs in Newbridge, Co Kildare, and to work with Pfizer to save the other 510 jobs at risk due to the planned future sale or closure of plants in Cork and Dublin.
Although the company plans to cut its global headcount by 6,000, Pfizer remains a major multinational employer in Ireland, with more than 4,200 workers, in seven locations, involved in the manufacture of high-end life science products for world markets.
The loss of 275 jobs in Newbridge is not immediate. Between the end of this year and 2011, 135 jobs will go, with the remainder to be lost in 2013.
Likewise, any impact on jobs at the facilities in Loughbeg and Shanbally in Cork, and in Dún Laoghaire in Dublin, would occur in 2012 to 2014.
However, IDA is confident that a buyer will be found for at least some of these facilities, and IDA will continue to work closely with Pfizer to achieve that.
In the recent past, IDA and Pfizer have been successful with the sale of Pfizer’s Animal Health plant in Sligo and its Loughbeg API plant, preserving jobs at both locations.
I know that Pfizer is planning further capital investments and new positions in its biotechnology operations in Ireland, and both IDA and the Government will do all they can to support the company’s growth plans.
Although the job losses in Newbridge are devastating for the workers, their families and communities, it should be acknowledged that the company is retaining a workforce of 770 in the plant.
75. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the progress being made by his Department, in consultation with his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to draw up a joint proposal to apply for EU funding under the cross-border INTERREG programme for start-up business supports and training initiatives; when he expects a draft proposal will be ready; when the application will be made to the EU; when funding can be expected to be drawn down; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24292/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): As a result of discussions that I had with Minister Arlene Foster, my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland have agreed on the need to develop a joint proposal for submission to the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) for funding under the Enterprise Theme of the Interreg IVA Programme, and have asked Invest Northern Ireland (NI) and Enterprise Ireland (EI) to progress this as a priority.
It is expected that SEUPB will open its next call for proposals this autumn. Both Governments are represented on the Steering Committee which adjudicates on projects and the timeframe for completing due diligence, approval and letter of offer for successful projects is anticipated to be 6-8 months i.e. project start April/May 2011.
76. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the [572]business expenditure on research and development in each of the past five years; the percentage of this expenditure that was through indigenous enterprises; the percentage that was through multinational companies; how the Departmental budget for research has been affected by budget cuts, in comparison with other years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24295/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Conor Lenihan): The table below provides details of Business Expenditure on Research and Development (BERD) for 2003, 2005, 2007 and an estimate for 2008. As the BERD survey is only undertaken every two years, it is not possible to provide actual expenditure figures for the intervening years.
The 2010 Budget provided for science, technology and innovation spend under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation’s vote was €293.8 million. While this represents almost 93 % of the provision under this subhead in 2009, the funding must be seen in the context of a financial situation that necessitated a 12 per cent overall reduction in the Government’s capital allocation in 2010. Looking back over 5 years, the 2010 provision is 32% above the 2005 provision, and in this period there was a year on year increase in provision of between 4% and 14% in each of the years before 2010.
In a broader context, in excess of €593m has been provided in 2010, in total, across six Government Departments to support science, technology and innovation development.
Supporting innovation as a driver of export growth is critical to sustaining enterprises, maintaining current jobs and driving job creation. Recognising that innovation is the key to success, the Government’s commitment to continued investment in science, technology and innovation was reflected in the 2010 Budget for this spending area. The aim is to ensure that incentives for business to undertake research and development are strong and that Ireland continues to invest in developing a knowledge economy. To balance the restricted availability of funding, greater focus has been placed on stronger commercial outputs and on the efficiency of investment. The State is seeking more from less and the policy approach is to derive maximum commercial benefit from the investment made over past years.
In addition, the decision to create a single funding stream for science, technology and innovation expenditure will greatly enhance the efficiency of the spend and the State’s ability to re-prioritise as economic circumstances change when the economy recovers.
“Building Ireland’s Smart Economy”, the “Renewed Programme for Government” and the Report of the Innovation Task Force recognise the importance of the productive public and private investment in research, development and innovation. The State investment through the [573]2010 Budget confirm a solid commitment to research, development and innovation expenditure, to supporting enterprise programs and driving employment growth.
77. Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his views on the announcement by a medical devices company (details supplied) that it will shed almost 200 jobs at its plant in Tullamore, County Offaly; if he has met or plans to meet management at the company to try save these jobs; his plans for industrial development in the area in view of the absence of other significant manufacturing industries there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24635/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): Covidien informed IDA on 25th May that it would be seeking redundancies for 160 permanent staff on a voluntary basis and the loss of 40 temporary workers, which will be on a phased timescale, commencing in late June-July. These job losses will bring total headcount down to 400.
The company cited increased competition from new, low-cost competitors and a decline in the overall Europe, Middle East and Africa market as the reasons for the planned reduction.
I wish to assure the Deputy that every effort will be made to find alternative employment for those people who will be made redundant. FAS will work with the company to facilitate this.
Enterprise Ireland and the County Enterprise Board will also be offering their full services to any workers considering starting up a business.
IDA Ireland’s Strategy for County Offaly and the Midlands Region is:
To progress the development of a knowledge economy, in order that the region can compete both nationally and internationally for foreign direct investment;
To work with the existing client base in the county and to expand their presence in the county; and,
To provide modern property solutions with supporting infrastructure.
Under its new strategy IDA will continue to focus on delivering 50% of investment in the priority regional locations outside of Dublin and Cork. I can assure you that within these regions, including County Offaly, IDA is and will continue to be sensitive to particular pressure points as they arise.
I can assure the House that the State development agencies are promoting County Offaly as an attractive location for employment and investment opportunities and they will continue to make the full range of services available to all those who need them.
Question No. 78 answered with Question No. 60.
79. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the number of meetings that have taken place of the inter-agency team set up in the wake of the job losses at Quinn Insurance; the number of meetings of the team that he has attended; the progress being made by the team in supporting the workers with workshops and other practical measures; if and when the inter-agency response team met the similar response team set up by the authorities in the Northern Ireland Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24291/10]
[574]Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): In response to the announcement of redundancies in Quinn Insurance, I established an inter-agency team comprising Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, the relevant County Enterprise Boards, FÁS and the Department of Social Protection. The Inter Agency response team held its first meeting in Cavan on Friday 30 April and has met on four other occasions since. Prior to the establishment of the inter-agency team, I met with local agency representatives and other stakeholders, and while I have not attended the meetings of the group, the appointment of Dan Flinter as chair is a signal of the importance, which I attach to the work of this group. Mr. Flinter keeps my Department updated regularly on the work of the group.
It is important to note that this co-ordinated response to the situation in Quinn Insurance is a work in progress. The Group oversees and monitors the direct responses of the State Agencies concerned with the three Quinn Insurance Ltd locations in Cavan, Navan and Blanchardstown. Briefings and information sessions for the employees concerned have been delivered at all three sites by Enterprise Ireland, FAS, the County Enterprise Boards, the Department of Social Protection, the HSE, and other agencies, education providers and financial institutions as required. The County and City Enterprise Boards in the Meath, Cavan and Fingal areas are working together to provide an appropriate co-ordinated response to the announcement of the job losses. The Boards will endeavour to provide every support possible for those directly affected who wish to establish a business or to explore the possibilities of self-employment.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland and my Department have agreed that a joint proposal be developed for submission to the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) for funding under the Enterprise Theme and InvestNI and Enterprise Ireland are to progress this as a priority. In relation to the co-ordination of the responses, North and South, Dan Flinter and his Northern Ireland counterpart, Leslie Ross, are in regular communication and have met on two occasions to ensure that their actions are co-ordinated and work in a complementary manner. In conclusion, I am confident that the inter-agency team is the response best placed to coordinate the activities of the relevant Government Department, state development agencies and County Enterprise Boards. This team will continue its work to ensure that all available measures are activated so that the Quinn employees facing redundancy are equipped to make appropriate decisions regarding their future employment prospects.
80. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the supports that are available to young persons, particularly young unemployed persons, to start their own businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25213/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): My Department does not provide direct funding or grants to businesses but rather provides funding to a number of State Agencies, including the County and City Enterprise Boards (CEBs) through whom assistance is delivered directly to businesses. Subject to certain eligibility criteria new and developing micro-enterprises may qualify for financial support from the CEBs in the form of Priming, Expansion/Development Grants and Feasibility/Innovation Grants. In addition, the CEBs deliver a range of non-financial supports to improve management capability development within micro-enterprises designed to help new and existing enterprises to operate effectively and efficiently so as to last and grow. However, in order to more fully explore the range of options that may be available, potential entrepreneurs are advised to contact their local CEB to discuss their business needs with the relevant staff of the Board. Contact details for individual CEBs can be found by accessing the following website: www.enterpriseboards.ie.
81. Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he intends to publish the legislation to amend the Competition Acts to uphold the rights of certain freelance workers such as actors and musicians to collective bargaining, which was promised as part of the review of the Towards 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24353/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I intend, subject to consistency with EU competition law, to give effect to the Government commitment in “Towards 2016” regarding the exemption of certain specified categories of vulnerable workers from competition law in the Bill being prepared to merge the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority. Work on the draft heads of this Bill is now at an advanced stage and I intend to bring these draft heads to Cabinet within the coming weeks. I hope to publish the Bill later this year.
82. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the progress made on the commitment given in the renewed programme for Government to undertake an independent review of the effectiveness of State agency support for enterprise, including interaction between the Industrial Development Authority, Enterprise Ireland and the county enterprise boards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24337/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Government remains committed to undertaking the review in question. However, work on a number of recommendations of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes concerning the enterprise development agencies is at an advanced stage and it clearly makes sense to complete this work before asking an independent group to commence the review. It will be important in that review, given the disruption that any significant restructuring of agencies inevitably entails and the major challenges facing the agencies in the years ahead, that care is taken to limit any proposed changes to those that are absolutely necessary to achieve clearly identified objectives.
Quite apart from the review, work to improve co-ordination between the enterprise development agencies is currently underway. In November 2009, a Cross-Agency High Level Group completed a report on Enhanced Agency Collaboration. The High Level Group is continuing to meet to monitor the implementation process which is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Overall, there is a general need to strengthen information sharing between the agencies; to maintain a client centric focus — unhindered by agency boundaries where appropriate; and ultimately to ensure that a collaborative culture permeates throughout all levels of the organisations. The process has also identified pockets of existing effective collaboration activity, which is not necessarily pervasive, consistent, or recognised/rewarded. Implementation has been a core objective of the enhanced agency collaboration process and the High Level Group has already initiated, and in some cases completed, actions in areas such as communications, knowledge sharing, and transfer of clients.
There are a number of mechanisms already in situ that facilitate collaboration across the agencies. The powers and functions of each agency are set out in one body of legislation, the Industrial Development Acts. While IDA and Enterprise Ireland serve different client bases, they operate similar schemes and programmes. The specific role of each agency in relation to matters such as Science and Technology and Training is also set out in the legislation, which avoids overlaps or duplication in agency mandates.
83. Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his response to the consultation paper on corporate governance published by the Financial Regulator. [24347/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The consultation paper recently published by the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator relates specifically to financial institutions and insurance undertakings. Responsibility for these sectors is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Finance. For my part, I welcome the publication of the consultation paper. I understand this initiative is part of a wider strategy to update the domestic regulatory framework applying to credit institutions and insurance undertakings and that the Regulator plans to develop corporate governance frameworks for other sectors of the financial services industry such as funds and credit unions.
The Financial Regulator envisages that while the new rules should apply to all credit institutions and insurance undertakings, he has not adopted a one-size-fits-all approach. I welcome the Regulator’s openness to implementing the rules proportionately, where appropriate, and to recognise institutions with a lesser economic significance and lower risk activities. I understand that the Regulator proposes to implement these new standards, following its consultation, under powers currently available to it under the Central Bank Acts and associated legislation. Interested parties are asked to comment on the proposals by end June 2010 and I look forward to seeing the new corporate governance standards published by the Regulator in due course.
84. Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the number of the EU directives for which his Department has responsibility that remain to be implemented; if he will list the directives that are now overdue; if he will give the number of reasoned opinions received from the EU Commission since 2002 regarding delays or the non-implementation of such directives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24354/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): There are currently a total of 14 EU Directives due to be transposed by my Department up to 2012. One Directive is currently overdue — Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market. This Directive is due to be transposed by the end of June 2010. Full details on the state of play of all current EU Directives due for transposition are maintained on my Department’s website, www.entemp.ie. My Department has received 26 Reasoned Opinions from the European Commission relating to Directives since 2002. The only outstanding Reasoned Opinion is in respect of Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits. This Directive was transposed on 20 May 2010 and it is expected that the case will now be closed. The transposition of EU Directives is an ongoing priority in my Department and is systematically monitored and reported to the Management Board on a regular basis.
85. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the action that he has taken or proposes to take to bring competitiveness in the manufacturing, commercial and service sectors into a more competitive position in respect of adjoining or EU jurisdictions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25988/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): Ireland’s competitiveness is benchmarked against a number of competitor countries, not just adjoining or EU [577]jurisdictions, by the NCC on an annual basis. Since January 2008, Ireland has regained competitiveness as domestic inflation remains below that of our main trading partners and the euro weakened. We are seeing lower business costs, which is easing pressures on the business sector. Wage costs, asset prices and energy prices are all on a downward trend. Annual inflation fell by 2.5% in the twelve months to April, in contrast to the rest of the euro area where they rose by 1.5%. The Irish consumer price level relative to its trading partners is now back to levels last seen in 2000/2001.
The price of services to business fell by 5.7% in Q3 2009 compared to Q3 2008, with the largest price reductions in architecture, engineering and technical testing (-9.8%), and computer programming and consultancy (-8.5%). However, legal, accounting, public relations and business management consultancy fees dropped by just 1.5pc compared to 2008. The European Commission forecast that our Unit Labour Costs will fall by 9.4% over the 2009 to 2011 period, against a projected increase of 3.5% for the Eurozone. This equates to a positive swing of 13% in Ireland’s favour over the three-year period to 2011. The Government introduced an extensive package of measures to contain energy costs last summer — and this is reflected in a much improved position relative to competitors. Data released in May shows that electricity and gas prices fell for all types of energy consumers in the second half of 2009, and have moved closer to the EU average for most business users.
We have also been actively progressing recommendations to increase competition and remove anti-competitive restrictions in the sheltered sectors of the economy. These include competition in transport, electricity, professional services, pharmacy services and the private rental sector. Upward-only rent reviews are now banned. In addition, we are working with relevant parties to see how we can deal further with other aspects of concern in existing leases and a report is expected at the end of June. Minister Kelleher is currently driving a series of workshops that aim to simplify life for Irish business, on Company Law, Employment Law and Health & Safety Law. The Minister is meeting with representatives from business, the professions and local enterprise boards to work out concrete plans to reduce red tape by simplifying some of the core administrative burdens currently placed on business. The ideas generated at these workshops are feeding in to the development of simplification plans in the three areas of regulation. It is intended that these will be presented to the High Level Group on Business Regulation, for their inputs and validation in the Autumn.
Competitiveness also includes boosting the total productive capacity of the economy. And we are doing this, for example, through targeting R&D and Innovation to drive productivity and ensure that we have the skills and technologies available in Ireland that will give us a competitive advantage. The entire Irish economy must be a smart economy, that is to say, a high-productivity economy if we are to compete with the rest of the world. The Taoiseach appointed me to Chair the group tasked with implementation of the recommendations of the Innovation task force and this met for the first time earlier this month.
Since my appointment as the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, I have met with a range of stakeholder groups, including individual companies and business people both in Ireland and abroad. In my discussions, I have underlined that my priority is to ensure that the business environment is supportive of Irish enterprise, both manufacturing and services, to grow exports and to continue to encourage high value foreign investment.
86. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the extent to which he or his Department has monitored the various costs affecting economic recovery; the degree to which he has identified the major contributory factors that need to be addressed in this context; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25991/10]
[578]Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): Ireland’s competitiveness, including cost competitiveness, is benchmarked against a number of competitor countries by the NCC on an annual basis. Since January 2008, Ireland has regained competitiveness as domestic inflation remains below that of our main trading partners and the euro weakened. We are seeing lower business costs, which is easing pressures on the business sector. Wage costs, asset prices and energy prices are all on a downward trend. Annual inflation fell by 2.5% in the twelve months to April, in contrast to the rest of the euro area where they rose by1.5%. The Irish consumer price level relative to its trading partners is now back to levels last seen in 2000/2001.
The price of services to business fell by 5.7% in Q3 2009 compared to Q3 2008, with the largest price reductions in architecture, engineering and technical testing (-9.8%), and computer programming and consultancy (-8.5%). However, legal, accounting, public relations and business management consultancy fees dropped by just 1.5pc compared to 2008. The European Commission forecast that our Unit Labour Costs will fall by 9.4% over the 2009 to 2011 period, against a projected increase of 3.5% for the Eurozone. This equates to a positive swing of 13% in Ireland’s favour over the three year period to 2011.
The Government introduced an extensive package of measures to contain energy costs last summer — and this is reflected in a much improved position relative to competitors. Data released in May shows that electricity and gas prices fell for all types of energy consumers in the second half of 2009, and have moved closer to the EU average for most business users. We have also been actively progressing recommendations to increase competition and remove anti-competitive restrictions in the sheltered sectors of the economy. These include competition in transport, electricity, professional services, pharmacy services and the private rental sector. Upward-only rent reviews are now banned. In addition, we are working with relevant parties to see how we can deal further with other aspects of concern in existing leases and a report is expected at the end of June.
The Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher, is currently driving a series of workshops that aim to simplify life for Irish business, on Company Law, Employment Law and Health & Safety Law, which will also lead to reduced costs. The Minister is meeting with representatives from business, the professions and local enterprise boards to work out concrete plans to reduce red tape by simplifying some of the core administrative burdens currently placed on business. The ideas generated at these workshops are feeding in to the development of simplification plans in the three areas of regulation. It is intended that these will be presented to the High Level Group on Business Regulation, for their inputs and validation in the Autumn.
Competitiveness also includes boosting the total productive capacity of the economy. And we are doing this, for example, through targeting R&D and Innovation to drive productivity and ensure that we have the skills and technologies available in Ireland that will give us a competitive advantage. The entire Irish economy must be a smart economy, that is to say, a high-productivity economy if we are to compete with the rest of the world. The Taoiseach appointed me to Chair the group tasked with implementation of the recommendations of the Innovation task force and this met for the first time earlier this month.
We are focused on opportunities for growth in a number of key sectors. For example, the Green Enterprise report estimated that 80,000 new jobs could be created in the coming years and there are other opportunities for growth in high-end manufacturing and services. Since my appointment as the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, I have met with a range of stakeholder groups, including individual companies and business people both in Ireland and abroad. In my discussions, I have underlined that my priority is to ensure that the business [579]environment is supportive of Irish enterprise, both manufacturing and services, to grow exports and to continue to encourage high value foreign investment.
87. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when a redundancy payment will be awarded in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford which is due to them as a refund on the closure of a company. [25723/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): My Department administers the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) in relation to redundancy matters on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are two types of payment made from the SIF — rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees, and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation. I can confirm my Department received a statutory redundancy lump sum application on the 15 February, 2010 in respect of the above individual. This claim awaits processing. In respect of redundancy lump sum payments paid directly to employees, such as in this instance, the Section is, in general, processing claims dating from October 2009.
In relation to redundancy claims, the scale of the challenge is evident from the statistics that show incoming redundancy claims in 2009 amounted to 77,001 which represents a threefold increase over the level of claims lodged in 2007 and earlier years. In 2007, claims received were of the order of 25,000. Efforts continue to be made by my Department to deliver more acceptable turnaround processing times for Redundancy payments given the difficulties that this gives rise to for both individual employees and the business community. Measures already taken in the Department in 2009 to alleviate the pressures on the Payments area include:
Almost doubling the number of staff through reassignment to a current level of 52 full time equivalents;
Prioritisation of the Department’s overtime budget towards staff in the Section to tackle the backlog outside normal hours;
Establishment of a special call handling facility in NERA to deal with the huge volume of telephone calls from people and businesses concerned about their payments.
Better quality information relating to current processing times on the Department’s website;
Engagement with the Revenue Commissioners to facilitate the offset of redundancy rebate payments by employers against existing outstanding tax liabilities which those employers owe to the Revenue Commissioners.
The backlog and waiting times remain at unacceptable levels. However, improvements are evident. I should point out that my Department has, in 2009, processed 50,664 claims, up 70% on 2008. In the period 1 January 2010 to 31 May 2010 new claims amounted to 28,587 — a fall off of almost 20% on the corresponding 5 month period in 2009 when 35,559 new claims were lodged. The reduction in incoming claims is most welcome. Inroads are being made in the backlog of claims reducing from 42,591 in December 2009 to a current level of 34,881 at end May 2010. In the first five months 34,036 claims were processed, up 130% on the same period last year.
Responsibility for the payment functions arising under the Redundancy and Insolvency payment schemes is due to be transferred to the Department of Social Protection with effect from 1 January 2011. In transferring the functions between Departments, it is the intention that this [580]will operate seamlessly and without any adverse impact on the service levels being experienced by individuals or the business community awaiting payment of redundancy claims.
88. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when a redundancy payment will issue to a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25754/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): My Department administers the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) in relation to redundancy matters on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are two types of payment made from the SIF — rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees, and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation. I can confirm that my Department received a lump sum claim for the individual concerned on 26 May, 2010. This claim awaits processing. In respect of redundancy lump sum payments paid directly to employees, such as in this instance, the Section is, in general, processing claims dating from October 2009.
In relation to redundancy claims, the scale of the challenge is evident from the statistics that show incoming redundancy claims in 2009 amounted to 77,001 which represents a threefold increase over the level of claims lodged in 2007 and earlier years. In 2007, claims received were of the order of 25,000. Efforts continue to be made by my Department to deliver more acceptable turnaround processing times for Redundancy payments given the difficulties that this gives rise to for both individual employees and the business community. Measures already taken in the Department in 2009 to alleviate the pressures on the Payments area include:
Almost doubling the number of staff through reassignment to a current level of 52 full time equivalents;
Prioritisation of the Department’s overtime budget towards staff in the Section to tackle the backlog outside normal hours;
Establishment of a special call handling facility in NERA to deal with the huge volume of telephone calls from people and businesses concerned about their payments.
Better quality information relating to current processing times on the Department’s website;
Engagement with the Revenue Commissioners to facilitate the offset of redundancy rebate payments by employers against existing outstanding tax liabilities which those employers owe to the Revenue Commissioners.
The backlog and waiting times remain at unacceptable levels. However, improvements are evident. I should point out that my Department has, in 2009, processed 50,664 claims, up 70% on 2008. In the period 1 January 2010 to 31 May 2010 new claims amounted to 28,587 — a fall off of almost 20% on the corresponding 5 month period in 2009 when 35,559 new claims were lodged. The reduction in incoming claims is most welcome. Inroads are being made in the backlog of claims reducing from 42,591 in December 2009 to a current level of 34,881 at end May 2010. In the first five months 34,036 claims were processed, up 130% on the same period last year.
Responsibility for the payment functions arising under the Redundancy and Insolvency payment schemes is due to be transferred to the Department of Social Protection with effect from 1 January 2011. In transferring the functions between Departments, it is the intention that this [581]will operate seamlessly and without any adverse impact on the service levels being experienced by individuals or the business community awaiting payment of redundancy claims.
89. Deputy Seán Power asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when a person (details supplied) will receive their redundancy payment from the social insurance fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25862/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): My Department administers the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) in relation to redundancy matters on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are two types of payment made from the SIF — rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees, and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation.
I can confirm that my Department received a lump sum claim for the individual concerned on 30 March 2010, which included an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision in favour of his claim, and I am pleased to advise the Deputy that the claim has recently been processed and authorized for payment. Payment should issue to the claimant over the next two to three week period.
90. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 92 of 11 May 2010, any progress has taken place in respect of the statutory redundancy payment; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that neither the employer nor his legal representative has received any request for further documentation from his Department; the documentation or action that is required in order to resolve this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25871/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): My Department administers the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) in relation to redundancy matters on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are two types of payment made from the SIF — rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees, and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation.
As I informed the Deputy in my answer of 11 May, 2010 my Department received a lump sum claim for the individual concerned on 15 July 2009. In the course of processing the claim, a query was raised with the employer’s legal representative; however, I understand that some documentation remains outstanding and the case cannot be finalized. The documentation required in support of lump sum claims is evidence of the employer’s inability to pay the redundancy entitlements to the employees. This involves requesting a statement from the company’s Accountant or Solicitor attesting to the inadequacy of assets to make the redundancy payments and, the latest set of financial accounts for the company. The employer is also asked to admit liability for the 40% liability attaching to the company arising from the redundancy payments. In this case admission of liability of the 40% was requested from the employer by letter in March 2010 and by phone from the employer’s solicitor’s office in May 2010 but remains outstanding.
If the required information is provided to the Department, the employees are paid their redundancy entitlement from the Social Insurance Fund. Upon payment, the Department pursues the company for the 40% share that the company would ordinarily have been expected to pay to the employees.
If the necessary supporting documentation required from the employer is not provided to my Department, the employee will be advised by my Department to take a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) against the employer to seek a determination establishing the [582]employee’s right and entitlement to redundancy. Once such a determination is available, the Department is then in a position to make the payment to the employee concerned. Should the outstanding documentation be provided by the employer during the period while the case is pending a hearing before the EAT, this would allow the claim to be processed by my Department in the usual way.
91. Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if, further to parliamentary Questions Nos. 14 and 15 of 9 June 2010, in respect of the 53 fixed term contracts due to expire over the period to the end of 2012, the overseas offices to which those positions relate; the location of the six posts for which sanction has been received; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25873/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The situation regarding vacant posts and contracts expiring in 2010, 2011 and 2012 is being monitored and negotiations are ongoing between my Department and the Department of Finance in relation to staffing levels in the context of agreeing an Employment Control Framework for my Department and its agencies to cover the period up to the end 2012.
A breakdown of the locations of the 53 fixed term contracts due to expire over the period to end 2012 in Enterprise Ireland’s overseas offices is given in the following tabular statement.
A breakdown of the locations of the 6 overseas posts for which sanction was received to recruit is given in the following tabular statement.
| Region | Overseas Office | EI Posts Sanctioned |
|---|---|---|
| UK/Europe | London | 2 |
| Dusseldorf | 1 | |
| Madrid | 1 | |
| Paris | 1 | |
| Asia | Singapore | 1 |
| Total | 6 |
92. Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the position regarding an application for statutory redundancy in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary. [25879/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Dara Calleary): My Department administers the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) in relation to redundancy matters on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are two types of payment made from the SIF — rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees, and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation.
I can confirm to the Deputy as per my previous answers provided last year that my Department received a statutory redundancy lump sum application on the 7 April, 2009 in respect of the above individual. As I explained the employee was advised by my Department to take a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) against the employer to seek a determination establishing the employee’s right and entitlement to redundancy as the required supporting information from the employer was not provided to my Department. On receipt of a determination in favour of the employee and confirmation that the payment from the employer remains unpaid the Department can then make the payment to the employee concerned very soon afterwards
[584]The EAT is a quasi-judicial body under the aegis of my Department. I have no role in the discharge by the Tribunal of its quasi-judicial functions. Where a claim has been submitted to the Tribunal, enquiries concerning such a claim can be made directly to the Tribunal Secretariat, by telephone at 01 6313006 or Lo Call 1890 220 222; by email at eat@entemp.ie or in writing at Davitt House, 65A Adelaide Road, Dublin 2.
93. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when the commitment from Government regarding guarantee for bank loans for small and medium enterprises is due to be implemented; when potential candidates can commence application for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25954/10]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): As previously advised to this House, work is underway in my Department on the examination of a possible scheme of Loan Guarantees for the SME sector which could augment lending by banks by addressing particular market failures. This is in line with one of the recommendations contained in the Mazars Review on Bank Lending to SMEs.
Enterprise Ireland and Forfás carried out examinations of loan guarantee schemes in the UK and in some other countries. Following more detailed examination, Forfás has recently submitted a report to my Department which is being considered. On completion of this work, I will bring the results before the Government.
As with any initiative, we will need to ensure that any scheme developed directly assists businesses, facilitates genuine additional lending in the market and, at the same time, safeguards the interests of the taxpayer.
94. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the way in which income from renting a car-space is treated for income tax purposes; the reliefs, credits or other such tax allowances available on such income; and the specific statutory provision covering this area. [25709/10]
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): It is assumed that the Deputy’s question relates to the letting of a single car-space by an individual who does not require it for personal use.
On that basis, the position is that income from the renting of a car-space which is situated in the State is chargeable to tax under Case V of Schedule D. A surplus or deficiency is computed for each year by reducing the gross amount of rent receivable for the car-space by allowable deductions. Where the owner of the car-space has other lettings in the State, a surplus or deficiency is computed separately for each source. The Case V income in any year is the surplus from the car-space letting or, if there are other lettings, the aggregate of the surpluses reduced by the aggregate of the deficiencies. In either situation, unused Case V losses from earlier years may be carried forward and set against Case V income in a later year.
Section 97(2) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 specifies the allowable deductions for Case V purposes. The main deductions are for: Any rent payable by the landlord in the case of a sub-lease; The cost to the landlord of any goods provided or services rendered to a tenant; The cost of maintenance, repairs, insurance and management of the property; Interest on bor[585]rowed money used to purchase, improve or repair the property; and payment of local authority rates in the case of rateable properties used for commercial purposes.
The principal provisions governing the taxation of rental income chargeable under Case V of Schedule D are contained in Part 4, Chapter 8 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.
95. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Finance if he will retain the current rate of tax relief for charities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25715/10]
96. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Finance if he will reduce the threshold for tax relief to around €100 a year for charities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25716/10]
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 95 and 96 together.
It is assumed that the Deputy is referring to certain recommendations that were made in the report of the Commission on Taxation. The first of these mentioned by the Deputy proposed that the income tax relief available for donations made to charitable bodies be available only at the standard rate of taxation. Currently tax relief is available for such donations at the taxpayer’s marginal rate. The second recommendation mentioned proposed that the threshold for eligibility for the relief be reduced to €100 from its current level of €250.
The Commission on Taxation made six recommendations in total with regard to the tax exemptions and reliefs that are currently available to charities. It is appropriate to examine these recommendations as a composite group in order to ascertain the effect of their implementation on the charitable sector and indeed on the Exchequer.
The views of the relevant Ministers have been sought in relation to various recommendations of the Commission on Taxation. In this regard, the views of the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs have been sought regarding the recommendations relating to the charitable sector.
Consideration of the responses from Ministers and the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation will be undertaken as part of the annual Budget and Finance Bill process.
97. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Finance if he will to introduce compensation to charities for VAT incurred on independent fundraising for charities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25717/10]
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Charities and non-profit groups engaged in non-commercial activity are exempt from VAT under the EU VAT Directive, with which Irish VAT law must comply. This means they do not charge VAT on the services they provide and cannot recover VAT incurred on goods and services that they purchase. Essentially only VAT registered businesses which charge VAT are able to recover VAT.
With regard to introducing compensation to charities in respect of the VAT incurred by them on fundraising expenses, this would undoubtedly lead to other exempt bodies such as schools, hospitals and sporting organisations, many of which are already registered as charities, seeking to benefit from such a system of refunds. These exempt bodies are already receiving considerable Exchequer funding.
The tax code already treats charities in a favourable manner. The tax code currently provides exemption for charities from Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Deposit [586]Interest Retention Tax, Capital Acquisitions Tax, Stamp Duty, Probate Tax, Dividend Withholding Tax and the uniform scheme of tax relief for donations.
Finally, even if funds were available to offset the VAT paid by charities in Ireland, I am not sure that the most appropriate use of the funds would be to relieve them of the VAT paid on inputs as opposed to grant-aiding their activities using other criteria.
98. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Finance how he proposes to transpose the Consumer Credit Directive into domestic legislation; when he proposes to do so; if he proposes to include the discretion for credit unions contained in the directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25719/10]
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The Consumer Credit Directive establishes a harmonised legal framework in the European Union for the provision of consumer credit ranging from €200 up to €75,000. (It does not apply to mortgages). It replaces a 1987 Directive (87/102/EEC), which laid down minimum rules for consumer credit arrangements within the EU.
The Directive was transposed into domestic legislation by Statutory Instrument No. 281/2010 on 9th June, 2010 and came into operation on 11th June, 2010.
I believe that the Directive enhances the strong regulatory regime underpinning consumer protection, and as such, I have decided that credit unions should be subject to its full application.
However, following consultation with representatives of the Credit Union movement, I am aware that the credit unions will require some time to upgrade their systems and train staff so that they can effect compliance with all the requirements of the Directive. Consequently, I have adopted the discretion allowed for under Article 2.5 applying limited provisions of the Directive to them until 11th December 2011, after which date, the full Directive will take effect.
99. Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Finance if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 40 of 9 June 2010, the 24 posts referred to in his answer relate to the 53 requested posts by Enterprise Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25872/10]
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Following requests by the then Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment I sanctioned the following posts, as exceptional measures under the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the public sector:
4 posts for Enterprise Ireland overseas offices in July 2009
A further 2 posts for Enterprise Ireland overseas offices in February 2010.
100. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Question No. 177 of 30 March 2010, and the legislation which will treat approved minimum retirement funds improperly sold to individuals as approved retirement funds, the criteria for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25940/10]
[587]Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): In my reply to the previous question of 30 March 2010 referred to by the Deputy, I said that the Government is aware that individuals who invested some or all of their pension funds in an Approved Minimum Retirement Fund (AMRF) because they did not satisfy the specified income requirement at retirement, may later satisfy that condition. The Government has decided to allow those individuals who meet the specified income conditions after retirement to have their AMRFs treated as Approved Retirement Funds (ARFs) to which they will have access.
The issue being addressed relates to the fact that, under current legislation, individuals can be locked into the AMRF arrangement without access to the capital in their fund until age 75 despite the fact that, subsequent to retirement, they may be able to satisfy the specified income condition. This is not a question of AMRFs being improperly sold.
I also mentioned in my previous response that the details of this change will be worked out during the implementation phase of the National Pensions Framework and legislated for in due course. The position is that a Steering Group has been established to oversee the work of implementing the Framework which will take a period of three to five years to complete. However, the Framework includes a commitment to extend, from next year, the option to invest in an ARF to all members of Defined Contribution occupational pension schemes and I would consider that the matter which is the subject of the Deputy’s question will be dealt with in the same legislation in 2011. The detail of the legislative change will be made known at that time.
101. Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Finance the VAT implications for a new company that will sell silver coins; if silver coins are exempt from VAT or if the standard rate of VAT applies when sold to collectors or investors; if the Central Bank sells silver coins and if VAT applies to these sales; and if so, the rate of same; if VAT applies to Irish collector coins; if so the rate of same; if VAT applies to antique coins; if so the rate of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25941/10]
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the only circumstances in which the supply of silver coins is exempt from VAT is where they are supplied for use as legal tender in any country. This is provided for in paragraph 6(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the VAT Act 1972 (as amended).
The sale of silver coins, in general, is liable to VAT at the standard rate of 21%. The reduced rate of VAT of 13.5% may apply where the silver coins are supplied as collectors’ items or antiques as defined in paragraphs (ii)(b) and (iii) of Schedule 5 to the VAT Act 1972 (as amended). The new company should contact their local Revenue Office for advice on the appropriate VAT rates to apply.
102. Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for Finance the national debt as a percentage of GNP each year from 1980 to 2010; the general Government debt each year from 1980 to 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25951/10]
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The national debt as a percentage of GNP for the period from 1980 to 2010 is set out in Table 1 below.
The General Government Debt is the standard measure of debt used within the EU for comparative purposes. It includes the National Debt as described above, as well as Local Government debt and some other minor liabilities of Government. In addition, it is a gross measure of debt as it does not allow for the netting of cash balances or, in more recent years, the assets of the National Pensions Reserve Fund, both of which are significant and at-end 2009 amounted to some 27% of GDP.
The General Government Debt is usually expressed as percentage of GDP. The figures in the table below have been compiled on an ESA95 basis (the European system of accounting which defines the accounting rules to be used by all EU Member States). Figures are not available on this basis prior to 1990.
103. Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for Finance when the necessary finance will be allocated to Kilkenny County Council to deal effectively with a flooding issue (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25976/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): Engineering staff from the Office of Public Works and Kilkenny County Council met in 2009 to assess the flooding problem in Ballyragget. It was agreed that the Council would prepare and submit a detailed report on the flooding problem to the OPW to enable the matter to be considered further. The OPW is awaiting this report.
It would be open to the Council to submit an application for funding for works at Ballyragget under the ongoing scheme administered by this Office, which provides funds to local authorities to carry out minor mitigation works to address localised flooding problems.
If an application is submitted, it will be assessed in accordance with the relevant eligibility criteria, and having regard to the total funding available for flood mitigation works this year.
104. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will confirm that her Department has received an application for funding for the establishment of new youth cafe facilities, strand two, from an organisation (details supplied) in County Westmeath from [590]the dormant accounts fund 2010; if she will ensure that this organisation is allocated the appropriate and necessary funding to allow the establishment of same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25722/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): It is assumed that the Deputy is referring to the recently announced OMCYA Dormant Accounts Youth Café Funding Scheme which is being administered by POBAL on behalf of my Office. My Office does not accept applications for this scheme. All applications for this scheme must be made to City & County Development Boards who will then submit a short-list of suitable applications to POBAL. Full details of the scheme are available on www.pobal.ie.
105. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will support a business (details supplied). [25745/10]
112. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will support a matter (details supplied). [25740/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): I propose to take Questions Nos. 105 and 112 together.
I have responsibility for implementation of the National Childcare Investment Programme 2006-2010 (NCIP) under which capital grant funding is provided to community and commercial child care providers for the development of child care facilities.
Following the review of Government expenditure which was completed in April of last year, the NCIP closed to new capital grant applicants. During 2010, capital funding is continuing to be paid to meet existing NCIP commitments. With regard to the case raised by the Deputy, I regret to advise that new applications for capital funding cannot be accepted at this time.
106. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Health and Children the action she is taking to prevent a repeat of the difficulties that arose in 2009 in relation to overpayments and significant delays on the back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme arising from the administration of the scheme by centralised units. [25858/10]
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.
107. Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that home care providers who are contracted and paid by the Health Service Executive are charging elderly patients an extra hourly fee on top of the money they receive from the HSE; the amount of money a home care provider (details supplied) received in 2009 from the HSE to provide care; the number of patients this home care provider was contracted to care for in 2009; the number of hours of care that this provider was contracted to provide in 2009; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25707/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): I regret that due to industrial action I am not in a position to provide a substantive response to your Parliamentary Question. [591] If this matter remains of continuing concern to you, however, I would invite you to raise it with me again in due course.
108. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the provision of respite support by a charity (details supplied) in Dublin 7; if she will confirm that this service is to be discontinued and explain the rationale for this decision; if her attention has been drawn to the negative effect the discontinuation of this service will have on persons who depend on the service; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25714/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.
109. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will accede to the request of a family for an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of their mother (details supplied). [25718/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): I am informed by the Health Service Executive (HSE) that the hospital in question undertook an independent internal Review which was led and chaired by an independent external reviewer. Once this report was completed it was sent by the hospital to the family concerned in February 2010.
I understand that the hospital is in the process of implementing the recommendations of the report of the independent internal Review.
I was previously made aware of this case which is being dealt with by my Department in line with the Patient Safety Protocol which was adopted in September 2008. The protocol deals with correspondence from patients, doctors, health service staff and solicitors. It is managed by the Chief Medical Officer on my behalf as a medical assessment of any potential patient safety issue is required.
The HSE has informed my Department that the case referred to is the subject of legal proceedings against the hospital concerned. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment further on the issue raised.
110. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Health and Children the expenditure by the Health Service Executive on orthopaedic footwear in the Dublin area and nationally; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25726/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.
111. Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Health and Children the steps a parent should take whose child demonstrates signs of developmental delays or disabilities where the child is under five years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25737/10]
[592]Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 was commenced on 1 June 2007 in respect of children aged under 5 years; this includes an entitlement to an independent assessment of health and education needs. The Health Service Executive has appointed 32 Assessment Officers to carry out this function under the Disability Act 2005. These officers were appointed in each local health office. Contact details for Assessment Officers are available on the Health Service Executive website at:
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Find_a_Service/Disability_Services/Disability_Assessment/ Assessment_Officers.html
From the date of commencement, any parent who has concerns that their child aged under 5 may have a disability should apply for an assessment of need under Part 2 of the Disability Act.
Question No. 112 answered with Question No. 105.
113. Deputy Charlie O’Connor asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will instruct the Health Service Executive to provide additional funding to Tallaght Hospital to enable the hospital to deal effectively with the difficulties which have arisen regarding the number of dermatology referrals; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25869/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): The HSE is aware of the challenges currently being experienced by Tallaght Hospital in relation to dermatology services and is actively in discussion with the hospital with a view to putting an action plan in place which will allow for the resumption of referrals for dermatology patients, both adult and paediatric, as soon as possible.
114. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding a medical card application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Laois; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25883/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.
115. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will support the respite services of an organisation (details supplied) in Dublin 7. [25885/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.
116. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Health and Children if nurses have been included in the early retirement proposals introduced in the past two years; if the further development of such schemes for nursing is contemplated in the future; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25929/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): The Incentivised Scheme of Early Retirement (ISER) in the public health sector, announced by the Minister for Finance in his Supplementary Budget Statement of 7 April 2009, is now closed.
[593]As the Minister for Finance indicated in his Financial Statement on Supplementary Budget day, this is the only voluntary early retirement scheme that the Government intends to make available in the civil and public service. Any pre-existing early retirement scheme, such as the Pilot Early Retirement Scheme for Nurses and the Pre Retirement Initiative is therefore closed. Nurses, who met the eligibility criteria under ISER, had access to the scheme. All public health sector employees may still avail of the existing Cost Neutral Early Retirement Scheme (Department of Health and Children Circular 5/2005 refers).
The closing date for ISER in the public health sector has now passed and there are no plans to re-open it at the moment.
117. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Health and Children when the proposed charges for medical card holders will become effective; if she has had cause to reconsider any elements of these charges; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25930/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): I take it that the Deputy is referring to the announcement in Budget 2010 that, in order to address rising costs in the General Medical Scheme (GMS) scheme, and to influence to some degree demand and prescribing patterns, a 50 cent charge per prescription item would be introduced, subject to a monthly ceiling of €10 per family.
The full details of the prescription charges will be set out in legislation which is expected to be circulated shortly.
118. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Health and Children if she has investigated the experience of mothers who survived the practice of symphysiotomy but suffered serious side effects; and if she plans any initiatives to investigate the position of survivors and offer support. [25932/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): I have asked the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to prepare a report for me concerning the practice of symphysiotomy in Ireland. I have asked that the report would: provide the Institute’s assessment of the circumstances in which symphysiotomy was carried out in Irish obstetric units; indicate what protocols or guidance existed over the years to guide professional practice; and specify when the practice changed and why it changed at that time in Ireland.
I am also committed to ensuring that the greatest possible support and services are made available to women who continue to suffer effects of having undergone this procedure. The women concerned continue to receive attention and care through a number of services which have been put in place including: the provision of medical cards to all Survivors of Symphysiotomy (SOS) patients who requested them; the nomination, since 2003, of a Liaison Officer for a patients’ group comprised of women who underwent a symphysiotomy procedure; the availability of independent clinical advice for former patients by Liaison Officers who assist in co-ordinating the provision of services to those patients; and the organisation of individual pathways of care and the arrangement of appropriate follow-up, including Medical Assessment, Gynaecology Assessment, Orthopaedic Assessment, Counselling, Physiotherapy, Reflexology, Home Help, Acupuncture, Osteopathy and fast tracked hospital appointments — I understand that 125 women have availed of some or all of the services offered by the HSE; the refund of medical expenses related to symphysiotomy in respect of medication/private treatments; the establishment of a triple assessment service for patients at Cappagh Hospital, Dublin in January [594]2005; and a Support Group facilitated by a counsellor which was set up in 2004 in Dundalk and Drogheda for women living in North East region.
I have been assured by the HSE that it will continue to monitor and oversee the provision of necessary support services for women. In doing so the HSE is committed to being proactive in seeking out and offering help to women who had symphysiotomies and who may wish to avail of the services offered by the HSE.
119. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Health and Children if a grant is available to adapt a car by fitting a swivel seat in order to accommodate the transport of a spouse whose mobility is severely impaired. [25933/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): The main supports available for disabled drivers and passengers are the Mobility Allowance, the Motorised Transport Grant and the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Scheme. The Mobility Allowance is a means tested monthly payment payable by the Health Service Executive (HSE) to people aged between 16 and 66 who have a disability and are unable to walk or use public transport and who would benefit from a change in surroundings; (for example, by financing the occasional taxi journey).
The Health Service Executive may pay a Motorised Transport Grant towards the purchase of a vehicle and/or adaptations to a vehicle being purchased by a person with a severe disability who is 17 years or older where a vehicle is essential for him/her to retain employment. The vehicle must also be purchased and registered in the name of the person with the disability and the applicant must hold a driver’s licence (full or provisional). Qualified persons with a disability who are incapable of driving or who have been medically advised not to drive, and who have to be driven to and from his/her place of employment will only be considered eligible for a grant provided that he/she will be driven by another named person to and from his/her place of employment. In these circumstances it is not necessary for the vehicle to be purchased and registered in the name of the person with the disability.
http: //www.citizensinformation.ie/index/SUBJECT/transporthttp://www.citizens information.ie/
index/SUBJECT/people_with_disabilitieshttp://www.citizensinformation.ie/ index/SUBJECT/health_service_payments
The Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Scheme provides a range of tax reliefs linked to the purchase and use of vehicles by disabled drivers and disabled passengers. Under the terms of the scheme, a person can claim remission or repayment of vehicle registration tax (VRT), repayment of value-added tax (VAT) on the purchase of a vehicle and repayment of VAT on the cost of adapting a vehicle.
The Health Service Executive has the responsibility for the medical assessment of applicants for the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Scheme on behalf of the Department of Finance and for processing applications for Mobility Allowance and the Motorised Transport Grant. As such, I would recommend that the Deputy inform the individual mentioned that it is open to them to contact their local health office directly.
120. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Health and Children if the Health Service Executive is withdrawing funding from a facility (details supplied) which provides valuable respite services for 80 users; if the Health Service Executive has taken into account the hardship [595]that closing this facility will cause to many families; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25936/10]
Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy Áine Brady): I regret that due to industrial action I am not in a position to provide a substantive response to your Parliamentary Question. If this matter remains of continuing concern to you, however, I would invite you to raise it with me again in due course.
121. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will ensure a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon will be admitted to hospital for a procedure. [25950/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.
122. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Health and Children if she has completed the Review of Congregated Settings; the conclusions of the review in relation to the transfer of people with intellectual disabilities living in such institutions to more appropriate accommodation including those inappropriately placed in psychiatric hospitals; the timescales for same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25977/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): The Review of the Congregated Settings is being carried out by a group chaired by a senior HSE official. I understand that the group is at an advanced stage in its work. However, it would be a matter for the HSE to advise you on the current status of the review. I wish to advise the Deputy that due to industrial action affecting the Health Service Executive it is not possible for the Executive to supply the information requested. If this matter remains of continuing concern to you, however, I would invite you to raise it with me again in due course.
123. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Health and Children if or not it is possible to investigate, assess or offer assistance in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who was never psychologically assessed, who may well benefit from same; if she will initiate inquires; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26005/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.
124. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Health and Children the further support or back up that is likely to be provided to a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; if it is intended to put in place a specific programme to meet the requirements identified in the course of the psychological assessment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26006/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.
125. Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Health and Children her views on the need to provide consumers with more information on food products produced using novel technologies and associated benefits in order to provide them with the knowledge to make more informed food choice decisions and to increase consumer acceptance on the basis that strategic reviews of the Irish food industry have consistently emphasised the need for companies to invest in their technological and marketing capabilities to manage risk in new product development and increase value added levels; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21967/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): EU food labelling requirements look to provide consumers with the information needed to make informed choices and to make safe use of food. A key principle underlying the labelling of food is that the purchaser must not be misled. The information on the label must be clear and unambiguous and must not be such as could mislead the consumer to a material degree.
Novel foods and the use of novel technologies in food production are governed by Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. This regulation stipulates that any food or food ingredient that does not have a significant history of consumption within the EU prior to May 15, 1997 requires authorisation before being placed on the market. This Regulation also stipulates that prior authorisation is required where a novel process is used that gives rise to significant changes in the composition or structure of the food, which in turn affects the nutritional value, metabolism or level of undesirable substances. Additional labelling of novel foods may be stipulated in the authorisation as part of a risk management strategy without prejudice to general food labelling requirements. Where a company wishes to market a new food on the basis of proposed nutrition or health benefits, any related claims must be validated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in advance so that consumers’ interests are protected.
126. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Health and Children the timeline for the injection of funds into the VHI to enable it to meet its solvency requirements in advance of privatisation; the level of funding she expects to have to inject into VHI before its privatisation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25621/10]
Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): A key element of the Government’s strategy for the future of the private health insurance market is to establish VHI Healthcare in a position where it is authorised by the Financial Regulator and therefore regulated for prudential solvency purposes on the same basis as its competitors. The Government has committed to making a substantial capital investment into the VHI in order to secure its authorisation as a matter of urgency. The procedure for authorisation necessitates that VHI not only have sufficient capital in place to satisfy the requirements of the Financial Regulator, but also to display that it can sustain the necessary capital over a three to five year period. This will require VHI to demonstrate that it has a robust business plan in place which will satisfy these requirements. As Minister responsible for the VHI, I and my officials will be in close contact with the Board and management to ensure that such a business plan will be in place.
The actual amount of capital which will be required will be determined between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health and Children in light of the advice of experts. The level of capital required will be affected by a number of issues, including the amount of reinsurance and/or subordinated debt which the VHI may secure. It is not possible to specify [597]precisely at this time what the figure for capitalisation will be. The timing for capitalisation and sale of VHI will depend on a number of factors, which will be decided by Government in light of the advices of the experts on the appropriate sequencing and structure of the disposal of the company. These experts will be appointed on foot of a competitive tendering exercise which I expect will take place shortly.
127. Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if, in view of the fact that the number of travel agents here has halved in the past two years, he will consider changing the bonding requirement to be catered for by a single common fund rather than requiring the over-expensive individual funding of all travel agents; and if his further attention has been drawn to the importance of travel agents in supporting inward tourism through the retention of air routes. [25713/10]
Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): As the Deputy will be aware, in 2008 I requested the Commission for Aviation Regulation to undertake a review of travel trade licensing and bonding regulations. Among the recommendations arising from this review was that a collective bond scheme could be developed in concert with the insurance industry.
In November 2009, as part of the Review of the Consumer Aqcuis, the Directorate General for Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) of the European Commission launched a review of the Package Travel Directive. Given this development, there would not appear to be any merit in undertaking fundamental reform of the bonding regime at this time without a clearer understanding of what the Commission is proposing in this area.
128. Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when a decision will issue regarding an application for naturalisation in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Louth; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25704/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): A valid application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy’s Question was received in the Citizenship Division of my Department in March 2008. All valid applications are dealt with in chronological order as this is deemed to be the fairest to all applicants. The average processing time from application to decision is now at 26 months. More complicated cases can at times take more than the current average, while an element of straight forward cases can be dealt with in less than that timescale. Officials in the Citizenship Division inform me that further processing of the application is ongoing and the file will be submitted to me for a decision in due course.
The length of time taken to process each application should not be classified as a delay, as the length of time taken for any application to be decided is purely a function of the time taken to carry out necessary checks. There is a limit to the reduction in the processing time that can be achieved as applications for naturalisation must be processed in a way which preserves the necessary checks and balances to ensure that it is not undervalued and is only given to persons who genuinely satisfy the necessary qualifying criteria.
129. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will support a matter (details supplied). [25744/10]
[598]137. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will support a matter (details supplied). [25975/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 129 and 137 together.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the area referred to by the Deputy is in the Clontarf Garda Sub-District. Local Garda management is aware of a number of burglaries occurring in the area. These incidents are under active Garda investigation, and a number of persons have been charged and are currently before the courts. I am further informed that there have been no reports of incidents of speeding or road traffic collisions in the area in 2010 to date. A member of the local Community Policing Unit is allocated specifically to the area and regularly meets local residents.
The area is subject to regular patrols by uniform and plain clothes personnel, including the Community Policing Unit, the Garda Mountain Bike Unit and the local Detective and Drugs Units, supplemented as required by the Divisional Crime Task Force and Traffic Corps personnel. Traffic resources and strategies on speeding are prioritised and deployed in accordance with the Collision Prevention Programme and specific complaints. The area has traffic calming measures in place and a speed limit of 50 kph. 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.
Community policing is a central feature and core value of the Garda Síochána policing policy. Current policing strategies are predicated on the prevention of crime, public order offences, anti-social behaviour and breaches of road traffic legislation, thereby promoting an environment conducive to the improvement of the quality of life for residents. This strategy is, and will continue to be, central to the delivery of a policing service to the area in question.
130. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of places available to young offenders to participate in educational programmes in St. Patrick’s Institution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25748/10]
132. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will list and name the number of workshops available in St. Patrick’s Institution; the number of participants on each scheme; the length of each course; if there is a waiting list to access the various workshops, if so, the length of the waiting period; his plans to introduce new workshops; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25751/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 130 and 132 together.
In St Patrick’s Institution educational classes and courses are provided by a team of twenty whole-time equivalent teachers. All young persons are interviewed on committal for both Work/Training and Education and offered places in one or other of these activities. While the primary focus is on basic literacy and numeracy, the educational courses offered cover a wide range of subjects including English, Maths, Computers, Art, Crafts, Music and Home Economics. Various FETAC courses are on offer and a variety of subjects are offered up to Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate standard. Currently 115 prisoners are participating in educational classes, with up to 70 attending on any given day. In addition, all inmates have access to library facilities and a fully fitted gymnasium.
[599]In the Work and Training area, a number of vocational workshops are currently in operation — covering Woodwork and Joinery, Metal Work, Computer Training, Laundry, Industrial Skills and Catering. The average weekly participation rate in Work and Training is 49 prisoners. The period of attendance in workshops depends on a range of factors including the length and complexity of the coursework, the ability of the prisoner and the length of sentence. There are no waiting lists in operation and there are currently no plans to expand the number of workshops in the Institution.
All prisoners are encouraged and facilitated, subject to security considerations, to engage in constructive activities. In addition to participation in education and work and training there are on any given day an average of 58 inmates engaged in other structured activities such as painting, general cleaning, laundry, kitchen and horticultural work.
131. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the drug treatment facilities that are available in St. Patrick’s Institution; the number of young offenders availing of these services; if there are plans to increase this service; the number of drug-free landings in St. Patrick’s Institution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25750/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): The Irish Prison Service has committed significant investment in recent years to respond to drug misuse within prisons in keeping with our policy and strategy “Keeping Drugs Out of Prisons” which continues to be implemented. A comprehensive range of services and programmes are provided in all closed prisons including St. Patrick’s Institution. Drug rehabilitation programmes seek to reduce demand for drugs within the prison system through education, treatment and rehabilitation services. Particular initiatives include the provision of detoxification, methadone maintenance, education programmes, addiction counselling and drug therapy programmes, coupled with work, training and education access. Rehabilitation addresses needs beyond the physical management of addiction and also endeavours to equip individuals with life and vocational skills that may help them reintegrate into society on release. Because of this multifaceted approach, it is not possible to give comprehensive detail of the numbers engaged in various treatment modalities.
Any person entering prison giving a history of opiate use and testing positive for opioids on committal is offered a medically assisted symptomatic detoxification for operational reasons. Patients can, as part of the assessment process, discuss with health care staff other treatment options which may include stabilisation on methadone maintenance for persons who wish to continue on maintenance while in prison and when they return to the community on release. There are a very small number of young offenders on methadone substitution treatment. Adolescents tend to experiment with a wide variety of drugs. Some of these might include opiate-type drugs but the numbers on substitution treatment remain very low. This would indicate there is no demonstrable evidence to suggest a wide dependence on opiate-type drugs. In 2009, 19 prisoners in St. Patrick’s Institution were prescribed methadone. Only one of this number was not known to the drug treatment services in the community.
Merchants Quay Ireland provides a full range of counselling services in St. Patrick’s Institution including addiction counselling and evidence based counselling interventions with defined care plans and goals. From January to April 2010 there were in excess of 450 prisoner contacts. Merchants Quay Ireland assess all those referred to them and determine appropriate actions which can include onward referrals, individual counselling, group work all of which includes interventions such as harm reduction, relapse prevention, cognitive behaviour therapy and release planning. An in-reach addiction psychiatrist also attends St. Patrick’s Institution each week. At a corporate level the IPS are continuing to enhance and expand addiction [600]treatment provision in partnership with community based addiction services across the prison estate.
There is currently one designated drug free landing in St. Patrick’s Institution which can accommodate 75 prisoners at any one time. Upon committal to St Patrick’s, inmates are provided with information about the drug free wing and invited to apply for same. Before going onto the drug free division, two clean urines must be given and there must be no disciplinary reports for the previous month. Considerable effort is employed by staff in St. Patrick’s Institution to ensure that initiatives such as education and drug awareness, urine screening and psycho-social interventions are made available to all prisoners.
Question No. 132 answered with Question No. 130.
133. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will review the decision to refuse permission to remain in the State in respect of a person (details supplied); if he will allow them time to establish if they are eligible for British citizenship; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25850/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I have been informed by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) that the person in question has submitted additional information in support of her application for permission to remain. This application is currently under consideration and officials in my department will contact the person concerned in the near future.
134. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive their Garda clearance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25884/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I wish to refer the Deputy to my reply to Question No. 243 of 25 May 2010 in this matter. I am informed by the Garda Authorities that the Garda Central Vetting Unit has not yet received the completed application from the registered organisation in respect of the person to whom he refers. Once the completed application is received by the Vetting Unit it will be processed accordingly.
135. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps he is taking directly with the Chinese Government and at EU level to address the reports from the BBC and other media outlets of the mass production of psychoactive, head shop-type products in China for the EU and Irish markets; if he has contacted the Chinese Ambassador in respect of the alleged production of head shop-type products in China for the market here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25942/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): The increasing emergence of a large number of new unregulated psychoactive substances specifically designed to circumvent drug controls in Europe is currently a matter of primary concern for the European Union. While officials from various Government Departments, including my own, continue to work closely with the EU and UN international drugs policy fora tackling this issue, I firmly believe that decisive national action is also needed to address this problem. The pro[601]duction of such psychoactive products and substances can occur anywhere worldwide including China.
Given this and the availability and use of the Internet to market and sell such substances and the fact that organisations involved in such manufacturing operations can move locations relatively easily I believe that strong general controls by way of criminal justice legislation to deal with the supply of such substances is the most effective means of dealing with this problem. It is for these reasons that I am introducing the Criminal Justice (Psychotropic Substances) Bill 2010 which will criminalise the unlawful importation and or sale of psychotropic substances. The publication of this Bill is imminent and these measures will complement our existing Department of Health and Children’s Misuse of Drugs legislation under which substances are deemed to be controlled drugs. In addition, I am assured by the Garda Commissioner that the Gardaí will, at the most senior levels, continue to closely monitor the operation of head shop premises in this jurisdiction.
136. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will give a commitment that the garda who has left Cloone, County Leitrim, will be replaced with a permanent full-time garda who will reside in the Cloone area. [25948/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am informed by the Garda authorities that a Garda has been allocated to Cloone Garda Station and will take up duty there on the 17 June 2010.
Question No. 137 answered with Question No. 129.
138. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cavan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26007/10]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am informed by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) that the person referred to by the Deputy has no application pending for residency. The person concerned is the subject of a Deportation Order following a comprehensive and thorough examination of his asylum claim, his application for subsidiary protection and his application to remain temporarily in the State. He has been evading his deportation since 16 March 2010 and should he come to the notice of the Garda authorities, he would be liable to arrest and detention. He should, therefore, present himself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau without any further delay. The enforcement of the Deportation Order is an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.
139. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if any progress has been made on his proposal to establish a passport office service on the north and west of this island; if he will outline the outstanding issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25705/10]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): As I indicated to the Deputy on 27 May last I have asked my officials to examine the feasibility of providing passport production equipment in other parts of the country. This could include the case for establishing a passport office service in the North West region. However, I do not expect that a decision in this regard will be made in the short term. The priority for the Passport Service at present is to reduce the [602]substantial backlog in passport applications and to restore the normal turnaround time for passport processing at the earliest opportunity.
140. Deputy Charlie O’Connor asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he is taking with the Israeli Government to emphasise his shock and concern in respect of the recent events at Gaza; if his attention has been drawn to the widespread concern in the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25866/10]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): I addressed a special debate in the Dáil on 1 June in relation to the deaths which occurred the previous day when Israeli forces intercepted and carried out a military assault on the Free Gaza flotilla. I spoke again on the subject in the Seanad on 2 June. These debates were important opportunities for members to express the shock and concern felt in the country, and on behalf of the Government I set out clearly my own strong views and reaction to these events. I advised the Oireachtas that I had immediately called in the Ambassador of Israel on 31 May to convey these views directly to him, and through him to his Government. The Government’s position has been repeatedly stated on many occasions since in official level exchanges through Ireland’s Embassy in Tel Aviv and Israel’s Embassy in Dublin.
I discussed these issues also with my EU colleagues at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 June, and we considered in particular how we might work to bring to an end the drastic restrictions on movements of goods into and out of Gaza which have led to this tragic outcome. The Council believes that an immediate, full and impartial inquiry into the recent events and the circumstances surrounding them is essential. The Conclusions also make clear that to command the confidence of the international community this should include credible international participation. I drew attention to the valuable proposals made by the UN Secretary General in this matter.
141. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measures that he is putting in place to ensure better trade with China; and can he make a statement about his recent trip there. [25939/10]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): As the Deputy will be aware, the primary responsibility for promoting Irish trade rests with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. However, my Department has an important role to play in this area and I have set the promotion of our economic interests abroad as one of the key priorities for our Missions overseas.
Ireland’s trade with China has increased very substantially over the last thirty years since we established diplomatic relations. Since the adoption by the Government of the Asia Strategy in 1998, which was designed to focus official efforts and attention on the development of our economic links with the fast growing countries of that region, and notably China, our merchandise exports to China increased from €75.4 million in 1998 to €1.64 billion in 2009. Exports of services have also increased significantly, reaching €1.4 billion in 2008.
The Irish Embassy in Beijing and the Consulate General in Shanghai work closely with the promotional agencies — Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, An Bord Bia and Tourism Ireland, to promote trade, investment and tourism with China.
[603]An important part of our strategy in China, and one where my Department plays an active role, has been to increase the number of high level visits as a means of deepening our mutual understanding and developing links for increased cooperation, politically and economically.
My visit to China at the end of last month covered five cities in five days and my objective at each opportunity, including at my talks in Beijing with China’s Vice Premier, Li Kiqiang, and Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, was to promote our diplomatic, trade, investment and education links with China. The consistent message I delivered throughout the week was that Ireland has one of the best educated, highly skilled and talented workforces in the world, and that our country is the pre-eminent location for fresh thinking where smart people turn innovative ideas into world class goods and services.
During my visit, I had the opportunity to visit Expo 2010 in Shanghai, a city which is twinned with Cork. 200 countries are represented at this world trade fair and up to 80 million people are expected to visit it over the summer. Almost 15,000 people visited the Irish Pavilion on the opening day and the China Daily, the country’s largest English language newspaper, recommended the Ireland Germany Pavilions as a ‘once in a lifetime experience.’
My visit formed part of a programme of visits from Ireland to China this year and was organised to complement and lead up to the visit of President McAleese, who is in China this week. The President met with Vice Premier Xi Jinping last Sunday in Beijing and will attend Ireland Day at Expo in Shanghai on Thursday. The President will also participate in business events hosted by Enterprise Ireland, the IDA, Bord Bia and Tourism Ireland, to assist in developing Ireland’s trade and investment interests in China.
I am determined to ensure that my Department continues to do everything possible to support the promotion of our economic interests in China. Last month, I held a consultative meeting with representatives of the public and private sectors to discuss what more my Department could do to assist their efforts to develop trade with China. While I was in Shanghai, I met with Asia-Pacific members of the Global Irish Network, one of several successful initiatives to emerge from the Farmleigh Global Economic Forum last year. This meeting afforded an opportunity to develop relations established last September and to discuss the economic situation in Ireland, and how best to promote Irish business interests in the region. Through these continuing contacts with the business community, I intend that our Missions in China will provide every possible support to our trade with that country.
142. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the case of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25980/10]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin): Irish passports are valid in Spain, including the Canary Islands, until the date of expiry written on the document. This has been confirmed with the Embassy of Spain in Dublin. In these circumstances the child should have no difficulty in travelling.
143. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport her policy in relation to the optimum number of hotel beds needed to cater for the tourism level on a county or regional basis; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25998/10]
Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport (Deputy Mary Hanafin): According to figures compiled by Fáilte Ireland, there were just over 60,000 registered hotel rooms in Ireland in 2009, [604]compared with approximately 42,900 in 2003 and 26,350 in 1996. The existing hotel stock is regarded as more than sufficient to meet current levels of demand. In a report commissioned by the Irish Hotels Federation and prepared by Peter Bacon and Associates, Economic Consultants, it was estimated that there was a surplus of between 12,300 and 15,300 hotel rooms at present. The provision of hotel rooms, and the optimum number required to cater for business, at national, regional and county level, while at the same time allowing for a profitable and competitive hotel sector, is best left to the market to determine and is primarily a function of supply and demand.
Increased quality, competition and control of costs had led in recent times to a superb range of value-for-money offers being available to overseas and domestic tourists. This is a welcome development for those choosing to holiday in Ireland.
Our existing tourism policy seeks to support a competitive and sustainable tourism sector, including hotels, through a wide range of overseas and domestic marketing and promotional programmes to stimulate demand as well as an array of business support programmes to assist individual businesses, including hotels, to improve their efficiency and profitability.
144. Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the position regarding the review of the Equality Authority; the costs associated with that review; the further position regarding the report conducted by Department of Justice and Law Reform; the cost of that report; the main recommendations of that report; if he will publish same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25732/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Mary Alexandra White): I have commenced work on a review of the legislation, structures and arrangements involving the Equality Authority, the Equality Tribunal and the Irish Human Rights Commission in order to enhance equality in an effective way. As part of this process, a scoping exercise has been initiated on the better integration of equality, human rights and social inclusion policy formulation and implementation. Tenders were sought on 11 June for the production of three background papers identifying issues that will need to be addressed in the review. The tender documentation can be downloaded at the public sector procurement portal www.etenders.gov.ie. The Deputy will appreciate that at this stage of the tender process, I am not in a position to provide costing details.
The value for money review referred to by the Deputy, which was commissioned by the then Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has been completed. Its findings, where relevant, will fall to be considered in the context of the more wide-ranging review which I am carrying out. I am informed that to date a sum of €36,450 has been expended on the value for money review. Publication of this report will be considered when my review is completed.
145. Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if funding will be provided to the carer’s association to provide personal alarms to the elderly; when this funding will be provided; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25855/10]
Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Pat Carey): An application for grant support was received from the Carers Association Cork under the Scheme of Community Support for Older People on 13 May 2010. Officials of my Department contacted the group on a number of occasions to address outstanding items, including incomplete application [605]forms for the applicant older persons. These matters have now been resolved and I am advised that a payment will issue in the coming week.
146. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will support the community development programmes in 2010 (details supplied). [25886/10]
Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Pat Carey): As the Deputy is aware, the Local Development Social Inclusion Programme and the Community Development Programme were my Department’s two main social inclusion/community development programmes. These came to an end on 31 December last and have been superseded by a new integrated programme, the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP). A key difference between the new LCDP and its predecessor programmes is the fact that, when fully implemented, it will be delivered nationally on an integrated basis by a reduced number of companies.
It is important to note that, despite what is stated by some community development projects (CDPs) and by others, integration does not mean closure of a CDP or the cessation of CDP activities in any given area. As has been stated previously, any worthwhile community development activity or service delivered under the CDP can continue to be delivered under the new LCDP and by the same staff who currently do this work. Of course, CDPs may opt out of the LCDP integration process and decide to go it alone. In such cases, my Department will be supportive in relation to the retention of any assets acquired with programme funding and may also be in a position to provide for some limited funding for a transition period, subject to certain conditions.
My Department has set out a model involving full integration of CDPs with local development companies (LDCs), but has made it clear that other options can be considered and that it is not a question of ‘one size fits all’. The only option not acceptable is one that seeks to preserve the status quo: some models proposed by CDPs and other parties in the period since the launch of the LCDP have had to be rejected on that basis. However, my Department has been able to respond positively to a number of other alternative models put forward by both LDCs and CDPs. While agreement has not yet been fully finalised in these cases, I am satisfied that the real possibility for agreement exists. Additional proposals from other CDPs and LDCs are also being considered positively but are less developed at this stage. I can assure the Deputy that my Department will continue to respond positively to all constructive proposals that it receives and that my officials will continue to be available to meet with the boards of projects.
My overall aim is to ensure that, notwithstanding the difficult budgetary position, disadvantaged communities will benefit from a more focused programme and better integrated actions. As previously indicated, my primary concern in this most difficult economic climate is to make every effort to ensure the front-line services provided by or supported through my Department, especially those focused on the needs of the most disadvantaged communities, are protected and to minimise overheads and ancillary costs.
I am aware that some CDPs have a range of concerns about assets, the impact on local service delivery, local buy-in and accountability. However, I am confident that all of those issues can be addressed in the implementation process previously outlined by my Department and now under way. In this regard, an information session for stakeholders was held by Pobal, on my Department’s behalf, on 10 June last.
147. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the position regarding an application for funding by a group (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25928/10]
Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Pat Carey): The Dormant Accounts Fund Acts provide for an annual transfer by credit institutions and insurance undertakings of monies in accounts determined to be dormant into the Dormant Accounts Fund (DAF). Since its establishment in May 2003 to end-May 2010, the net transfers to the DAF have totalled some €359m.
The projects to which the Deputy refers are currently funded under a measure managed by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I understand that the projects in question received approval for grants totalling some €93,000, of which some €27,000 was for capital needs and the balance of some €66,000 for operational purposes. The nature of funding received from the DAF is that it is once-off in nature and this is made clear to projects at the time of application.
Further details of the projects to which funding has been allocated to date and a summary of the status of the DAF are available on my Department’s website
www.pobail.ie/en/DormantAccounts.
148. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will be made on the appeal in respect of an application for domiciliary allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cavan; and if this appeal will be processed. [25708/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that, following receipt of the relevant Departmental papers including comments on the grounds of appeal, the appeal from the person concerned will be referred to an Appeals Officer for consideration.
If the person concerned’s means are insufficient to meet their needs it is open to the person to apply to the Health Services Executive (Community Welfare Officer) for financial assistance while the appeal is being processed.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.
149. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will consider relaxing the means test rules for jobseeker’s and disability allowance, when a qualifying person takes in sub-tenants in order to spread the cost of the mortgage in view of the fact that if the tenants were expelled the State could face paying both the mortgage interest supplement and the full rate of jobseeker’s allowance. [25721/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): For the purposes of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Disability Allowance, any cash income derived from the rental of a portion of a house in which the claimant normally resides is assessable as income for means test purposes.
Deductions from such income are allowed in respect of any mortgage interest or ground rent in proportion to the area used by a tenant. In addition, in the case of furnished rooms let, 5% [607]of the gross amount received is allowed for wear and tear while a further 15% is allowed for voids (i.e. periods when accommodation is vacant between lettings).
Any changes to the current arrangements could only be considered in a Budgetary context and in the light of available resources.
150. Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Social Protection if rent allowance will be restored to a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25746/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Due to staff action currently being taken in the HSE, I regret that I am unable to provide the information sought by the Deputy.
151. Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection the length of time a person (details supplied) who appealed the refusal to grant them a carer’s allowance must wait in order to have their application processed; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the person must care for both elderly parents full time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25864/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The application for carer’s allowance, by the person concerned, was disallowed by a Deciding Officer of the Department on the grounds that the care recipient was not so invalided or disabled as to require full-time care and attention and weekly means derived from her spouse’s employment exceeded the statutory limit.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that an appeal was opened and relevant Departmental papers and comments by the Social Welfare Services on the grounds of appeal were sought. These are now to hand and will be referred to an Appeals Officer for consideration.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.
152. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Social Protection the benefits a person (details supplied) in County Longford who is unemployed and liable for housing rental is entitled to claim; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25874/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Due to staff action currently being taken in the HSE, I regret that I am unable to provide the information sought by the Deputy.
153. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Social Protection the benefits a person (details supplied) in County Longford who is unemployed and liable for housing rental is entitled to claim; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25875/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Due to staff action currently being taken in the HSE, I regret that I am unable to provide the information sought by the Deputy.
154. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Social Protection his views on pensioners’[608]concerns that have arisen from recent public discussion that the State pension may be cut or means tested; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25882/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The current Government policy in relation to pensions is laid out in the National Pensions Framework which was launched in March of this year. The framework includes a number of changes to the State pension in order to make it more transparent, simple and equitable for those who reach pension age.
Recognising that people are living longer and healthier lives, the Government has decided to amend State pension age in three separate stages: in 2014, the State pension transition will be abolished. The effect of this will be to standardise State pension age at 66; in 2021, the State pension age will be set at 67; and finally, in 2028, State pension age will be set at 68.
Finally, for those people who wish to postpone drawing down their State pension, arrangements will be put in place to enable them to receive an actuarially increased benefit when they decide to retire. In addition, for those with contribution shortfalls at pension age, arrangements will be put in place to allow them to receive additional benefit at a later date if they continue to make paid contributions for pension purposes while remaining in work or self-employment.
From 2012 social insurance credits will be introduced for people who take time out of the workforce for caring duties. This will replace the current homemakers disregard and will assist people — particularly women — to qualify for a contributory pension or a higher level of payment.
In addition, from 6 April 2012, and as provided for in legislation since 1997, the minimum number of paid contributions required for State pension (contributory) will increase from 260 to 520.
From 2020, the way in which eligibility for State pension is calculated will be simplified. Specifically, there will be a switch from the way in which pensions are currently calculated over the average working life. Under the new system, the level of pension paid will be based on the total number of social insurance contributions made by a person over his or her working life.
A person will need to make contributions for 30 years to qualify for a maximum pension. Once a person has the minimum number of paid contributions required, he or she will accumulate 1/30th of a pension for each year of contributions up to a maximum 30 years. Upon introduction of the total contributions approach, the maximum number of credits that can be used for pension purposes will be set at 520.
An implementation group for the National Pensions Framework has been established by my Department and this group will work through the relevant issues in implementing the measures contained in the framework.
Social welfare changes for 2011, including any changes to State pensions, will be considered later this year in the context of next year’s Budget preparations, having regard both to needs and to the resources available to meet those needs.
155. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding a carer’s allowance application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon. [25949/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The person concerned applied for Carer’s Allowance on 16 April 2010. On 26 April the file was referred to an Investigative Officer of this Department for means assessment and confirmation that the conditions for [609]receipt of the allowance are satisfied. On completion of the necessary investigations a decision will be made and he will be notified directly as soon as possible.
156. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection if social welfare officers are acting upon the chief executive officer of the Road Safety Authority request that due to the reduced market size of his industry, no funding will be provided to persons by his Department to enable them to become approved driving instructors; if this request is acceptable; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25953/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The Department of Social Protection operates the short term enterprise allowance (STEA) and back to work enterprise allowance (BTWEA) schemes to assist unemployed people who wish to take up self employment.
A person in receipt of a social welfare payment who decides to set up as an approved driving instructor may be eligible to apply for STEA or BTWEA. However, one of the important steps under both schemes is that those taking up self-employment must first have their business venture approved as viable and sustainable.
This will be done by the relevant integrated development company (formerly known as partnership company) or by the Department’s local facilitator. Approval normally involves an interview with the applicant to assess the viability of the proposed project, to provide advice on funding, on “Start Your Own Business” courses and other relevant aspects.
Each application for STEA or BTWEA is decided on its merits within the criteria set down for the scheme. In assessing viability, cognisance is taken of the demand for, and supply of, the particular service at local level.
In his letter to the Department, the Chief Executive Officer of the Road Safety Authority urged that, in light of over supply of driving instructors, anyone seeking to enter the trade undertakes the appropriate market research regarding volumes of work present. The Chief Executive Officer’s letter has been brought to the attention of the Department’s Facilitation Service.
157. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Social Protection when the application for carer’s allowance will be decided in respect of a person (details supplied). [25983/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that the appeal from the person concerned has been referred to an Appeals Officer who proposes to hold an oral hearing in the case. The person concerned will be informed when arrangements have been made.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.
158. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection when one parent family allowance will be awarded in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who applied for same last year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26001/10]
Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): The person concerned claimed one parent family payment from 21 May 2009. His claim was disallowed on 11 September 2009 as he failed to disclose his means.
[610]The person concerned lodged an appeal on 30 September 2009 and his file was sent to an inspector for a review of his case. All documentation requested by the inspector has not been furnished despite a number of requests to do so.
The case has now been referred to the social welfare appeals office in order that the appeal can be progressed.
159. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Defence if he will confirm that the person (details supplied) named and implicated with regard to arms sales in the Seychelles has been suspended from their duties in the weapons wing, which buys weapons for the Defence Forces, pending the outcomes of these investigations. [25972/10]
160. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Defence if persons (details supplied) who were serving members of the Defence Forces at the time of alleged arms sales to the Seychelles have been suspended from their duties pending the outcome of these investigations. [25973/10]
Minister for Defence (Deputy Tony Killeen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 159 and 160 together.
As I indicated to the Deputy in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 274 of 9 June 2010, I have been advised by the military authorities that they are conducting an investigation into the matters referred to. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the matters until this investigation has been concluded.
161. Deputy Máire Hoctor asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on a matter (details supplied). [25870/10]
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): Motor tax on commercial and goods vehicles is governed by the unladen weight of the vehicle. In order to be taxed at the commercial or goods rate, a vehicle must be constructed or adapted for use as a commercial or goods vehicle and used for the conveyance of goods or burden in the course of a trade or profession. This generally means that passenger seats must be removed in order to allow for the carriage of goods.
Motor tax assessment generally relates directly to vehicles and the use to which vehicles are put, rather than the status of persons using or driving such vehicles. The level of motor tax payable in individual instances is determined by reference to factors such as engine size or CO2 emission levels in the case of private cars. Whether or not a vehicle is used for the transport of children is not a factor taken into account in the assessment of motor tax rates.
162. Deputy John Cregan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when applications will be accepted under the hen harrier compensation scheme; and if the criteria for qualification will remain the same. [25720/10]
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): My Department will continue to accept new applicants to the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) Farm Plan Scheme for designated areas and commonages subject to available funding. Applications to join the scheme will be screened on the basis of conservation priorities, biodiv[611]ersity added value and the overall cost. The criteria for entry to the hen harrier element of the scheme will remain the same.
A draft version of the scoping form which will be used for the screening of applicants to the NPWS Farm Plan Scheme is currently available for public consultation. It is expected that this form will be finalised circa July 2010.
163. Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will issue a ministerial directive which will subject head shops to planning laws and regulations under which their opening hours are restricted to the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and they cannot be located within 10 km of a school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25759/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Ciarán Cuffe): As indicated in the reply to Question No. 51 of 27 May 2010, the Government intends to introduce a range of controls on the availability of psychotropic products which are sold in so-called head shops, and is bringing forward specific legislation in this regard.
In support of these broad-ranging initiatives, my Department will keep under review the role the planning system might play in addressing this issue, through, for example, a more restrictive use of the change of use provisions under planning legislation or the inclusion of appropriate policies in planning authority development plans. I have no plans at this stage to issue a Ministerial Directive on the matter.
164. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding an application for a foreshore licence (details supplied) in County Cork. [25937/10]
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I refer to the reply to Question No. 457 of 18 May 2010.
My Department subsequently advised Cork County Council of the arrangements to be made for public advertisement of the application. I understand, however, that the local authority has now decided to await the outcome of a planning application for the development before proceeding further with the foreshore application.
165. Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when he will be in a position to respond to an invitation of the 12 March 2010 by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs to attend at a committee meeting to discuss the compensation claim on behalf of 15 landowners lodged with National Parks and Wildlife Service in August 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25956/10]
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): A response to this invitation issued from my office on 10 June 2010. I am not in a position to attend the proposed meeting. However, I have requested that my Department’s National Parks and Wildlife Service be available to attend on my behalf.
166. Deputy Chris Andrews asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the amount of funding within the social housing budget 2010 that has been allocated for social housing refurbishment in Dublin South East. [25971/10]
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): It is a matter for individual housing authorities to plan the composition and management of their social housing investment programmes having regard to the specific social housing needs and priorities in their areas and to the Exchequer funding allocations available to them.
Dublin City Council was advised of its Social Housing Investment Programme allocation in April 2010. A total of €179.085 million was allocated to the City Council, including €94.340 million for Housing Supply and €75.745 million for Housing Improvement. The Housing Improvement allocation included €62.295 million for regeneration, €2.7 million for remedial works, €7 million for retrofitting voids and energy upgrades, €2 million for compliance with new rented standards and €1.75 million for improvement works.
It is a matter for the City Council to determine the content of these programmes, including any plans for social housing refurbishment in Dublin South East, taking into account its existing commitments, priority projects and any related co-funding and timescale considerations, subject to compliance with any necessary Departmental sanction terms and conditions.
With regard to social housing maintenance issues generally, under section 58 of the Housing Act 1966 the management and maintenance of the local authority housing stock, which is largely financed from internal resources, is a matter for each housing authority.
167. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources when snap net salmon fishing will be allowed on the River Suir; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25878/10]
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Conor Lenihan): As the Deputy will be aware, the taking of salmon by any means is permitted only in those rivers that are meeting their conservation limits and which have an identified surplus following appropriate assessment and scientific advice. Details of the rivers which are open in 2010 can be found in the Wild Salmon and Sea Trout Tagging Scheme Regulations 2009 (SI No. 557 2009).
In order to permit the taking of salmon, the stock has to be shown to exceed the required number of spawners arriving into the river. The River Suir (including Clodiagh and Lingaun waters) has been assessed as being below its conservation limit by the Standing Scientific Committee. Accordingly no mortality by the taking of salmon is permissible in the river Suir and it remains closed during the 2010 season. The status of the stocks of salmon rivers is reviewed annually. If the stocks improve as a result of the ongoing conservation effort, as was the case in the River Nore in 2009, for example, it may be possible to permit the taking of salmon in the future.
168. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding the provision of broadband in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Carlow; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25710/10]
[613]Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): The provision of broadband services is in the first instance a matter for private sector service providers operating in Ireland’s fully liberalised telecommunications market. Broadband services are provided by private service providers over various platforms including DSL (i.e. over telephone lines), fixed wireless, mobile, cable, fibre and satellite. I have no function in the case of the provision by service provider of broadband services to individual customers. More generally, in cases of market failure the Government will intervene, where it is appropriate and possible to do so.
Prior to the commencement of the National Broadband Scheme (NBS) a detailed mapping exercise was carried out to help determine those areas that would be included in the scheme and those which, by virtue of being already substantially served by existing broadband suppliers, were to be excluded.
EU State Aid and competition rules govern how states can intervene in areas where there are existing service providers operating. Accordingly, the NBS is prohibited from providing a service in served areas where to do so would give rise to an unacceptable level of market distortion.
Precise details of the electoral divisions throughout the State that are to be included in the National Broadband Scheme can be viewed on my Department’s website www.dcenr.ie.
Details of the telecommunications service providers operating in County Carlow can be found at www.callcosts.ie on ComReg’s website.
It continues to be a priority of the Government that there will be broadband coverage across the entire country. 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 and granted State Aid approval for rural broadband initiatives. My Department is currently progressing the design and implementation of a scheme which would be available to unserved rural premises outside of the NBS areas. This work will include the identification of premises not capable of receiving broadband. It is hoped to commence this scheme in late 2010 and have it completed by 2012. As the scheme is only at the design stage, there is no application process at this juncture. 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.
169. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the provision regarding the provision of broadband for Cloone, County Leitrim. [25947/10]
Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): In December 2008, my Department entered into a contract with “3”, a Hutchison Whampoa company, for the delivery of the National Broadband Scheme (NBS). The company is required to provide services to all fixed residences and businesses that are located within the NBS Coverage Area and who seek a service.
3 continues to progress its network rollout and NBS broadband services are now available in more than two thirds of the 1,028 designated Electoral Divisions (ED) to be covered under the Scheme. Details of all the areas to be covered by the NBS, including the status of the NBS rollout, are available at www.three.ie/nbs.
[614]The general area of Cloone, County Leitrim, will be covered under the NBS. While it is not possible to predict when precisely broadband services will become available in this area, under the NBS contract, all EDs within the NBS Coverage Area are required to have broadband connectivity by end September 2010.
170. Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding a foreshore licence application by Mayo County Council to facilitate the construction of a new slipway at Kilcummin Pier, Kilcummin, Carrowmore-Lacken, Ballina, County Mayo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25974/10]
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): Consideration of the application for a foreshore lease in respect of this development is at a very advanced stage and I expect to be in a position to make a determination regarding the matter shortly.
171. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding an application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Carlow; if same will be awarded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25711/10]
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The Early Retirement Scheme application for the person named has been approved for payment backdated to the date when my Department received a valid application from him, which was 24 September 2009. He will receive his first payment at the end of June.
172. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange to have at least part payment of the single farm moneys due in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford. [25728/10]
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): My Department has received Single Payment Scheme applications for the years — 2005 to 2009 — on behalf of the Estate of the father of the person named. Despite numerous requests for the submission of the grant of probate and other supporting documentation — they have not been submitted to my Department. The processing of the applications cannot be finalised until the requested documentation is received.
173. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason the full amount of single farm payment was not awarded in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford. [25729/10]
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The person named was paid on his SPS entitlements on 27th January 2010 following deduction without penalty, on the ground of force majeure/exceptional circumstances, of a land parcel also claimed by another applicant.
174. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has considered the proposal to provide an out-reach office on the grounds of Clare Marts, Ennis, County Clare to facilitate farmers on mart days in view of the inconvenience caused by the [615]closure of the local Department’s office on the Kilrush Road, Ennis, County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25747/10]
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): A major rationalisation plan for my Department was approved by Government last year. This plan involves a comprehensive restructuring of the Department’s local office network and provides a fully integrated service to our farming clients and the wider agri-food and rural environmental sectors at regional level. The plan involves reducing, from 57 to 16, the number of offices from which the Department will operate. These new structures will not alter existing arrangements at marts.
175. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding an unemployed person who is anxious to take up a community employment scheme (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25854/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): Community Employment (CE) is an active labour market programme designed to provide eligible long term unemployed people and other disadvantaged persons with an opportunity to engage in useful work within their communities on a fixed term basis. The purpose of CE is to help unemployed people to re-enter the open labour market by breaking their experience of unemployment through a return to a work routine and to assist them to enhance/develop both their technical and personal skills.
The criteria for participating on the Community Employment programme are based on age and length of time in receipt of various social welfare payments. In general, the Part-time Integration Option is for people of 25 or over who are receiving social welfare payments for 1 year or more, and people of 18 years or over in receipt of disability-related payments. The Part-time Job Option is for people who are 35 or over and in receipt of social welfare payments for 3 years or longer.
Those persons not meeting the criteria under the Part-time Integration or Part-time Job Options, or who are signing for credits, or are receiving social welfare benefits from a different country, are not eligible to participate on Community Employment.
CE is not designed to cater for short-term unemployed persons as they are not as far removed from the open labour market as the main client group for the programme. FÁS provides a range programmes aimed specifically at the short-term unemployed, details of which are available from any FÁS Employment Services office, Local Employment Service offices or from the FÁS website www.fas.ie.
176. Deputy John Browne asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the reason a higher education grant was refused in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford; and if she will agree to have their entitlement fully reinvestigated. [25725/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): When assessing the means of students other than independent mature students, the student grant schemes specify that students’ means and those of their parents/guardians must be below a prescribed limit. This provision requires that the parents’ income be taken into account, irrespective of the individual circumstances in any case where the student is not an independent mature student.
Only in exceptional cases, where compelling evidence of estrangement from parents/ guardians is provided, can candidates who are under 23 be assessed without reference to their [616]parents/guardians income or address. The type of independent verification/evidence required would be a letter from a social worker or other appropriate officer of the Health Service Executive explaining the circumstances under which the candidate is estranged from his/her parents/guardians. Confirmation that a candidate is living separately from parents/guardians is not sufficient in this regard. Where candidates are estranged from parents/guardians, the necessary evidence in support of their case should be submitted to the relevant Local Authority or Vocational Education Committee for consideration. In the case referred to by the Deputy, the matter may be re-examined if such evidence is made available to the relevant Local Authority or VEC.
177. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will support a matter (details supplied). [25742/10]
178. Deputy Kieran O’Donnell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills her plans regarding the renewal of contracts for junior certificate school programme librarians under the demonstration library project for the 2010/2011 academic year and subsequent years; if the contract will be renewed for the JCSP librarian at a school (details supplied) in County Limerick and that the programme will continue; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25757/10]
179. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will ensure that the contracts of the librarians who are facilitating the Junior Certificate Schools Programme are renewed for the coming school year; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25851/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 177 to 179, inclusive, together.
Library staff, like other public servants in the Education Sector, other than teachers and SNAs, are subject to the public sector recruitment moratorium. Exemptions from the moratorium are, in the context of the public finances, a matter for serious deliberation. However, I am pleased to say that it has been decided to retain the library staff for the coming school year.
180. Deputy Brendan Kenneally asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the arrangements that are in place to approve school transport for children with special education needs, which normally is approved by the local special education needs officer, when such an officer is on holiday during school term and will not return until after the schools have gone on holidays; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25861/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): The National Council for Special Education (NCSE) has advised my Department that it issued guidelines to schools in February 2010 setting out the timelines within which schools should submit applications for transport for children with special education needs enrolling in September 2010.
Primary schools were advised to submit applications to the local Special Educational Needs Organiser (SENO) before the 21st May and post primary schools before 21st April to ensure that applications are processed before the end of the current school year, taking into account the volume of applications received from other schools and also other issues such as short term planned absences.
[617]The NCSE has advised my Department that, in general, applications received since 21st May will be processed by them within the next 3-4 weeks.
Having considered the applications, the SENOs provide a report to my Department’s School Transport Section. All applications are then assessed within the terms of the School Transport Scheme for children with special needs. Bus Éireann which operates the school transport service on behalf of my Department contacts the parents/guardians of eligible pupils to make the necessary transport arrangements.
181. Deputy Charlie O’Connor asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills when she expects to make a decision on the summer works appeal in respect of a school (details supplied) in Dublin 24. [25867/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I can confirm that my Department has received an appeal from the school to which the Deputy refers in relation to its application under the Summer Works Scheme 2010. The appeal is under consideration and a decision will issue to the school authority in due course.
182. Deputy Charlie O’Connor asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will confirm funding for the junior certificate school programme library initiative at schools (details supplied) in Dublin 24; if she will appreciate the importance of this initiative and give assurances in the matter. [25868/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): Funding is currently allocated to all schools hosting the Demonstration Library Project. However it should be noted that the librarians in these schools, like other public servants in the Education Sector, other than teachers and SNAs, are subject to the public sector recruitment moratorium.
Exemptions from the moratorium are, in the context of the public finances, a matter for serious deliberation. However, I am pleased to say that it has been decided to retain the library staff for the coming school year.
183. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will respond to a matter (details supplied). [25877/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): As the Deputy may be aware, the recognition of teacher qualifications is now a matter for the Teaching Council, the body with responsibility for establishing and maintaining standards in the teaching profession.
My officials have made enquiries with the Teaching Council regarding this case and are advised as follows: The Teaching Council is aware that Qualified Teacher Status awarded in the General Teaching Council for England is not sector or subject specific. However, there are distinct differences in the forms of registration granted by the respective Teaching Councils in that the registration granted by the Teaching Council in Ireland is specific to the educational sector and to the curricular subjects at post-primary level. In granting registration to the person who is the subject of this question, the Teaching Council has complied fully with the requirements of EU Directive 2005/36/EC.
The Teaching Council grants registration on the basis of qualifications. It cannot register a teacher on the basis of qualifications in primary education when that teacher has completed a Post Graduate Certificate in Education in secondary education. The Council’s requirements of [618]a qualification in primary education are set out below (Schedule 1 to the 2009 [Registration] Regulations).
I have directed that teachers proposed for appointment to teaching posts for which salary grant is being sought from my Department should be registered with the Teaching Council in accordance with Section 31 of the Teaching Council Act, 2001 and have qualifications appropriate to the sector and suitable to the post for which s/he is proposed.
SCHEDULE ONEThe following is an outline of the principal requirements of the Council in relation to a satisfactory course in the theory and practice of education for the purposes of Regulation 2.
The applicant must provide officially certified evidence of satisfactory achievement in initial teacher education as outlined hereunder.
The course of initial professional preparation shall include all three of the following major areas: Studies in the Foundation Disciplines of Education, Professional Studies, and a Practical Teaching Programme.
(A) Studies in the Foundation Disciplines of Education
Substantial courses in each of the following Foundation Disciplines of Education:
The programme should have equipped the applicant with an understanding of the Foundation Disciplines of education as these relate to the study of educational issues. The Foundation Disciplines may have been taught separately or in an integrated way. If the disciplines were taught in an integrated way, the evidence provided by the applicant must clearly specify the precise content of the relevant modules as well as accurately specifying the amount of programme time devoted to the coverage of the relevant content or topic areas.
Substantial courses of relevant studies in professional studies in the pedagogy of the entire range of subjects which is included in the Primary School Curriculum (listed below). The courses should have been directed towards the entire age range of pupils in classes from Junior Infants to Sixth Class. They must have included:
Curriculum Subjects as listed in the Primary School Curriculum:
The programme of teacher education followed should have enabled participants to:
(C) Practical Teaching Programme
The programme of teacher education followed by the applicant must have included practice in teaching under supervision in a recognised primary school. For the purposes of fulfilling this requirement, an applicant must have spent a minimum of 18 school weeks directly teaching a class or classes across the range of subjects in the Curriculum. The practice in teaching must also have been directly supervised by the university or college concerned.
The applicant must have passed the Teaching Practice element of his/her teacher education programme independently of other subject areas.
184. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will respond to an issue (details supplied). [25880/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): Under the provisions of the Education Act, 1998, the board of management is the body charged with the direct governance of a school and it is the board of management, not the patron, which is the employer of school staff including teaching staff.
Provision is made for the inclusion of religious education on the curriculum for primary schools. Thirty minutes of the standard school day of five hours and forty minutes is allocated for this purpose.
It is the case that the vast majority of primary schools are Catholic in ethos and accordingly preparation for catholic sacraments forms part of the religious education curricula in such schools. However, parents also have the right, if so desired, to ensure that their children do not receive religious instruction. In accordance with Section 30 of the Education Act (1998), no student can be required to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student.
The provisions regarding Religious Instruction in Primary Schools are also set out in rules 68 and 69 of the Rules for National schools. These rules state, inter alia, that: No pupil shall receive, or be present at, any religious instruction of which his parents or guardians disapprove. The periods of formal religious instruction shall be fixed so as to facilitate the withdrawal of pupils where above applies. Where such religious instruction as their parents or guardians approve is not provided in the school for any section of the pupils, such pupils must, should their parents or guardians so desire, be allowed to absent themselves from school, at reasonable times, for the purpose of receiving that instruction elsewhere.
185. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she has received a submission from a school (details supplied) in Dublin 2 regarding the difficulties it is experiencing in coping with recent reductions in resources; and if she will arrange for a review of their particular need in view of the special needs of all of their pupils. [25934/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I wish to advise the Deputy that my Department has no record of receiving a submission from the school in question.
As the Deputy will be aware, the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) is responsible, through its network of local Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs), for allocating resources to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support.
I have arranged for the details supplied to be forwarded to the NCSE for their attention and direct reply.
All schools have the names and contact details of their local SENO. Parents may also contact their local SENO directly to discuss their child’s special educational needs, using the contact details available on www.ncse.ie.
186. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if her attention has been drawn to the parents of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who were never contacted by the National Educational Psychological Service Agency and were [621]not aware of its function, and consequently are still awaiting information on the way this person can continue their education; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26002/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I refer the Deputy to my predecessor’s response to his parliamentary question of 9th February, 2010 (Reference number 6827/10) in direct connection with this matter. As was explained on this occasion, my Department’s National Educational Psychological Service encourages a staged assessment process, whereby each school takes responsibility for initial assessment, educational planning and remedial intervention, in consultation with their assigned NEPS psychologist.
Only if there is a failure to make reasonable progress in spite of the school’s best efforts, will a student be referred for individual psychological assessment. It is the responsibility of the school Principal in the first instance to identify and prioritise pupils for assessment under the process.
Furthermore, students who manifest very special or urgent need in school and who are brought to the attention of the assigned NEPS psychologist by the school principal will usually be prioritised for NEPS involvement as soon as possible. This is done on the basis of specific signed consent from the student’s parents or guardian to allow the NEPS psychologist to engage in the situation.
It was confirmed in the previous response referred to above that the student in question had not been brought to the attention of the NEPS psychologist and advised that the matter of his educational assessment should be raised in the first instance with the school principal.
The parents of the student in question contacted my Department’s NEPS service on 26th May last requesting clarification on the current position in this regard. No formal request for involvement by NEPS has yet been received from the school and a response to this effect has issued recently in this regard.
187. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills when a school place at second level will be offered to a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who is autistic; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26003/10]
Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): The enrolment of a child in a school is a matter in the first instance for the parents of the child and the Board of Management of a school. My Department has no role in relation to processing applications for enrolment in schools.
The National Council for Special Education, through its network of Special Education Needs Organisers (SENOs), co-ordinates special needs education provision at local level. SENOs act as single points of contact for parents of students with special educational needs. SENOs work with schools to sanction additional special class provision as necessary.
All schools have the names and contact details of their local SENO. Parents may also contact their local SENO directly to discuss their child’s special educational needs, using the contact details available on www.ncse.ie.
188. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills when school placement will be offered in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare and whose tuition was cut from 18 hours to 9 home tuition hours per week; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26004/10]
[622]Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I must advise you that the selection and enrolment of pupils in schools is the responsibility of the authorities of the individual school. My Department’s main responsibility is to ensure that schools in an area can, between them, cater for all pupils seeking school places in an area. However, this may result in some pupils not obtaining a place in the school of their first choice. As schools may not have a place for every applicant, a selection process may be necessary. This selection process and the enrolment policy on which it is based must be non-discriminatory and must be applied fairly in respect of all applicants.
Under section 15(2)(d) of the Education Act 1998, each school is legally obliged to disclose its enrolment policy and to ensure that as regards that policy that principles of equality and the right of parents to send their children to a school of the parents choice are respected.
My role as Minister does not involve me identifying specific placements for individual children, but requires me to provide for Education by providing grants and funding for buildings, equipment, salaries of teachers, as well as the recognition of qualifications and inspection of facilities.
Section 29 of the Education Act 1998 provides for an appeal by a parent or guardian to the Secretary General of my Department, or in the case of a Vocational Educational Committee (VEC) school to the VEC in the first instance, where a Board of Management of a school, or a person acting on behalf of the Board, refuses to enrol a student in a school. My Department has no authority to compel a school to admit a pupil, except in the case of an appeal under Section 29 of the Education Act, 1998 being upheld.
The National Educational Welfare Board (NEWB) is the statutory agency which can assist parents who are experiencing difficulty in securing a school place for their child. The National Educational Welfare Board will be able to offer assistance and advice on securing a school placement.
The National Council for Special Education (NCSE) can also assist parents with regard to education services for persons with special educational needs.
Where a child is without a school placement, Home Tuition support may be provided to parents to assist in providing for their child's education, as an interim measure, pending the sourcing of a school place. I am advised that in this instance, that a grant of nine hours per week for Home Tuition has been provided by the Department for the periods, during school term time, that the child has been without a school placement and that there has been no reduction in the number of tuition hours.
