John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the work programme for 2000 of the public sector group for the IFSC. [6027/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - International Financial Services Centre.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress report on the implementation of the strategy for the development of the IFSC which the Government received at the end of February. [7946/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I published the Government's strategy for the development of the international financial services industry in March last year. The strategy sets out a vision for the development of the industry, building on the success of the IFSC. It seeks to maximise the level and quality of employment in the industry and enhance links with related sectors. It contains an implementation plan based around 19 priorities, one of which was that relevant Departments and agencies would nominate liaison officers where they did not already exist. These officers now meet regularly as an IFSC public sector group chaired by my Department to ensure the strategy is implemented. The group met for the first time in March 1999 and has met a total of six times since.
The success we have achieved in implementing the strategy is evident from the progress report which was initially prepared by the public sector group and subsequently submitted to Government on 22 February. This demonstrates continued strong performance in relation to business growth, employment and redevelopment of the docklands. A copy of the report has been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
The IFSC public sector group will continue to meet regularly during 2000 in order to co-ordinate and monitor implementation of the strategy and address other appropriate issues. It will focus in particular on the key issues going forward identified in the progress report.
Is there not a considerable problem in recruiting appropriate staff in the centre at a cost that is considered reasonable in view of the housing needs of the people concerned?
As I have stated before it is proving more difficult to recruit staff. Since last summer a considerable effort has been made by the centre to involve itself in courses with the universities and various schools to best explain what is on offer. The number of employees grew by 2,000 last year, not all of whom are Irish; people of many nationalities are working in the centre in different international banks. There are 80 participants in the parents in education initiative and 13 scholarships have been awarded in partnership with Reuters and the docklands authority. School leavers have been placed with IFSC companies under a job placement scheme. Jobs have also been created in the construction industry. The position will not change overnight but the steps which have been taken provide a good basis in creating a better undertanding of what the centre is doing and the kind of person who will be attracted to it in the future.
In addition to staff shortages is there not an office space shortage in the centre?
On the recruitment of staff, I do not want to give the wrong impression. At the start of last year there were 6,500 people working in the centre. This figure has increased to 8,500. A further 1,500 are employed on the adjacent 12 acre site on which Citibank and other businesses are located. It is projected that there will be 13,500 people employed by the end of the year when the site is completed.
All the office accommodation will be full by the end of the year or early next year. The docklands authority is seeking to address the problem by marketing prior to Easter office development opportunities at Grand Canal Dock. New office developments are planned for Georges Quay, North Wall and Sir John Rogerson's Quay. Developments will be expedited by the section 25 accelerated planning process on what is a 92 acre site in the Grand Docks area. The planning process has been extended to the Custom House Docks area between the Point Depot and Spencer Dock. During the summer the docklands authority is to prepare a plan dealing with the entire area from the 12 acre site to the Point Depot which encompasses hundreds of acres of land. Other developments may well be under way by next year.
Have the concerns vocally expressed by existing financial institutions in the IFSC with regard to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Revenue Commissioners in respect of non-resident accounts been addressed and the issue resolved whereby, by common consent, they would not be required to pay tax on behalf of depositors?
I understand that they have. The progress report emphasises that they must maintain high standards and the reputation of the industry. While the DIRT audit is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners, the concerns expressed by the financial services industry were addressed at a meeting with the Revenue Commissioners on 25 February following which a joint statement was issued. I understand there will be discussions prior to the completion of the audit. While I do not have the full details, I also understand that the Financial Services Industry Association and the Revenue Commissioners were happy with their exchange of views.
Does the Taoiseach's briefing material indicate whether it has been communicated in writing that there has been a satisfactory resolution or is it his understanding or that of his Department that the matter has been resolved? Has there been an exchange of correspondence between the Revenue Commissioners and the association that puts the matter to rest?
I am not aware of correspondence from the Revenue Commissioners but the Financial Services Industry Association has written to me. My note states that the association and the Revenue Commissioners met for an exchange of views on the issue. The circumstances and concerns which apply in the case of the IFSC banks and on which the Financial Services Industry Association delegation elaborated were acknowledged by the Revenue Commissioners. It was emphasised that each institution will have an opportunity to discuss them with the findings of the audit in each case before conclusions are reached. That is the key issue for the FSAI which is happy with the position adopted by the Revenue Commissioners. The fear was that the sector would not be involved.
Is it not the case that the Taoiseach's review of the International Financial Services Centre states clearly that the shortage of office space is a serious constraint on the expansion of the industry and that developments which would relieve this shortage at Spencer Dock have been blocked by planning objections? Is the Taoiseach of the opinion that his intervention with regard to the Spencer Dock office issue which is now on appeal was helpful in light of the manifest shortage of office space in that part of Dublin?
Deputy Bruton is talking about the centre which is not under the control of the docks authority. That matter was subject to an oral hearing and I hope when the report is issued, that site will be considered. However, all the other sites are under the control of the docks authority. There is not an over-supply of office space anywhere in Dublin at present. It is a tight market but there is an enormous amount of space on the 12 acre site which will be taken up this year. As I said, all the other initiatives will be considered next year.
It is not long since I and Deputy Quinn were in the position of Minister for Finance trying to get some of these developments started. All the initiatives which were discussed in recent years are now finished and in use. New developments are now being considered. If the plan goes ahead, 92 acres will be available in the Grand Canal docks area. The authority is currently considering that area which will accommodate many offices in the years ahead.
That is on the other side.
The right side, Dublin south east.
It is all part of the docklands authority area.
I know.
Its area includes George's Quay, the North Wall and Sir John Rogerson's Quay. It is the function of the authority to ensure that all the sites under its remit are developed. There are hundreds of acres and it is a matter of people progressing plans.
Is it not the case that the progress report submitted to the Taoiseach stated explicitly that the development at Spencer Dock of additional office accommodation, which is being delayed by planning objections, was a problem? Is it not the case that the report, which was presented to the Taoiseach by his people, said explicitly there was a risk that the current shortage of office space in that area will lead to a dispersal of activity around the fringes of Dublin which will undermine the docklands hub concept? In view of his publicly expressed objection to office development at Spencer Dock, is the Taoiseach in favour of the docklands hub concept? Does he want this development dispersed outside the current docklands centre?
Nobody has taken a stronger line on the docklands hub. Deputy Bruton pressed me strongly during similar questions previously on the issue of putting most of the accommodation outside the city. The Deputy will recall that occasion.
I am quoting from the Taoiseach's report.
I agree with the Deputy about the back offices but I am in favour of the docklands hub and particularly the financial services hub which is the key issue. The report indicates that when the new rules come into operation, people can move out of the area and it outlines that this would undermine the financial services centre. Given that the companies are in the one area, they work together. They formed the six key committees which drive the centre. It is much better when they are all in the one location and that should continue.
Related services, such as the legal services, have now developed and I am sure other services in the areas I mentioned will develop in the future. This will make use of derelict sites and also make the docklands area, where there was very little employment over the past 100 years, a centre of activity. I favour this development. The section 25 accelerated planning process will expedite the development of the 92 acre site. I do not wish to create controversy on the planning issues, but if people had worked with the docklands authority, they may not have encountered the difficulties they subsequently faced.
If the Taoiseach is in favour of the docklands hub concept, can we take it that, in future, he will not engage in off the cuff remarks to convey prime ministerial disapproval of developments involving office space in the area?
Does the Taoiseach agree that the best way to expedite office and related development in the docklands hub area, which is otherwise known as the Dublin Docklands Develop ment Authority area, is through the special provisions of section 25? Does he also agree that his comments were not constructive and were deliberate? I presume he knew what Charlie Bird would transmit in the colour piece. Will he lay in the Oireachtas Library the formal letter of retraction which he sent to An Bord Pleanála in respect of his comments regarding the oral hearing on that planning controversy?
I have no problem putting the letters in the Library but they were made public by An Bord Pleanála. I ensured that was done after an exchange in the House on the Order of Business because, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, some people are very aware of legal issues.
My views were well known. I took the view that all the land should stay within the area. The Deputy introduced legislation when he was Minister that covered the area, but this site is outside it. This is a pity and perhaps they should have followed the authority's brief. I said that at the time and also a number of times subsequently.
They would have their permission now and they would be on site constructing if they had gone the section 25 route.
If they had used section 25, they would not have had any difficulties and no delays or oral hearings. That was my point.
Is the Taoiseach compounding the problem now by making further comments?
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue.
I gave my views in an interview a long time ago which did not draw any attention at all at the time. Perhaps Deputy Bruton has a different arrangement with RTE than I do, but I do not see their packages prior to presentation.
Deputy Bruton rose.
It is time to move on, Deputy Bruton. We have moved far away from the substance of Questions Nos. 1 and 2.
The Taoiseach talked about me in relation to RTE.
Deputy Bruton and Deputy Quinn got a fair amount of latitude. There is a large number of questions coming up.
If I said something, I would not blame the editors for transmitting it. That appears to be what the Taoiseach is trying to do now.
I would like to move on to Question No. 3.
No. The Taoiseach implied that somehow or other—
The fact that the Taoiseach replied—
—he should have been consulted about the editing.
The Chair is ruling now that we have moved outside the substance of the question.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle's intervention is uncharacteristically timely in terms of its assistance to the Taoiseach.
Deputy Bruton knows that is not correct.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, so that remark does not go unanswered, Deputy Bruton made the outrageous suggestion that I would have known what was in a piece before it was shown.
The Taoiseach said the words himself. He cannot blame RTE for that. He used the words himself
I am not blaming RTE.
What is the Taoiseach saying?
As I said, we have moved well outside the substance of the two questions.
Deputy Bruton is suffering rapid loss of memory recently.
The Taoiseach's party suffers from that disease.
Is the Chair going to allow the Taoiseach to say that?
Deputy Bruton made the point that I would have known what was in the package. I was not with anybody in the package.
This is Australia mark two. The Taoiseach would have been consulted or his spokesperson would have been consulted.
May I ask the Taoiseach—
I have ruled, Deputy Bruton.
This is Australia mark two, a deliberate slip –"Oops, sorry, I will correct it".
The Taoiseach made personal remarks about me and I am asking him about things—
I had already said it publicly.
Given that the Chair has allowed the Taoiseach to make personal remarks about me in regard to legitimate questions I am putting to him—
The Chair did not hear the Taoiseach making personal remarks.
He did.
I did not hear him, Deputy Bruton.
He claimed that I had suffered from a loss of memory.
He may have made those remarks when I was listening to you.
Everybody in the country knows what the Taoiseach said deliberately to influence a planning appeal. He is now trying to say that this should be excused because RTE do not show him tapes before it issues them. He used the words that went out. That is not RTE's fault. The Taoiseach should apologise.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to place on record the letter in question.
Is the Taoiseach referring to the letter about which I inquired?
Yes.
It is too late for the letter.
(Interruptions).
The reply from An Bord Pleanála to that letter states:
On behalf of the Board, I wish to thank you for your letter of 3 March about the planning appeals relating to the Spencer Dock Development.
In considering a planning appeal, it is the practice of the Board to consider only written submissions on the file, submissions made at an oral hearing (where such a hearing is held) and the Inspector's report on the appeal. In the interests of natural justice, media reports on an appeal during the currency of the appeal are not considered by the Board.
Accordingly, in considering the appeals relating to the Spencer Dock Development, the informal comments attributed to you in the media in relation to these appeals will not be taken into account and will not in any way affect the Board's independent judgment, in accordance with established practice.
The terms of this reply have been endorsed by the Board. I am bringing the terms of your letter and the reply to the attention of the Inspectors conducting the oral hearing into the Spencer Dock Development.
Therefore, the points made by Deputy Bruton are totally false.
That does not follow from what the Taoiseach said.
It does. Deputy Bruton keeps trying to do this, that and the other but, day by day, he is increasingly wasting his time.
The Taoiseach is being found out day by day.
It is bad practice for the Deputy to make a statement and then try to twist what he has said. He should say something useful.
The Taoiseach said —
We all saw the Taoiseach on television. We love looking at him.
(Interruptions.)
I wish to intervene in respect of this matter.
As we have restored order we will move on to Question No. 3 in case Deputy Quinn tries to provoke disorder.
When the Taoiseach speaks on television in future, do I take it that remarks will be attributed to him as opposed to the words he utters being taken on face value?
I have called Question No. 3.
Have we now reached a new theological distinction between what the Taoiseach says and what is attributed to him?
He wants to back every horse in every race.
As Paddy O'Duffy in An Bord Pleanála —
I said what I said.
That is not correct. The Taoiseach's remarks were attributed to the Taoiseach.
What did the Taoiseach say to Colonel Ghadaffi?
Bilocation is a wonderful thing.
I ask the Taoiseach to move on to Question No. 3 and I ask Deputy Quinn to resume his seat.
The Taoiseach has been caught out.
There is no chance of that.
His schoolyard tactics will not extricate him from this mess.
I still do not know whether the Deputy is in favour of the docklands development, the hub or job creation.