Vol. 807 No. 4
1. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the public sector pay and pensions savings from planned retirements, the targeted voluntary redundancy scheme, changes to pensions in payments and the provisions of the draft Haddington Road agreement as approved by him and put to ballot of public sector staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29859/13]
The voluntary redundancy scheme is expected to give rise to savings in three areas where it will be initially rolled out. These include the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and specific parts of the health and education sectors. The relevant Departments have estimated that there will be scope to effect approximately 2,000 exits from these areas over time, mainly from back-office, support areas and management and administrative grades. How this estimated number of exits translates into actual money savings over the next few years will be determined by several variables, including the take-up rate among staff in the targeted areas, their number and grade mix and the timing of departure. Information on outcomes in respect of these variables will not become apparent until the scheme is offered to those affected.
Public service trade unions are continuing to consider the various proposals put forward under the Haddington Road agreement ahead of the implementation date of 1 July. The composition of the savings arising can only be finalised when responses to the proposals from all the unions are to hand. However, the measures set out in the agreement, taking account of savings from pension adjustments, will enable the Government to achieve the targeted savings that I have set out of €300 million in the public service pay and pensions bill this year, including savings in local government. It is estimated that the measures set out in the Haddington Road agreement and the related legislation will reduce the public service pay bill by €1 billion by the end of the agreement.
Savings arising specifically from pension reductions are expected to begin from 1 July when changes to the existing public service pension reduction are due to take effect, as provided for in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013. These changes will apply to public service pensioners with pensions greater than €32,500 and are estimated to amount to €12.9 million this year and €24 million in 2014.
I put down this question for the Minister to get some information on the breakdown of the savings from the targeted voluntary redundancy scheme, the changes in the pension payments, which he has provided, and the changes in the draft Haddington Road agreement, which the Minister approved and which went to ballot. I have not really got an answer to my question. I tabled a parliamentary question on 12 June on a similar topic, the difference between the savings under the Haddington Road agreement and the Croke Park agreement. The last paragraph of that answer is identical to the response I have just received.
I asked the previous question more than one week ago. The last time the Minister took Oral Questions he undertook to give us a breakdown of the savings. He could not do it that day even though the agreement had been reached. I realise this matter is subject to agreement but my question was whether there was an agreement. I realise SIPTU and various others have voted for an agreement and that is to be welcomed. We are pleased that public sector workers were wise enough to throw out the first proposals, which were unfair, but they have accepted this proposal which is slightly better.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister give us the figures in terms of retirements? How can the Minister say he will reach his target of €1 billion if he maintains the savings from the 2,000 exits in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the HSE and the education sector have yet to be determined because they are dependent on the scheme when offered? The Minister cannot provide a breakdown but yet he has stated in reply after reply that he will achieve savings of €1 billion. If he does not know the make-up of the €1 billion he should not give that figure.
Will the Minister give a more detailed breakdown, as requested in the original question?
I understand the question, and I understand the Deputy’s eagerness to get the information. I am anxious to give him an accurate answer but I am not in a position to do it right now. While the pieces on the deck will certainly amount to €300 million in the current year and €1 billion between now and 2015, the exact make-up of those pieces will not be known until the ballots are over. It will be a different make-up, for example, if the education sector is subject to the FEMPI legislation or whether it is subject to the Haddington Road agreement. The actual component parts of the money to be achieved are not determined until the outcome of the ballot is known. I will be in a position to give definitive answers when we have an overall picture of how the individual component parts are to gel together.
As Deputy Fleming is aware, under the FEMPI legislation, we will achieve the savings either through the pay reductions, which will be implemented, or through measures that line managers, Ministers or those responsible employers designated under the Act, will be required to take to save the money in each sector.
I understand that the Minister had indicative figures of what would be achieved under the Croke Park II agreement but it was not accepted. He said the higher pay cuts would be approximately €250 million. We did not get the figures from the Minister because he has never given a figure in the House but they were obtained elsewhere. Figures were given for the redundancy, agency reductions and overtime cuts. The Sunday premium was due to save approximately €65 million in the period as well as savings on increments and substitution and supervision in education, which has changed a little in the agreement.
I do not know whether we will have another opportunity for Question Time before the summer recess but I seek an undertaking that when the agreement is reached, whether the Dáil is still in session or if it is a week later, that the Minister would publish a breakdown of the figures so that we would know how much the different components in the different sectors are adding to the €1 billion. The target is €1 billion and people need to know whether it is a real target. I urge the Minister to make a commitment to provide the figures at the earliest possible date.
It is not only a target, it is a target that will be achieved because we have enough pieces in the legislation and in the agreement to make it. The exact make-up in terms of how much of it will be from the Haddington Road agreement and how much will be achieved through the FEMPI legislation will depend on the outcome of the ballots. I cannot give the definitive breakdown until I have the result but I will give it to the Deputy as soon as I have it.
As Deputy Mary Lou McDonald is not present we will move on the Priority Question No. 3 in the name of Deputy Joan Collins.
3. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether the An Post pension scheme and the fact that certain pension scheme trustees may have a conflict of interest between their role as a trustee and executive directors of An Post; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29625/13]
This question is properly for the Minister for Social Protection and the response I am giving is from her Department. The Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for the Minister for Social Protection to comment on issues arising in regard to a particular pension scheme.
In general, pension schemes in Ireland are established under trust. The trust deed and scheme rules provide for the appointment and responsibilities of the trustees of a scheme. Under trust law, the trustees of a scheme are required at all times to act in the best interest of all scheme members; to act fairly between beneficiaries and to administer the trust in accordance with trust law. A trustee who is negligent, does not act in good faith or breaks the rules of the trust can be sued by the beneficiaries. They can be held personally liable for the entire amount of any loss that has occurred.
The provisions in the Pensions Act build on trust law and sets out in Part VI of the Pensions Act the range of duties and responsibilities of a trustee of a pension scheme, including the general duties of trustees, the qualifications required to be a trustee of a scheme and also makes provision for the training of trustees. The Pensions Act requires the large-funded occupational pension schemes with more than 50 employees and pensioner members to allow members to select or approve the selection by the employer of one or more "member trustees". Conflicts of interests can arise where trustees appointed directly by the employer may include members of the board of the company or senior executives or where a member trustee has discretion under the trust deed and scheme rules in relation to the payment of scheme benefits. A person appointed as a trustee could be in a position where there may be a conflict between their duty as a trustee and their other interests. Their duty as a trustee must prevail when taking decisions. Where a trustee is conscious of a possible conflict of interest it may be necessary, before a decision is taken, to obtain legal, actuarial or other professional advice, as appropriate. Any further questions can be directed to the Minister for Social Protection who has responsibility for occupational and State pensions.
I thank the Minister. It is difficult to respond given that the Minister has indicated that the response to the question came from the Minister for Social Protection.
A few peculiar things happened to the questions I tabled. I had submitted three questions, one priority and two oral. One priority question went to the Department of Social Protection and I was not told about it in accordance with the normal procedures. The priority question was removed and the oral question was put onto the agenda.
Workers in An Post are hugely concerned about the change in the pension fund which has been capped now at 2%. In December 2012 we were told there was a deficit of €320 million if the scheme was wound up on the day in question. We subsequently found out that €80 million more has been put into the pension scheme and that there is now a deficit of €240 million. All the information and examples given to members in a booklet are based on a deficit of €320 million. There is a general feeling that rather than the pension board acting in the interest of members, it is acting more in the interest of the company to deliver cost savings. Questions arise as to how some of the conclusions were reached in terms of the proposals and examples given. The booklet is very hard to read and it is very misleading.
I raised the matter today to put the huge concern on record. There is also considerable concern about deferred pensions. A total of 360,000 people are covered under deferred pensions and questions are being asked as to whether the pensions will be viable in the future. I am a member of the An Post pension scheme so I have an interest in the matter.
I fully understand and appreciate the Deputy’s difficulty. I am sorry that I am not the appropriate person to respond. I have outlined the general law on the legal obligation of trustees, which gives some reassurance to the Deputy. I undertake to bring the Deputy’s direct concerns to the attention of the Minister for Social Protection. I will ask her to reply directly to the Deputy.
I will table a question to the Minister next week.
4. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the impact on job creation he expects from the July 2012 stimulus plan and the recent announcement regarding capital spending; his views on the extent to which these plans will make up for the ongoing cut to the Exchequer capital programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29860/13]
The stimulus package announced in July 2012 included investment of €1.4 billion in a new public private partnership, PPP, programme. This investment is additional to the direct investment by the Exchequer in infrastructure which was outlined in the medium-term Exchequer framework published in November 2011. Earlier this month, and as a follow on to last year’s package, I announced an additional Exchequer investment of €150 million to fund school building projects, local and regional road maintenance and retrofitting of local authority housing.
Investment in projects included in both announcements is expected to support significant numbers of jobs across the country. Previous analysis of each sector indicates that the investment in the PPP pipeline may support in the region of 13,000 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs. It is envisaged that the additional Exchequer funding of €150 million, which I announced last week, can support in the region of 3,000 jobs over the period of the roll-out of both projects. These initiatives will of course also create much needed social and economic infrastructure and aid economic recovery. The Exchequer projects, in particular, involve mostly smaller scale capital works which are known to be labour intensive.
I am anxious that projects associated with both packages can be rolled out as quickly as possible so that we can create the extra jobs on the ground without delay. In relation to the PPP projects, it is well recognised internationally that these are large-value investments and by their nature are complex and take time to develop and deliver both for the public and the private sector. From the public sector side, my Department is working closely with the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, and sponsoring Departments to progress projects and to accelerate delivery of the programme.
My Department, together with the NDFA and the sponsoring authorities, are also looking at how to maximise job creation as part of each tender competition and in line with procurement regulations. With the NDFA, we are also examining ways to encourage SME participation by facilitating access to the programme. The NDFA is working with Enterprise Ireland to organise awareness-raising events for SMEs, one of which was held last week.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The projects identified for delivery through the additional €150 million Exchequer funding will begin to be rolled out over the summer. While this additional funding was only recently announced, I expect that it will have an immediate impact as most of the preparation work for the relevant projects is already well advanced. The capital plan has, by necessity, been reduced in recent years to contribute to fiscal consolidation. However, it is important to note that since the publication of, Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-2016: Medium Term Exchequer Framework, in November 2011 no further cuts have been made to the capital programme. That publication was the result of a major review of capital expenditure. It prioritised investment in infrastructure which would be most beneficial to supporting economic growth, thereby supporting sustainable employment growth in the medium term, meet urgent social needs and maintain our existing stock of infrastructure. It also took account of the fact that €70 billion had been invested in the previous decade.
The State will spend some €17 billion over the period of the framework on capital projects throughout the country and this will help support employment in many key areas. Much of this investment will be in smaller scale locally based projects and, as I have already mentioned, this kind of less expensive re-fit, refurbishment, and upgrade works can be more labour-intensive than larger capital-intensive projects.
At the time of publication of the report I noted that, should a funding source become available, there was much more that I wanted to deliver through investment in infrastructure. The deal I negotiated with the troika with regard to the proceeds from the sale of State assets and the recovery of the PPP market are allowing us to progress additional projects which we could not include in the five-year framework. All of these measures which I have taken represent a significant commitment to continue to invest in infrastructure, create jobs and improve quality.
The Minister will understand my frustration in respect of this second question, because I have asked him about the impact on job creation but he has not given me any figures. I genuinely am finding-----
I have given figures to the Deputy.
I mean specifics with regard to the numbers of jobs created. I wish to ascertain how that compares with-----
I gave figures to the Deputy, namely, 13,000 jobs in respect of public private partnerships, PPPs, and 3,000 jobs from the stimulus package I announced last week.
Yes, but that is for the package over the five-year period from 2012 to 2017. My question related to the reduction in the Exchequer capital programme, which has been reduced by €1 billion from €4.5 billion when the Government came into office in 2011, to the current figure of €3.43 billion. There must be a commensurate reduction each year in the number of jobs. The essence of my question was whether this new additional funding will go anywhere near making up for the actual reduction in the capital expenditure. There is no point in stating the Government intends to invest an additional amount under a PPP if it also is reducing capital expenditure by a greater amount. I seek confirmation from the Minister because he stated the €150 million he announced recently was additional funding. However, as I understand it, it forms the first phase of the stimulus package announced last year. Does this then represent the first phase of the Exchequer element of the stimulus plan or is this a new stimulus plan on top of the €850 million?
Yes, it is new money.
While last year's stimulus plan has not yet happened, another one is being announced. Will there be an annual stimulus plan? That really is what I am trying to ask the Minister because the annual announcements seem to happen but the actual jobs and follow-through in respect of job creation does not seem to happen. Overall, does the Minister believe this additional stimulus plan will go some way towards making up for the reductions the Government is making on the other hand in respect of the capital budget?
Let me be clear. The Government made decisions back in 2011 in respect of the capital plan to reduce the quantum of money in order to lessen the reduction in current expenditure. For example, rather than taking a further €1.5 billion out of social welfare this year, as Fianna Fáil had planned, the Government took additional money of approximately half a billion euro out of capital funding. The capital projects that were delayed were those major heavy capital projects in the transport area that are not actually job-rich projects. There is a significant difference in the job benefit between such projects and, for example, the €150 million spent on the stimulus plan I announced last week. Projects that will retrofit 25,000 houses across the country or build new schools or repair the county roads, for which there is a €50 million project, are much more beneficial in terms of real jobs now than would be €150 million spent on planning for a project such as the access tunnel to the airport or similar very big infrastructure projects. To answer the Deputy's question in general terms, the Government made rational decisions to protect current expenditure as best it could because the Government did not think the volume of cuts the previous Administration had planned in social welfare and other areas could be taken. Second, the Government is releasing other capital to have jobs-rich projects through the sale of State assets, through further funding the Government is negotiating with the European Investment Bank and other lenders and hopefully through releasing moneys from our own banks, now they are in a more robust position to support PPPs.
Finally, I wish to make a helpful suggestion to the Minister with regard to the capital programme. I have examined the figures for the capital programme in the Estimates on a Department by Department basis over the past couple of years and note that even this year, it still is planned to invest €1 billion in transport, €700 million in environment, of which funds for water services may comprise quite a bit, €400 million in health and perhaps a smaller amount in education. Will the Minister consider examining the totality of the capital budget and these additional stimulus packages to ascertain whether the right mix of capital expenditure is in place across the Departments? A massive amount was invested in transport over the years and there may be a case for now spending a smaller proportion of the total on road and rail projects than was the case over the past four or five years, as some additional infrastructure has been put in place. Perhaps a greater amount could be invested in health and education, where it may be needed to cater for the younger population. Do those Departments that historically had high capital expenditure still come in with fairly high projections? The Minister should take a holistic approach to ascertain whether, were he starting today with the aforementioned €3.4 billion plus his stimulus plan, that would be how he would break it down. I am worried that the State may be trapped in the old spending patterns.
The Deputy has a point, which is the reason the Government did look afresh. The Deputy is correct, in that there is a predilection to look at the traditional projects. While roads, hospitals and schools fall into that category, they are needed. For example, the next project I wish to advance before the end of the year on the road side will be the N17-N18 in the west. That is an important regional link to a part of the country that needs infrastructural investment. However, the Deputy is correct and the Government must examine other types of projects, whether they are in energy or in retrofit generally. There also is a strong argument to look for capital investment in education outside the normal school focus. I certainly am open to any suggestions in that regard, as well as to suggestions from the other side of the House in that regard.
We will now return to Priority Question No. 2 in the name of Deputy Mary Lou McDonald.
2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to impose additional reductions in pay and changes to working terms and conditions to those public sector workers who through their unions do not sign up to the Haddington Road agreement. [29864/13]
The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013 was enacted on 5 June 2013. The primary purpose of the legislation is to implement the proposed pay reduction for public servants earning salaries of €65,000 and the parallel reduction in public service pensions of more than €32,500. Contingency measures that may be deployed to secure the necessary reductions in the public service pay and pensions bill also are included, including provisions for a universal freeze on pay increments. The Act also affirms that the person, which may be a line Minister or other public service body, that has the power to determine terms and conditions of employment may exercise that power to reduce non-core rates of pay or to increase hours worked. However, as Members are aware, under the legislation a facility is provided for unions and representative associations to conclude collective agreements with their public service employers. Where a union has signed up to a collective agreement, now called the Haddington Road agreement, that will avoid the need for those contingency measures to be used.
It is a matter for public servants and their representative unions and associations to decide if they wish to conclude a collective agreement with their employers. This issue is currently subject to consideration by ballot by those unions and those members concerned. I do not wish to comment directly during that process, although I welcome the decision today of SIPTU, the biggest union, to endorse the Haddington Road agreement by a significant margin of 76%. With regard to those grades represented by a union which does not conclude a collective agreement under the Act, as well as the increment freeze that will apply directly under the terms of the Act, the relevant decision maker will be obliged to take the necessary measures to meet the targeted pay-bill savings this year and in following years.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for taking this question now and I apologise to the Minister and colleagues for my late arrival into the Chamber. In this question I am trying to establish, for the purposes of clarity, that the Minister intends to make operational those contingency measures, as they are called, in the emergency legislation in respect of those trade union members who do not sign up to or endorse the Haddington Road agreement. The Minister has not said it as bluntly but I take from his reply that this is his intention. He mentioned the capacity for a freeze on increments and longer working hours and consequently, I can only take it that this is the formula he envisages for those workers who are not prepared to sign up to the Haddington Road agreement. I put it to the Minister that to say or do this on the one hand, while claiming on the other hand that collective bargaining rights are not just respected but are supported by the legislation the Minister brought through this House simply does not tally at all. It now will be clear to workers it has been a case of getting workers to sign up to these cuts voluntarily or having the Government imposing them unilaterally.
That makes a farce of any claim the Minister might make to support free collective bargaining.
I fundamentally disagree with the Deputy. The reverse is the case. This process has been honest with workers from the start. We laid out the requirements of the State in terms of the pay bill, as everybody knows, the condition of the public finances and the view of Government that we needed to make a further contribution to solving the deficit hole through reducing the pay and pensions bill. We opened the books so that people could understand, and then we engaged to see how we could do that with as much agreement as possible. The first set of negotiated agreements through the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, were rejected, and we gave further time to the LRC to see if that discussion could be reopened. Unions that did not really engage the first time around engaged the second time around. That was a good, open, democratic and honest process. However, like any employer, we could not allow a situation in which there would be no consequences for those who did not accept the agreement while those who accepted it would face the consequences. The Deputy knows that. We will make the savings, hopefully through agreement across all sectors. It is still the Government's wish that every employee be subject to the Haddington Road agreement, but where there are sectors that exclude themselves from it, the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation will apply.
There is not a person in the country, much less in the public service, who does not understand the state of the public finances and the economic crisis, not of their making, into which we have all been plunged-----
I agree.
-----but it does not add up to say that the only mechanism available to the Government to fix this hole in the public finances is to target members of the Civil and Pubic Service Union, including clerical workers who looked at the Haddington Road agreement and felt that, given everything they have endured in the past few years and the fact that they are very low-paid workers, an extension of their working hours, a pausing of their increments, a running down of their terms and conditions and what in reality amounts to a pay cut through an extension of hours was not something they could live with, and it was not fair. There were other things the Minister could have done. There are other things he could still do with an eye to mending the public finances. The Minister repeats again and again that the only ones to take a hit under these proposals are people earning in excess of €65,000. That is just not true.
What is true is that the only employees getting a direct pay cut are those earning in excess of €65,000, and the Deputy knows that full well. It is interesting that the Deputy has now moved away from groups she was highlighting on the last occasion - who have now, by and large, accepted the Haddington Road agreement - to the CPSU.
I have been raising the case of the CPSU consistently.
Its members are currently being balloted and, unlike the Deputy, I do not want to involve myself in their ballot. I agree that everybody in the public service is affected, because everybody is asked to make some contribution, but those represented by the CPSU are minimally affected. Their core pay is not touched at all. They do not do overtime, by and large, and they have been asked to work additional hours. That is what is being asked of them in that instance. That is a reasonable request when we are asking everybody in the public service to work a couple of extra hours. They represent a category of workers that are minimally touched in that regard.
On the general point the Deputy makes that this is not the only option, of course this is not the only option. We are looking at significant reductions across every aspect of public expenditure, and the Deputy will be shouting at me for all of those; she has done so for years. We will be increasing taxes, and the Deputy will be opposing that also. She will be opposing the local property tax and everything else. It is certainly not the only option but it is part of the range of options that will bring this country back to a sustainable path of recovery.
5. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if following the recent launch of the competitive process of the new National Lottery licence if the current level of good causes funding will be maintained. [29865/13]
Under the next national lottery licence, annual contributions for good causes will be set at 65% of gross gaming revenues. Gross gaming revenues are defined as the level of sales less the amount deducted for prizes. The current licence does not have a specific formula in place under legislation for good causes. The level of contribution is the amount remaining when prizes and costs are deducted from the value of total sales. It is worth noting that the level of returns for good causes from the national lottery has been falling in recent years. Under the next licence, the national lottery operator will be well placed to reverse this trend and boost the level of sales of national lottery tickets. This increase will be facilitated by the terms of both the next licence and the National Lottery Act 2013, which we passed in this House and the other House, and will offer the holder of the next licence greater flexibility for the growth and development of lottery games and distribution channels, including interactive channels. However, it is important to emphasise that this will be achieved in a responsible manner, as we have debated at some length, which protects the interests of national lottery players and the long-term sustainability of the lottery itself.
I am very confident, under the new arrangements, that the level of annual returns for good causes, which include sport, culture, community health and the natural environment, will grow significantly from the 2012 amount of €225 million. The outcome will be funding for more worthwhile projects in more places across the country.
I should also point out that the successful bidder for the next licence will make an upfront payment to the State in return for a 20-year licence. Part of this up-front payment will be used to fund the construction of the new national children’s hospital. In addition, some moneys which will accrue from the payment in respect of the national lottery licence are being allocated to help fund Exchequer capital projects this year and next year.
I thank the Minister for that answer. He has set out that under the new licensing arrangement, 65% of gross gaming revenue will be directed towards good causes. What I am trying to establish is a certainty that the level of funding for good causes will not be damaged by the new regime, which, as the Minister knows, I opposed in the course of our debates. We will not open that up again. The Minister told us that last year the figure for good causes was €225 million. Can he tell us whether his Department has run figures based on the revenues from last year and whether he is satisfied that that figure will be matched, if not surpassed - in other words, that that is the correct formula with which to move forward?
In respect of the up-front payment, I know the Minister cannot speculate as to what that figure might be and therefore I will not ask him for a bald figure, but I ask him for an assurance that a large up-front payment will not be used by a bidder as an incentive for the system to perhaps be a little slack in terms of the other terms and conditions of the licence. I invite the Minister to comment on that.
No. The Deputy makes a number of valid and fair points. This is a balance that I and the Government have sought to strike in terms of maximising the upfront payment without damaging the constant annual flow of money for good causes. It is our estimate that we can increase the volume and flow of money for good causes. All of these are theoretical until we see the structure of the new licence at work, but we have taken the best advice. We have looked at operations internationally. The nature of the lotto is changing. For example, for scratch cards, which are a chunk of the lotto, the prize fund is much bigger and therefore the actual sum accruing to good causes under the current regime from scratch cards is not great. There is no limit to the prize fund under the current legislation. We are looking, in the round, at a robust system. I picked a figure of 65% for good causes, which is considerable.
There would have been suggestions from some of our advisers that we go for a lower figure that would ensure we would get a bigger upfront payment but I was willing to take a smaller upfront payment if it meant we would have a good growing annual fund for the good causes that are so important into the future.
I agree with the Minister and I welcome the confirmation that there will not be any possibility of a trade-off between a larger upfront payment that might cause damage to that revenue stream for good causes.
I had asked in a parliamentary question that the new formula be applied to the most recent revenue figures we have for the national lottery, although I appreciate that the contingencies of increases or decreases in sales must be taken into account, such are the vagaries of the market. It would be very useful to see this formula applied to the most recent sales figures for the national lottery so we can see the maintenance of the revenue flow. I submitted a question on that to the Department and received an unsatisfactory answer; it had a lot of interesting information but it did not answer the question. For those of us who are concerned about the national lottery, particularly the funding for good causes, it would put our minds at rest if the Minister's officials could take the known data from the most recent period, apply the 65% of gross gaming revenue formula, and show us the figure so we can see if it tallies with the €225 million figure.
I have done that in another question and I am looking for it now. It is not a direct comparison, because things will be different over time.
It is Question No. 22.
Is that where it is? Unfortunately I did not bring Question No. 22 with me, I did not expect to reach it. I might have it in my own notes. If we applied it precisely to the revenue declared for last year, when the good causes contribution was €225 million, it would have been of the order of €214 million. Given the nature of the gaming, my advice is that this is a much more robust formula than the 30% I had intended to put in.
Applying that formula gives a figure that is €11 million less.
For last year, yes.
That is all the more reason why the terms and conditions of the licensing arrangement must be robust. If we are to move into this new arrangement, which I continue to oppose, all the more reason for the Minister to ensure there are strong incentives to grow the business. It would be a slap in the face if we were to be down €11 million for the good causes next year. I urge the Minister to ensure that is not the case.
I fully accept what the Deputy is saying. I do not want to be prescriptive about this but I must strike a balance. I do not want to grow the national lottery at the expense of those who might be spending money they should not be spending. There are checks and balances all the way. I am advised that it is possible under this structure in a way that does not impact negatively on people who should not be gambling too much to grow from the current position to a contribution to good causes of €300 million over a period of five or six years.
