Vol. 966 No. 9
6. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the cap of 10% of the national development plan being funded by public private partnerships at a time of historic low interest rates in respect of direct Exchequer borrowing has been abolished; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10867/18]
I welcome the fact the Minister's Department has indicated it will review the question of public private partnerships, PPPs. We had PPPs during the years of collapse, and certainly in the years from 2011 to 2014, because it was one of the few ways of borrowing money for desperately needed infrastructure in this country and of keeping the economy afloat, because we could not borrow. However, things have changed. The cost of borrowing for the State is very cheap. I do not understand why the Minister has decided to remove the cap of 10% in the national development plan for 2040. The previous Government, of which the Minister and I were both members, had a cap of 10%. Why has he removed it? Does he mean to allow PPPs to go to 50% or 60% of public construction?
An interdepartmental agency group was established in 2017 to review Ireland's experience of PPPs and to make recommendations on their future role in the context of the new ten-year national development plan, NDP. The NDP summarises the key findings and recommendations agreed as part of the PPP review, the detailed report of which will be published shortly.
One of the recommendations of the review, included in the NDP, is that consideration of PPP as a procurement option should be assessed on a level playing field with the traditional procurement option. In this context, the cap on PPP costs of 10% of the aggregate Exchequer capital allocation in any particular year is to be discontinued in favour of reintroducing the original budgetary control mechanism for PPPs. This approach was also recommended by the International Monetary Fund, IMF, in the public investment management assessment, PIMA, report for Ireland published last year.
Following this review, and in light of the very substantial new public capital investment programme contained in the NDP, it is now recommended that the original budgetary control mechanism for PPPs should be reapplied. This requires that the capital value of PPPs over the construction period should be charged to the Exchequer capital allocation of the sponsoring Department so that PPPs and traditionally procured projects are treated equally when determining which procurement option to adopt. In other words, Departments will only use PPPs when they offer value for money over traditional procurement.
I wonder if the Minister or his Department have had the chance to read the Parliamentary Budget Office's overview of public private partnerships in Ireland. What it says about value for money is very clear. The value for money of PPPs is difficult to assess until the PPP itself has been in place for several years. We know this from the example of some toll roads where the private sector is paid for cars that have never used the road.
Secondly, PPPs can potentially create private sector monopolies. Their duration is frequently a matter of decades, which is the case in the Irish model. In certain circumstances this can provide the private sector with a monopolistic position which may place potential competitors, including from the public sector, at a disadvantage. Where the PPPs relate to the provision of a service it may be very difficult to define the quality of the service. We know this from hundreds of cases in the UK. The cost has been horrendous.
One of the things that occurs to me as I answer these parliamentary questions is that nobody is asking me about the national development plan.
I referenced it.
Deputy Burton asked me about capital investment.
More money.
Deputy Donohoe is becoming like the Taoiseach now. Nobody loves him.
Month after month I stood in this House and Deputies asked me where the national development was. When would it arrive? Now that it has arrived, it has been greeted with silence. Indeed, the only difference in behaviour was that Deputy Jonathan O'Brien welcomed it. Given the number of times I was asked when it would arrive, and what would be in it-----
There was not a lot in it.
-----I was hoping there would at least be some questions on it this morning. Perhaps this demonstrates that it is a good strategy.
The Government can tell the newspapers what to write, but it cannot tell us what to ask.
To answer the question that Deputy Burton put to me a moment ago on the report of the Parliamentary Budget Office and its point about PPPs, I note that one can make that point about any large public capital investment. It takes many years to determine whether it has delivered its objectives and provides value for money. To reiterate the point I made a moment ago, I now see PPPs in a different context. The context is as Deputy Burton has described. We should go ahead with them when they make sense, if the State decides that the money can be sourced more effectively and cheaply than if it was to pay for it.
As a matter of record, the priority question that I submitted to the Minister was in fact about the national development plan but guess what? His Department refused it, and it was posted to the Taoiseach. Perhaps the Minister will check this. As a consequence, I wondered which element of the national development plan I could ask this Minister about. He accepted the question I thought would be acceptable but he refused a question on the national development plan. I have a letter from the Ceann Comhairle, which I can send to the Minister's office if he likes. I know he probably got the same letter, but he may not have seen it himself. This is like a little debating society. However, the fact is that there are horrendous stories from around the world about the downsides of PPPs. The upsides are that they can provide more capital room and be a source of capital at a time of need, as was the case in this country.
I apologise to Deputy Burton for following her questions twice in a row. The issue of PPPs is on the agenda of the Committee of Public Accounts this morning. I am supposed to be at that committee, so I might as well get my spoke in here instead. The Minister referenced the PIMA report. The Government took some of the IMF's recommendations on board. One of the recommendations was that value for money reports should be published. We have not taken that on board yet.
As Deputy Burton knows, I do not determine what questions I get to answer. That is a decision for the Ceann Comhairle and the Questions Office.
Then Deputy Donohoe should not say we did not ask the question.
Take it up with the Ceann Comhairle.
We did. The questions were refused.
The same rules allowed multiple questions about the national development plan to be put to me in previous appearances in this House. To answer the questions Deputies Burton and Jonathan O'Brien have put to me, I am aware of concerns about PPPs that have developed in other jurisdictions. In Ireland, there is a track record of many PPPs delivering important projects and at good value. As I have reiterated on a number of occasions, the context has changed. We have to evaluate them on a project-by-project basis. If it is more affordable and effective for the State to borrow the money or to pay for it out of our tax revenues and deliver it through a traditional procurement process, that is what we will do. Having PPPs available introduces a constructive tension into how we price projects. In response to Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, it is my intention in the future to publish more information about PPPs than we have in the past.
Anois, back to calmer waters, or maybe not. It is a question on flood relief tabled by Deputy Browne.
7. Deputy James Browne asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the position regarding the Enniscorthy flood relief scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13222/18]
I ask the Minister of State the position of the Enniscorthy flood relief scheme.
The River Slaney flood relief scheme is being progressed by the Office of Public Works, OPW, in conjunction with Wexford County Council. The scheme has been provided for in the OPW multi-annual capital expenditure budgets, and is one of the major schemes financed under the national development plan for the period from 2018 to 2027.
Consultants Mott MacDonald are leading on the design of the flood defences element, with Roughan O’Donovan Consulting Engineers commissioned to design the proposed new road bridge. The existing Seamus Rafter Bridge is a contributing factor to flooding in Enniscorthy and must be removed to ensure the success of the scheme. A replacement road bridge will be constructed just downstream of the town, crossing over the existing playground, and a new pedestrian bridge will be constructed in the area of the Seamus Rafter Bridge.
Initial site investigations have been completed, along with archaeological and ecological assessments and reports. An advance programme to control and eradicate invasive species of vegetation is under way. Following the identification of these invasive species within the site in 2015, a detailed survey was carried out to ascertain the full extent of the problem and to enable a management plan and treatment programme to be put in place. Treatment, which involves the controlled application of an approved herbicide, was carried out in 2016 and 2017. During 2018, the treatment of Japanese knotweed will take place in April and September and the treatment of Himalayan balsam will be carried out in July this year. Further advance construction elements which involve relocation of services and utilities along the promenade are expected to commence in 2018.
The scheme design and environmental impact assessment report and other relevant reports will be made available to the public through the statutory exhibition process. Following this, submissions received will be assessed and designs may be amended as a result. Subsequently, formal confirmation or approval for the scheme will be sought from the Minister for Finance and for Public Expenditure and Reform, with construction expected to start in mid to late 2019.
I thank the Minister of State for being bang on time.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Following two years of delays, I question the Government's commitment to deliver this much-anticipated flood relief scheme for Enniscorthy. I received a reply to a recent parliamentary question which stated that a public information event about the proposed works was now scheduled for this summer. This is nearly two years behind schedule. The Government had said it would hold a public display in 2016, then it was to be the third quarter of 2017 and then it was the first quarter of 2018. Construction was originally due to commence in 2017 and is now delayed until the first quarter of 2019 at the earliest, according to the most recent answer. For almost two years the Government has rescheduled the public information events. These delays are completely unacceptable. I understand there is significant demand for flood relief schemes in the State and I am very concerned that Enniscorthy is going to lose out on funding if there are any further delays on this.
The Deputy is well aware that once a scheme is announced, there is an amount of work that goes on around the planning process for the scheme. It takes quite a considerable amount of time. This is working with the local authorities and the relevant bodies and, most importantly, the people in the areas. Deputy Browne is aware that I recently visited Enniscorthy and saw the issues at first hand. I met the county manager, the director of services and the people on the ground to see and sense exactly what the issues are around the flooding in Enniscorthy. As late as last week when I was in Kenya, I was in contact with the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, due to the threat to the people in Enniscorthy in this regard. I am fully aware of the delay that took place with the scheme, but I am also aware of the pace at which I am moving to get this scheme up. I believe it is to go on public display in the middle of next month. We should await the outcome of that before judgment is cast on my job. I will deliver on this scheme.
I am not casting judgment on the Minister of State. I am casting judgment on the two-year delay on the scheme going on public display. I am quite happy that it is going to happen. I praise the county council staff and the emergency services who have done tremendous work during the crisis when Ireland experienced severe snow. They had barely got back to their beds before they had to get up again to deal with potential flooding of the town by the river, which was within millimetres of bursting its banks. Thankfully it did not, but it needs to progress as quickly as possible. I thank the Acting Chair, Deputy Eugene Murphy, who has also brought this matter up. This has been let slip for two years and it cannot be allowed to slip any further. Enniscorthy is very vulnerable to flooding. It has caused regular crises for local businesses and homes as a result. It causes a huge amount of distress and damage to the economy of the town. We need to see the scheme progressed quickly. I have heard comments about it being prioritised. I fail to see how anything is being prioritised when it is already two years behind schedule.
I am fully aware of the hardship, concern and the mental strain of worry that flooding causes people. I assure the Deputy that my Department is working very closely with the local authority to advance the scheme.
8. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will report on the recent visit of the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works and flood relief to the Hill of Tara. [12891/18]
33. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the future plans of the Office of Public Works in relation to the Hill of Tara. [12892/18]
Question No. 8 refers to the Minister of State's recent and unheralded visit to the Hill of Tara, which I believe not too many people knew about. Will he report on that visit and let us know what happened? Perhaps the Minister of State will inform the House of his Department's plans to take ownership and leadership of the Hill of Tara to make it into a place we can be proud of as part of our cultural and historical heritage.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 33 together.
I was delighted to visit the Hill of Tara recently at the request of public representatives in the area to inspect at first hand the various issues which affect the site and to listen to the various comments on the need for improved facilities there. The Office of Public Works, OPW, has responsibility for the management and maintenance of the site and operates a seasonal guide service based at the former Church of Ireland building. It also provides maintenance services and manages both the national monument structures and the extensive acreage of the Tara site. This is clearly a most important historical centre which is popular with many visitors both domestic and foreign. Safeguarding it is, and will continue to be, a high priority for the OPW.
The various agencies involved are engaged in the preparation of a new management plan for the site and its future will be set out clearly within that. The OPW is participating in that work and is clearly focused to ensure that its responsibilities are addressed. An extensive process of consultation is under way which will, I have no doubt, inform the best future plan for perhaps the most important archaeological site on this island.
I am not entirely sure if the Minister of State or the officials or the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht are aware of what the Hill of Tara actually is. It was the seat of the high kings of Ireland in ancient times. It is the most important historical and cultural site in the State. Despite this the Minister of State's Department does not provide car parking or toilet facilities for visitors. As far as I can see, the Department does not contact the local authority except when the Minister of State is on a visit for a meeting organised by one of his own colleague councillors. The Department does nothing for the Hill of Tara except cause aggro with local residents. The local residents have a number of groups, including the Rathfeigh, Skryne and Tara community centre. There was a meeting organised recently by them. The Friends of Tara have also campaigned for some time to get proper facilities. I believe they would be happy if the Minister of State agreed to meet the two groups of residents and all six councillors in the area, some of whom live a lot closer to Tara than the councillor I am glad the Minister visited. The Minister of State needs to meet the groups with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and with Meath County Council. Nobody is in charge in this regard. Technically the site is owned by the OPW, but nobody seems willing to take leadership. I appeal to the Minister to take leadership on this issue and to meet the groups, with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and with Meath County Council, to see where we can go from here in providing facilities and a proper management plan for the Hill of Tara, and working in conjunction with the local residents.
I will first point out to the Deputy that I was in the area looking at flooding issues and I was asked if I would go to the Hill of Tara. I am aware first-hand of what our heritage stands for. I was the first one to give free admission to heritage sites to children under 12. This brought in 47,000 children to visit all our heritage sites. This year I introduced free admission for people with disabilities and their carers to all heritage sites. The Deputy does not have to lecture me on what I do not know. I visit most of our heritage sites, whether I tell the public representatives or not. I want to see the issues first hand to see if I can address them.
I agree with Deputy Byrne that there is a bit more work to be done with regard to the Hill of Tara. I have met the local authority and it has outlined the issues. This group has been set up in relation to those findings. We should wait for the outcome of that management plan. The Deputy has never made representations to me on the Hill of Tara. If he had, I would have taken up the issue. Deputy Byrne has tabled his questions today and I am dealing with them, but as soon as the report comes, we will have that discussion.
I should not have to make representations to the Minister of State and to the OPW about the Hill of Tara. My colleagues on Meath County Council have been pleading with the OPW to do something with the Hill of Tara and this has been going on for a long number of years. It is all right putting on this show that Boxer will get the job done, but we want this primary seat of architectural and cultural heritage to be minded by the OPW. The Minister of State has been in office for less than one year but this issue has been going on for a long time. It is about time somebody got a handle on it. The residents' patience is wearing thin because there have been so many promises.
In the last days of the Fianna Fáil-led Government we had the landscape heritage plan, which came from the Green Party and which caused uproar among the residents. Things then seemed to stall for years, and people are now demanding action. Basic facilities must be provided by the OPW, such as toilet facilities and car parking. Those facilities are actually provided by local people, and the OPW seems to be getting away with that at the moment. I am pleading that this matter be treated seriously and that the Minister of State meets the residents. He should work with them, and I will work with him. He should do that in conjunction with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. We do not need a plan to decide that we need basic facilities for tourists, visitors and local people coming to the Hill of Tara.
I disagree with the Deputy when he says, "Boxer gets the job done". I went to the Hill of Tara, as requested. I met the local authority, which, along with my Department, has set up a working group. The Deputy should wait for the outcome of the report of that working group, and we will see where we can go from there.
9. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans for the further roll-out of the public services card; his further plans to protect the privacy of persons using the card; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10869/18]
I want to ask the Minister, now that his Department is running the public services card project under the strategic communications strategy, how he proposes to reassure ordinary people across the country who use the public services card efficiently that their data are safe and protected and will not be handed on to other bodies.
The public services card, and its online counterpart MyGovID, is the Government’s standard personal identity verification scheme, and it is core to delivering public services to people in a secure and efficient manner. My Department works closely with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection which is the lead implementation body for the production of the PSC, MyGovID, and the SAFE registration process which underpins both.
The SAFE registration process used to establish and verify a person’s identity, increases the privacy protection and security afforded to people by ensuring that the person using a service is the person they claim to be, and by minimising the requirement for people to provide the same identity information over and over again. The use of the card and MyGovID to establish identity with a high level of assurance is fundamental to providing people and the public service a means to protect their data.
As the data controller for data collected during the SAFE registration process, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is committed to ensuring that data relating to people are securely held and used only for relevant business purposes. Its commitment to safeguarding data is reflected in the use of advanced data processing and storage technology, hosting in secure data centres and is reinforced by a range of legislative and administrative provisions that are designed to protect the rights and interests of citizens. They impose obligations in relation to the confidentiality, unauthorised access, unnecessary use, alteration, destruction or disclosure. The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection has worked with my Department to publish a Comprehensive Guide To SAFE Registration and The Public Services Card last October, which is available online. Further information, including a detailed set of questions and answers, relating to the card and MyGovID is available on the website psc.gov.ie.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Regarding current and planed use, the PSC and MyGovID underpins access to social welfare entitlements, first-time adult passport applications, citizenship applications, driver theory test applications, and Revenue services. In 2018, access to more public services will be underpinned by the PSC and MyGovID. Details of this plan can be found within the eGovernment Strategy 2017-2020, published in July 2017.
I think the Minister and Deputies might be having some difficulty because there is some extra noise coming from the back of the Chamber. People should whisper.
I was the Minister responsible for introducing the public services card. Ireland spends about €20 billion a year on social welfare payments to people. The public services card has enabled a much better quality of service, with greater speed and effectiveness. This applies particularly to the free travel enjoyed by pensioners and the disabled. People can now do their business with a far greater degree of privacy and confidence than was the case before the card was introduced.
I am raising this question because I am really concerned that what has been a very significant achievement of the public service in Ireland, together with the development of the Intreo services and offices, where people can go and do their business with privacy and make appointments, etc., is being put at risk by the failure of this Government. In particular, I refer to some of the comments made by the current Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, in which she spoke of compulsory and mandatory use of the card. The Government is raising a fear that data are not secure, and people are entitled to be assured that they are secure and properly regulated by law. There is mission creep in relation to the proposal for driving licence applications.
I want to reiterate to the House that we have the highest level of protection in place to ensure that citizens' information and private data are safe, secure and stored and regulated in accordance with data protection law. I am aware of the issues of concern that were raised in the second half of last year. That is why we have published the document I referred to a moment ago on the website of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. It explains to citizens how we are handling the various issues of concern. We have responded, and will continue to respond, to any matters of public concern and any observations or views that the Data Protection Commissioner may have.
In this strategic communications, spin-driven Government the Minister would be well advised to rethink what is happening reputationally to the public services card. It is extremely important to people who are using it, particularly our pensioners for their travelling needs, and others who are using it for a range of services. It is particularly important in terms of the €20 billion that is disbursed annually through the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.
An awful mess has been made of the proposal around the driving licence. The Minister has not explained to people what the advantage of doing this is, and he has not set out what the advantage could potentially be for people. Instead he has raised fears at a time when people are very alert to what companies such as Cambridge Analytica have been doing with their private data. It is on the record here, but given the emphasis this Government places on communications, the Minister has not communicated adequately to ordinary people that their data are secure, safe and private. They give their data to the Government for the purpose of Government transactions with them, and they are not to be used in any other context.
This is a Government of substance, contrary to what the Deputy has said. I look forward to seeing the latest round of changes to people's social welfare payments being made next week. It will assist people-----
The changes are three months late.
-----who are in need of support-----
I would not boast about social welfare payments.
-----and who deserve it. Only this morning-----
The payments are three months late. The Government is cheating people out of three months of payments.
-----the Central Bank of Ireland published the latest report on the progress that has been made in mortgage arrears. Contrary to what the Deputy said a moment ago, in many different areas we are making progress, but of course we always have to make more progress and have to deliver more. I am committed to playing my part in so doing.
I appreciate the support the Deputy has offered, on an ongoing basis, to this project, given the fact that as Minister for Social Protection, in the various social welfare Acts that she passed, the role of this card was recognised. We are dealing with matters of concern for the public, and that is why we have tried to communicate what the benefits are. At a time when there are such legitimate concerns about how we protect our digital identity and make sure information that people share is securely protected I would have thought that the rationale for the public services card has actually grown rather than been diminished.
10. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to maximise the impact of the European Structural and Investment Funds supports in the context of the challenges of Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10865/18]
14. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to negotiate additional PEACE IV funds for the existing programme and seek agreement for a new PEACE programme to address the challenges of inter-community conflict and cross-Border relationships in view of instability resulting from the Brexit withdrawal process. [8719/18]
15. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the steps he has taken to ensure Ireland, North and South, will continue to receive the maximum benefits from the Structural Funds programmes in the next period of the Cohesion Fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13219/18]
17. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the particular infrastructural needs of areas such as counties Cavan and Monaghan will be given priority consideration if Cohesion Funds become available post-2020 in view of the negative impacts Brexit will have on the Border region; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11329/18]
Will the Minister set out how the Government proposes to maximise the European Structural and Investment Funds supports in the context of the challenges of Brexit. I am particularly interested in the development of ports. No matter how the Border issue is resolved, we hope there will be no significant changes, but it has not yet been settled. It is clear, for instance, that ports such as Rosslare, Dublin and Cork must enjoy significant investment to allow more direct transport to the Continent.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 14, 15 and 17 together.
Ireland has been a significant beneficiary of Structural Funds throughout the 45 years of our EU membership. Of particular significance in the context of Brexit is the financial support there has been for the Border region of Ireland and Northern Ireland, with almost €2.4 billion of EU funding having been provided for successive PEACE and INTERREG programmes. The current programmes have a combined value of €550 million in the period 2014 to 2020, of which 85% is being funded through the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF.
The Government is firmly committed to the successful implementation of the current programmes, but more than that, we are committed to successor programmes post-2020. The PEACE and INTERREG programmes are important drivers of regional development in a cross-Border context. Through EU-funded co-operation, a range of Departments and agencies, North and South, have engaged in and benefited from a variety of cross-Border and cross-community projects. Support for the two programmes from the ERDF is not only an important source of funding but also a key element of the European Union's continuing commitment to the process of peace building and reconciliation in the region in the last quarter of a century. I was delighted, therefore, when December's agreed progress report between the European Union and the United Kingdom included a specific paragraph which reflected the Government's ambition to complete the current programmes and examine favourably the possibilities for future programmes. In its communication to the European Council that accompanied the progress report the European Commission commits itself to proposing the continuation of the programmes in its proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework, which is expected in May.
The four Deputies will have an opportunity to put two supplementary questions.
Will the Minister say what plans have been made to improve the investments in ports, particularly Dublin, Rosslare and Cork, over and beyond what is contained in the Ireland 2040 document? Notwithstanding all of the publicity around it, the document does not really explain in detail what the proposals are. Post-Brexit, we must have far more direct transportation links between Ireland and the European mainland because, no matter what happens, there will be problems at French ports, in travellling through England, as has been the tradition, and we do not know how the Border issue will be resolved and where, in effect, the Border will be. I accept that the European Union has shown goodwill towards Ireland in this respect, but we need to have it backed up by serious funding to improve our capacity to have direct shipments to mainland Europe, rather than have shipments via the United Kingdom.
I thank the Minister for his response. There are four priority areas within the PEACE programme which has been narrowed. They are shared education services for children and young people, shared spaces and services and building positive relations. As the Minister will be aware, PEACE programme funding has played a crucial role in the Six Counties and Border regions. In the light of Brexit, would it be feasible to broaden the range of projects included in the PEACE programme? There should be more priority areas covered by the programme. I would be grateful if the Minister looked into that matter.
I was going to say something similar. The European Commission will examine favourably future programmes and has committed to the continuation of existing programmes. While we are in the early days of discussions on the next round of the EU Cohesion Fund policy, we should be bringing forward concrete proposals to the Commission for additional programmes or areas to be covered. I wonder what ideas the Minister has in that regard or whether he will feed into the discussions. Particularly in the light of the scenario post-Brexit, it is important that we start that round of discussions as soon as possible.
The way the questions were grouped probably did not do justice to Deputy Joan Burton's question about the general application of EU funds, with particular reference to ports. Our colleagues asked questions about PEACE and INTERREG programmes funding. They relate to different matters.
To respond to the first question Deputy Joan Burton put to me about a focus on ports, the Ireland 2040 plan, in the section on connectivity, places a lot of attention on ports and how important they will be post-Brexit. In terms of from where funding will come to allow their development, it will come in one of two ways. Most of it will come from the resources available to ports, but, obviously, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport now has a five-year capital allocation to support important capital projects. Within the five-year window additional support could be made available to make progress on really important projects.
To respond to the questions put to me by Deputies Jonathan O'Brien and Carol Nolan on whether it is feasible to broaden the current range of priorities for funding, it is unlikely to happen because we have agreed to the projects and the funding stream for the current European Union programmes. We had to place a lot of attention on making sure the commitments we had made would be implemented. That was a real priority of mine in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit referendum result. It is unlikely that we will change the breadth of programmes or projects at this point. Where I am placing the majority of the focus of my Department is on what will take place. Regrettably, what we are looking at are equivalent programmes in what are referred to as "third countries" to see how or whether they offer a precedent for the development of programmes post-2020.
Has the Minister had discussions with the European Commission on additional allocations of funds for Ireland? Obviously, the status of Ireland, given its economic growth rate, etc., has changed. Nonetheless, Brexit will pose an enormous economic challenge to the country and also mean that access to our markets via the United Kingdom may no longer be as easy as it once was. We are hoping for the best, but, to be honest, we must plan for a situation where there may be far more direct trade involving a longer sea voyage and which may involve not using the United Kingdom to the same degree. Frankly, we know from scenes in places such as Calais that where large numbers of trucks roll off ferries, one needs very significant port infrastructure, much bigger than what is in place. I wonder whether the Minister has had conversations with the European Union on how we will manage. I could put similar questions about airports, but, to be honest, initially the most difficult part will probably involve ports.
In the light of Brexit and the challenges it poses for many communities in the context of instability and inter-community conflict, we need to seek extra funding or consider the possibility of a new PEACE programme being devised as a result of this threat.
Another way to deal with it would be to broaden the priority areas within the PEACE programme to ensure that they are adapting to the new conditions that will be imposed on communities under Brexit. We need additional PEACE funding and programmes to meet the challenges in those communities.
We have our work cut out for us to maintain what we have agreed. Considerable effort had to go into ensuring that the commitments made up to 2020 were met. It would be of great help to our efforts if the institutions of Northern Ireland were in place to assist us in this work. We are working directly with the special EU programmes body, SEUPB, which oversees the implementation of these programmes, to ensure that commitments we have are met. Our focus now has to be on whether when the UK leaves the EU these programmes will be maintained and if so where the money will come from to maintain them and what structures it will flow through. This is a very big question. I am committed, as I have said on several occasions, to coming up with a way in which we can maintain our commitment to these programmes because I have seen at first hand their valuable effect and would be very concerned if that work was not to continue.
In response to Deputy Burton, yes I have had discussions with the Commission about the kind of support Ireland may need as the UK leaves the EU. The nature of the support that we may need will depend on the form of the UK's exit. That is a matter of intense negotiation at the moment. It is one of the reasons I welcome the fact that we have a transition period in place to give more time for resolving and understanding these exceptionally serious matters.
11. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to review the status of pay inequality across the whole public sector in view of the shortage of teachers and health staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13010/18]
37. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether the shortages of staff across the public sector can be attributed to low pay and to pay inequality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13006/18]
The shocking record figures for people on trolleys over recent weeks were further evidence of an unacceptable crisis in the health service. Once again, nurses, doctors and medical experts said we need more beds and to have those we need more nurses. We also need more teachers. The Government cannot recruit them because it is not paying them properly and one of the problems is that new entrants are paid less.
As already discussed, I submitted a report examining the remaining salary scale issues in respect of post 2011 new entrants on Friday last. While I have outlined the proposed next steps on foot of the report, I would like to take this opportunity to share some of the findings in that report. The Deputy asks about low pay and whether this is resulting in staff shortages, particularly in health and education. It seems to be popular in some quarters to assert that the public service no longer represents an attractive career option, that there is a crisis in recruitment and a continuing focus on the difficulties within the public service.
My concern is that much of this can be counterproductive. The truth is that the public service is a good employer by any objective measurement. Public service offers a comprehensive set of terms and conditions, flexible working arrangements, decent pension provisions, fair wages that increase over time and secure employment. While public service is a career choice, and people who serve are highly motivated by the public good, the competitiveness of the package on offer can be seen in the strong level of recruitment that this report has highlighted.
Headline public service numbers already show a high level of recruitment of over 29,000 since 2013. However, this is the growth in the overall public service and as such it does not capture recruitment "below the line", replacing retirements and leavers.
The report I submitted last Friday, however, sheds light on this, revealing that over 60,500 people have been recruited in the "new entrant" grades since 2011. This represents almost a fifth of the current public service including over 16,000 teachers, 5,000 special needs assistants and almost 10,000 nurses.
The problem is that in many cases, and certainly in nursing, as many nurses are leaving as are being recruited. I had a long conversation with Phil Ní Sheaghdha of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, last week who pointed out that in 2016 the State recruited 2,573 nurses but 2,271 left in the same period. The net recruitment for the health service where there is a dire capacity problem and we need thousands more nurses, is a tiny few more. She pointed out that in 2008 someone at point 1 on the staff nurse scale got €31,875 a year. Today, almost ten years later, that person gets €28,768, almost €3,000 less when accommodation costs have gone through the roof. Someone at point 5 earned €38,000 in 2008 but today earns €34,000. Is it any wonder we cannot recruit the nurses - I have not even begun to discuss the teachers – if their wages are less than they were ten years ago and the cost of living has gone through the roof?
What the Deputy does not take account of is the fact that there have been significant increases in recruitment, including in frontline services since 2011. He referred to a recruitment crisis. I point to the fact that over 60,000 more public servants have been recruited.
In response to his concerns about salary levels and retention he does not take account of the fact that we are in the early part of a new three-year collective agreement. I remember when the Deputy challenged me in the House to say collective agreements would be undermined, that it would be very difficult to maintain them in the future. As of this week there is a collective agreement for three years that virtually all unions or representative bodies in this country are either in or associated with. That agreement is in place to deliver wage growth for our public servants. That is why the Public Service Pay Commission is specifically inquiring into nursing and will report in the summer.
Some unions signed up to those agreements because they thought they were the best they could get but they are not happy about it. Many unions did not sign up to those agreements because they consider it completely unacceptable to have a pay apartheid whereby people who happen to be recruited after 2011 and 2012, and who over the course of their lifetime will earn maybe €100,000 less than somebody doing exactly the same job just because they happen to be recruited afterwards. That is the difference between being able to buy a house and not. Nurses, teachers and others working in the public service are part of the housing crisis, whereas decades ago, in the 1970s, a teacher or a nurse could at least hope to get a mortgage and buy a house. Is it any wonder that there is a capacity problem in the health service and we are having difficulty getting teachers? The Minister can quote all the figures he likes but there are shortages. That is why the Government cannot open the beds. The Minister for Health has acknowledged this.
I can quote all the figures I want, to quote the Deputy, because these are the figures. These are the changes, these are facts.
What about all the ones who are leaving?
This is what has happened. The report takes account of change that has happened as people exit.
However, when I put facts to the Deputy he dismisses them if they do not fit into his narrative. We recognise the contribution our public servants have made and the concerns that exist, in particular in regard to our health service where we now have a specific module of work under way. The Public Service Pay Commission will report during the summer. In respect of hospital beds, I have accepted the capacity report on acute hospital bed provision published by the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, some weeks ago. It lays out the need for an additional 2,300 hospital beds within our public service. We will make progress across the coming budgets in delivering those additional beds.
