Written Answers Nos. 98-103
98. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the contracts a person's businesses and-or subsidiaries (details supplied) have with his Department; the value of these contracts; their length; and the other companies who entered the tendering process that resulted in this person's companies winning the contract. [12352/15]
View answerIn order to provide a considered reply, the Deputy will need to provide clarity as to what information is required. If the Deputy wishes to be more specific as to which particular companies are the subject of the information being sought, my Department will arrange to have such information made available. The Deputy may wish to note that my Department publishes on a quarterly basis details of purchase orders made in excess of €20,000. These details are available on the Department's website – www.defence.ie.
99. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Defence the average age of chairpersons and non-executive directors of State or partially owned State companies, of State bodies, of semi-State bodies and of State agencies under the aegis of his Department on the State's payroll; the number of directors on the board of more than one such body; the number of women; and his plans to make savings from this area. [12554/15]
View answer100. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Defence the total number of chairpersons and non-executive directors of State or partially owned State companies, of State bodies, of semi-State bodies and of State agencies under the aegis of his Department on the State's payroll; the total cost to the State from the payout to these non-executive directors including fees, travel and other expenditure; and his plans to reduce the number of these chairpersons or directors. [12604/15]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 99 and 100 together.
The only body under the aegis of my Department is the Army Pensions Board. The Army Pensions Board is an independent statutory body established under the Army Pensions Act, 1927. The Act specifies that the Board shall consist of a chairman and two ordinary members. The two ordinary members must be qualified medical practitioners of whom one must be an officer of the Army Medical Corps. The chairman and the non military ordinary member are appointed by the Minister for Defence with the agreement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The Army Medical Corps ordinary member is appointed by the Minister for Defence on the recommendation of the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces. There is one female member of the Army Pensions Board.
There are no payroll costs in relation to the Army Pensions Board other than the annual fee of €7,618 payable to the chairman. The only expenses payable to the members of the Board are travel and subsistence expenses in accordance with Department of Public Expenditure and Reform guidelines. The total such expenses paid to Board members in 2014 amounted to €8,747.
The average age of members of the Army Pensions Board is 53. In relation to the specific question on the average age of Chairpersons, the Army Pensions Board is the only Board under the aegis of my Department and accordingly, the Deputy will appreciate that for Data Protection reasons I am not in a position to provide the details requested.
There are no plans to reduce the number of members of the Army Pensions Board.
101. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the cost of providing two additional weeks of paternity leave in a full year; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12214/15]
View answerPaternity leave is generally a short period of leave specifically for the father taken around the time of the birth of the child. Currently there is no statutory provision for paternity leave however a number of employers, including the public service, provide a small numbers of days leave usually 3/5 days.
There are two aspects to the question of costing paternity leave. The first is the cost of a possible social welfare paternity benefit, which is a matter for my colleague the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection. The second is the gross cost to the national payroll of such a new leave allowance for employees. The gross cost to employers of the introduction of 2 weeks paternity leave would depend on a number of factors, primarily the take up rate and also average rates of pay. There were 67,000 live births in 2014. Allowing for multiple births, this gives a maximum of 64,500 potential qualifying fathers. Average weekly earnings in the last quarter of 2014 were €704 per week. Assuming that 10% of new fathers are unemployed, the gross payroll value if all eligible fathers availed of the leave would be in the order of some €40 million per week of paternity leave, out of a total weekly payroll cost of €1.114 billion (again using Q4 2014 figures). This is of course the value of salary and wages of fathers eligible to take paternity leave but not the cost of paternity leave. Additional costs for employers would depend on take up and would only arise when individual employees are replaced during absences on paternity leave. However, experience in other jurisdictions is that full take up of a new paternity leave allowance is unlikely. For example, in the UK some 50% of fathers avail of their full paternity leave entitlement. It should also be noted that many employers already make some allowance for paternity leave. In the civil service, 3 days paid leave are currently available.
102. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on a murder case (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12195/15]
View answerI refer the Deputy to my reply to his Question No. 424 of 24 March 2015.
As I have indicated to the Deputy previously, I met with family members of the victim to whom the Deputy refers and their legal representative to hear their concerns about aspects of the Garda investigation of the murder of their loved one and their call for an inquiry. I also committed to consider the family's request on the basis of information which they furnished to me. The case at hand was one of those inquired into by the late Mr. Justice Henry Barron and examined subsequently by a sub-committee of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.
I have had a review of the material which the family provided to me and other available material regarding this murder carried out and I wrote to the family recently setting out my conclusion that I could not recommend the establishment of a Commission of Investigation in this case and detailing my reasoning in this regard. I understand that the Deputy has a copy of the letter and is aware of the details.
In summary, in the circumstances where an independent judicial inquiry had already been carried out which focused in great detail on the Garda investigation and found that it could not advance the issues to a conclusive outcome; where an Oireachtas committee had carried out an examination of these same issues, including public hearings, and found also that it could not conclusively address questions relating to the investigation; and where a public apology for identified failings in the investigation was made to the family by former Garda Commissioners and a former Justice Minister, I could not conclude that the issues relating to the Garda investigation could be addressed any more conclusively now than they have been already.
I would note in addition that the Garda Síochána carried out a full review of the original investigation and the original evidence and submitted a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions who directed that no prosecution should be brought.
I regret that my decision in this case is, inevitably, a disappointment for the family. There can be no doubt that the brutal murder of this innocent man by a gunman caused untold grief to his family and friends, and I convey my sympathy once again to them on their loss.
The Deputy will be aware that dealing with the legacy of the troubles on this island is difficult. The Stormont House Agreement sets out a series of useful measures to put in place an overarching framework to deal with the past. The Government is fully committed to playing its part in implementing those measures and I hope they may provide an opportunity for the families of persons killed during the troubles to access further information.
103. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide a breakdown, based on each District Court, of the number of drivers in each month of 2014, and to date in 2015, who were before the District Court for offences under the Road Traffic Acts, incurring penalty points but who avoided convictions and penalty points because they agreed to make a donation to the court poor box. [12198/15]
View answerThe court poor box is a non-statutory system used mostly by the District Courts to impose a financial charge on a defendant to be used for a charitable purpose, usually instead of imposing a criminal conviction. Payments made to the court poor box are accounted for by the court office concerned and the accounting procedures are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Generally, charities are the recipients of poor box contributions but the decision is solely at the discretion of the Judge who is independent in the matter of sentencing, as in other matters concerning the exercise of judicial functions, subject only to the Constitution and the law.
In order to be of assistance to the Deputy, I have had made enquiries about the number of defendants recorded on the Courts Service Criminal Case Tracking System (CCTS) who were before the court for offences under the Road Traffic Act incurring penalty points for each month of 2014 and to March 2015 and the outcome of whose cases involved payments to the Court Poor Box. I am arranging for a table to be provided to the Deputy.
