Written Answers Nos. 226-232
226. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if the impartial function of the independent Low Pay Commission in conducting its evidence-based work is in question, given the wage targets set out in the programme for Government; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13981/16]
View answerThe independence of the Low Pay Commission is firmly established in the National Minimum Wage (Low Pay Commission) Act 2015 (the Act). The Commission can only operate in accordance with that statutory remit and make recommendations to the Minister in accordance with the criteria that are clearly and explicitly set out in the Act.
227. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 were complied with in the closure of an organisation (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13982/16]
View answerAuthorised officers have sought information from a number of parties in relation to the collective redundancies that took place on 12 June 2015, pursuant to the appointment of a provisional liquidator to OCS Operations Limited. The work of the authorised officers relates to the application of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 (as amended) to the collective redundancies in question. That Act imposes a number of obligations on employers who are contemplating collective redundancies, including an obligation to consult with employees (section 9) and an obligation to provide certain information to employees for the purpose of section 9 consultations (section 10). The work of the authorised officers is ongoing. In this regard the Deputy may be aware from media reports that one of the parties from whom the authorised officers sought information initiated proceedings in the High Court challenging the powers of the authorised officers. The High Court is due to consider the matter further on 7 July.
On a separate note, the Deputy may be aware from media reports that in July 2015 over 60 former Clerys workers, represented by their respective trade unions SIPTU and Mandate, made complaints to the Rights Commissioner Service under the Protection of Employment Act 1977 (as amended) and that in January 2016 they were awarded compensation by a Rights Commissioner in respect of their complaints. The Rights Commissioner Service was under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, prior to the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1st October 2015. The service acted independently in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function. Hearings heard under the auspices of a Rights Commissioner were heard in private, and in accordance with the relevant legislation their decisions or recommendations were issued to both parties and/or their representative(s), but were not published.
228. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if sections 224, 599, 608 and 621 of the Companies Act 2014 were complied with in the closure of an organisation (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13983/16]
View answerThe duty of directors under section 224 of the Companies Act 2014 is owed to the company and the company alone and is enforceable in the same way as any other fiduciary duty owed to a company by its directors. The mechanism for the enforcement of directors’ fiduciary duties is through a court action.
Section 599 of the Act provides that, on the application of the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of a company that is being wound up, the court, if satisfied that it just and equitable to do so, having regard to the provisions of the section, may make an order that a related company contribute to the debts of the company being wound up. I understand that the Minister for Social Protection is currently considering how the provisions of the Companies Act 2014, including section 599, might be used to recover the moneys expended from the Social Insurance Fund. My Department is not a creditor of the company concerned and would have no locus standi in this regard.
Section 608 confers a power on the court, again on the application of the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of a company that is being wound up, to order the delivery of property or the proceeds of sale of property to the liquidator. My Department is not a creditor of the company concerned and would have no locus standi to bring an action in this regard.
The liquidator has a duty under section 624 to administer the property of a company to which he or she is appointed. This duty includes the realisation and distribution of the assets of a company in accordance with law. Section 621 sets out the order of priority of payments of debts in a winding up. The section provides that each type of debt ranks equally among itself and, where the assets of a company are insufficient to meet such debts in full, the debts abate in equal proportions. The liquidator in a winding up by the court is an officer of the court.
Ultimately it will be a matter for the court to determine in any particular case brought before it if the relevant law has been complied with.
229. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if a child born in December 2012 will be entitled to two years in the free early childhood care and education scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13974/16]
View answerIn Budget 2016, my Department announced a significant expansion to pre-school provision under the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme. This measure, which will be introduced from September 2016, means that children will be eligible to start free pre-school when they reach the age of 3, and continue to avail of free pre-school until they start primary school (once the child is not older than 5½ years at the end of the pre-school year i.e. end June). Following the introduction of the expanded programme there will be three opportunities each year - in September, January and April - for eligible children to enrol for the free pre-school provision. This will ensure that children aged 3 or over have the opportunity to enrol as soon as possible after their third birthday. The maximum number of free pre-school weeks to which a child is entitled will depend on their date of birth, and the age at which they start primary school.
The expansion of the ECCE programme will see the number of children benefitting from the Programme rise from around 67,000 to around 127,000 in a given programme year. For the 2016/17 programme year, it is estimated that 89,500 children will be eligible to enrol in the Programme from September 2016, an additional 22,000 from January 2017 and a further 15,500 from April 2017. Accommodating this expansion requires a significant increase in capacity in the pre-school sector; providers need time to implement any needed infrastructural or services changes, or to hire additional staff. The September 2016 implementation date was set to allow pre-school providers to put such measures in place. Should an earlier start date have been chosen, the likelihood is that there would not have been sufficient capacity in the sector to accommodate all children.
In addition, an upper age limit for participation in free pre-school was set by the Inter-Departmental Group on Future Investment on the advice of the Department of Education and Skills. Limiting the diversity in age ranges in primary school is considered to be generally in the best interest of children, in relation to peer interaction in junior infants, as well as other educational considerations. This does mean that different children will spend different lengths of time in free pre-school, but our focus throughout in considering these issues was how to achieve the best outcomes for children.
A child born in December 2012 is eligible to enrol in free pre-school, under the ECCE scheme in September 2016 as this is the earliest entry point after the child’s third birthday. They will not be eligible to enrol again in September 2017 as the child would be over the upper age limit of 5½ years at the end of the 2016/2017 pre-school year (i.e. June 2017).
230. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the names and experience of those persons recently appointed to the board of management of Oberstown detention centre, County Dublin; the number of applicants for these positions via the stateboards.ie website; the criteria she used to determine eligibility for appointment; the number of applicants recommended for consideration by the Public Appointments Service; if the service recommended each member who was appointed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13975/16]
View answerI have authority under section 164 of the Children Act 2001 to appoint the board of management for the Oberstown Children Detention Campus. I have recently appointed a new board with effect from 1 June 2016 on the basis of the statutory provisions of the Children Act 2001 and in addition, the 2014 Guidelines on Appointments to State Boards.
Section 167 of the Children Act 2001 contains a statutory requirement that the board include a chairperson and twelve other members, to include at least:
- one officer of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs;
- one employee of Tusla, nominated by the Minister for Health and Children;
- one officer of the Minister for Education and Science nominated by that Minister;
- two members of the staff of the children detention school or schools under the board’s management;
- and two representatives of persons living in the area of one or more than one of such schools.
Public expressions of interest via the stateboards.ie website were invited under the 2014 guidelines for state boards for the remaining five board positions on the basis of candidates having significant professional experience in human resource management, financial management, law or youth work. Fifty-five expressions of interest were received. An independent assessment panel convened by the Public Appointments Service reviewed the applications in February 2016 and submitted fifteen names for the consideration of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.
I have confirmed the appointment announced by my predecessor of Professor Ursula Kilkelly of the School of Law, University College Cork to the position of chairperson of the new Oberstown board. Professor Kilkelly was originally appointed to the Oberstown board by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in February 2012.
I have also made the following appointments:
- Mr Jim Gibson, Interim Chief Operations Officer in Tusla, who was recently nominated by the Minister for Health;
- Ms Fionnuala Anderson, Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board was nominated by Minister for Education and Skills in November 2015;
- Mr Fiachra Barrett and Ms Sinead O’Herlihy are both employees on the Oberstown campus and were identified for appointment to the board on foot of a local balloting process by Oberstown staff in December 2015;
- Mr Pat Rooney and Ms Elizabeth Howard are local residents in the vicinity of the Oberstown campus and were nominated by Lusk Community Council, a local community group in November 2015 for reappointment to the board;
- Mr Dan Kelleher is an officer in my Department and was reappointed to the Oberstown board;
- Mr Michael Farrell, Corporate Secretary, University College Cork;
- Mr Charles Irwin, Accountant to the Professional Development Service for Teachers, Dublin;
- Mr Diego Gallagher, solicitor with Byrne Wallace Solicitors, Dublin (who was reappointed from the previous board);
- Ms Emer Woodfull, Barrister at Law, Dublin;
- and Ms Fiona Murphy, Service Coordinator, Extern, Dublin. Extern is a charitable organization which provides services to children assessed as being high risk requiring intensive community based support.
Mr Farrell, Mr Irwin, Mr Gallagher, Ms Woodfull and Ms Murphy were appointed on foot of the stateboards.ie process.
I look forward to working with the new board to ensure continued safe and secure custody for children and a safe working environment for staff on the Oberstown campus.
231. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will investigate if the human rights of members of the Defence Forces are breached when a choice of malaria prophylaxis is denied to them and they are required to take Lariam, given that a choice of malaria prophylaxis is available to all other citizens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13917/16]
View answerI do not consider actions taken to protect the health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces are a breach of their human rights. As the Deputy will be aware, there are three anti-malarial drugs in use by the Defence Forces, namely Lariam (mefloquine), Malarone and Doxycycline. The choice of medication for overseas deployment, including the use of Lariam, is a medical decision which is made by Medical Officers in the Irish Defence Forces, having regard to the specific circumstances of the mission and the individual member of the Irish Defence Forces.
Significant precautions are taken by Irish Defence Forces Medical Officers in assessing the medical suitability of members of our Defence Forces to take any of the anti-malarial medications. It is the policy of the Irish Defence Forces that personnel are individually screened for fitness for service overseas and medical suitability. The objective is to ensure that our military personnel can have effective protection from the very serious risks posed by malaria.
232. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of training field days held for the Reserve Defence Force; the number of units that participated; the number of members in those units in each of the years 2013 to 2016 to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13965/16]
View answerUnfortunately it has not proved possible to compile the information requested in the time available. My officials are working with the military authorities to obtain the information and I will forward it to the Deputy as soon as it is available.
