Written Answers Nos. 123-142
123. Deputy Mary Butler asked the Minister for Education and Skills if there is a school development plan for Waterford city and county to adapt to the growing needs for school places in line with population trends; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15573/19]
View answerAs the Deputy will be aware, in April 2018, the Government announced plans for the establishment of 42 new schools over the next four years (2019 to 2022). This announcement follows nationwide, demographic exercises carried out by my Department into the future need for primary and post-primary schools across the country and the 4-year horizon will enable increased lead-in times for planning and delivery of the necessary infrastructure.
Where demographic data indicates that additional provision is required, the delivery of such additional provision is dependent on the particular circumstances of each case and may, depending on the circumstances, be provided through either one, or a combination of, the following:
- Utilising existing unused capacity within a school or schools,
- Extending the capacity of a school or schools,
- Provision of a new school or schools.
While the announcement did not include a new school for Waterford, the requirement for new schools will be kept under on-going review and in particular will have regard for the increased rollout of housing provision as outlined in Project Ireland 2040.
Major new residential developments in a school planning area have the potential to alter demand in that area. In that regard, as part of the demographic exercises, my Department engages with each of the local authorities to obtain the up-to-date data on significant new residential development in each area. This is necessary to ensure that schools infrastructure planning is keeping pace with demographic changes as there is a constantly evolving picture with planned new residential development, including additional residential developments arising from the Local Infrastructure Housing Activation Fund (LIHAF). As with other school planning areas nationwide, the demographic data for the school planning areas in Waterford is being kept under ongoing review by my Department to take account of updated data.
As the Deputy may be aware, my Department is included among the prescribed bodies to whom local authorities are statutorily obliged to send draft development and local area plans or proposed variations to development plans for comment and observations. This enables local authorities to reserve future school sites in areas designated for proposed housing development. My Department is currently engaged with the Waterford City and County Council in relation to population development around the Waterford City area.
My Department’s capital programme prioritises building projects for areas where significant additional school places are required. Details of the current status of the 5 major school projects (primary and post-primary) in County Waterford that are included on the capital programme may be viewed on my Department’s website www.education.gov.ie.
124. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Minister for Education and Skills the status of a matter regarding the proposed amalgamation of schools (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15587/19]
View answerAs the Deputy is aware the decision making authority for any amalgamation is the Patron/Trustees of the schools, and this is subject to the approval of my Department.
Any proposed amalgamation involves extensive negotiations at local level and must be well planned and managed in a manner that accommodates the interests of students, parents, teachers, local communities and contributes to an inclusive education system.
My Department is aware of a proposal from the Patron body and has sought further information in relation to the proposed amalgamation. On receipt of this information further consideration will be given to the proposal.
125. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Education and Skills if there is a pathway for an application (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15591/19]
View answerInstitutes of Technology are autonomous institutions within the meaning of the Institutes of Technology Acts 1992 to 2006. The management of their academic affairs including admissions criteria are matters for the individual institution concerned and the student should contact the relevant institution directly.
126. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Minister for Education and Skills when a new school building will be provided for a school (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15592/19]
View answerThe major building project referred to by the Deputy is at an advanced stage of architectural planning, Stage 2(b) - Detailed Design, which includes the application for statutory approvals and the preparation of tender documents. All statutory approvals have been secured.
The Design Team is currently finalising the design to ensure that the new school building is a Near Zero Energy Building (NZEB) in compliance with the 2017 amendment to Part L of the current Building Regulations. The Design Team will then complete the tender documents and submit the Stage 2(b) report to my Department.
Upon receipt and review of the Stage 2(b) submission, my Department will revert to the Board of Management regarding the progression of the project.
127. Deputy Catherine Martin asked the Minister for Education and Skills when the patronage process will be opened for the new secondary school for Greystones and Kilcoole which was announced in April 2018 and is to be opened in 2021; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15594/19]
View answerAs the Deputy will be aware, in April 2018, the Government announced plans for the establishment of 42 new schools over the next four years (2019 to 2022), including a new post-primary school (to be established in 2021) to serve the Kilcoole & Greystones school planning areas as a regional solution. This announcement follows nationwide, demographic exercises carried out by my Department into the future need for primary and post-primary schools across the country and the 4-year horizon will enable increased lead-in times for planning and delivery of the necessary infrastructure.
A patronage process is run after it has been decided, based on demographic analysis, that a new school is required. This patronage process is open to all patron bodies and prospective patrons. Parental preferences for each patron, from parents of children who reside in the school planning areas concerned, together with the extent of diversity currently available in these areas, are key to decisions in relation to the outcome of this process.
The patronage process for new schools is overseen by an external independent advisory group, the New Schools Establishment Group (NSEG). Following their consideration of my Department’s assessment reports, the NSEG submits a report with recommendations to me for consideration and final decision. The assessment reports and the NSEG recommendations for all such patronage processes are made available on my Department's website.
An Online Patronage Process System (OPPS) has been developed by my Department to provide objective information to all parents which will allow them to make an informed choice about their preferred model of patronage for their child’s education. Parental preferences were previously collected based on direct engagement with patron bodies.
The patronage processes for the new primary and post-primary schools to be established in 2019 are complete and the patronage process for the remaining schools, including the school referred to by the Deputy, will also be run at a later date, significantly ahead of their due opening. Updates in relation to further patronage processes will be announced on the OPPS website and the Department’s website (www.education.ie).
128. Deputy Catherine Martin asked the Minister for Education and Skills when a planning application for a new school (details supplied) in Dublin 15 will be submitted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15600/19]
View answerA major building project for the school referred to by the Deputy is included in the Department’s 6 year Construction Programme. The project when complete will provide for a 1,000 pupil and a 4 classroom Special Needs Unit.
The project will be delivered under the Department's Design & Build Programme. This delivery programme uses a professional external Project Manager to progress the project through the relevant stages of architectural planning and construction.
A tender competition to establish a Project Manager framework is nearing completion.
129. Deputy Catherine Martin asked the Minister for Education and Skills the situation regarding the building project for a new school (details supplied) in Dublin 15; if capital funding has been ring-fenced; when the new building will be open; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15601/19]
View answerA major building project for the school referred to by the Deputy is included in my Department’s 6 year Construction Programme. The project when complete will provide for a 1,000 pupil and a 4 classroom Special Needs Unit.
The school will be delivered under my Department's Design & Build Programme. This delivery programme uses a professional external Project Manager to progress the project through the relevant stages of architectural planning and construction.
A tender competition to establish a Project Manager framework is nearing completion. When appointed, the Project Manager will lodge an application for Planning Permission and progress the project through the relevant stages of architectural planning, tender and construction.
130. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of atypical scheme permits for non-EU migrant fishers renewed in 2018; and the number issued in total. [15569/19]
View answerI am advised by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) of my Department that a total of 130 permissions for seafarers were renewed in 2018 under the Atypical Scheme operated by the Irish Naturalisation & Immigration Service.
I am further advised by INIS that since the inception of the Scheme in 2016, to date a total of 246 individuals permissions have been subject to renewal procedures under the provisions of the Scheme.
131. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the amount spent on gardaí at an event (details supplied). [15613/19]
View answerAs the Deputy will appreciate, there has been an unprecedented level of investment in Garda resources across the State in recent years. The budgetary allocation to An Garda Síochána for 2019 amounts to €1.76 billion.
In accordance with the Garda Síochána Act 2005 as amended, the Garda Commissioner is responsible for managing and controlling the administration and business of An Garda Síochána and for the allocation of Garda resources, in light of his identified operational demands. As such, decisions in relation to the effective and efficient use of resources are also a matter for the Commissioner. As Minister, I have no direct role in these matters. I understand that Garda management keeps the distribution of resources under continual review in the context of crime trends and policing priorities, so as to ensure their optimum use.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the costs incurred by An Garda Síochána for policing at the September 2018 event referred to by the Deputy amounted to approximately €7,610 (rounded). Of this total, I am advised that €6,080 was spent on overtime and approximately €1,530 was spent on Travel & Subsistence.
132. Deputy Stephen Donnelly asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the status of the implementation of the prompt payment code across the HSE; if it is being delayed; if so, the reason for the delay; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15664/19]
View answerUnder the European Late Payment in Commercial Transactions Regulations public authorities must pay for the goods or services they procure within 30 calendar days of receipt of a valid invoice. Failure to do so incurs late payment interest. In addition to late payment interest, a supplier is entitled to obtain a minimum fixed amount of €40 as compensation for recovery costs. With the development of the Prompt Payment Code, Ireland went one step further, requiring public authorities to pay for goods and services within 15 days.
In 2017 formal arrangements were put in place to augment the existing operation of Prompt Payments Code in line with the Government’s commitment to address the issue of late payment, to provide cash flow certainty to small business and to aid the creation and maintenance of jobs. This included a commitment that public sector bodies would pay late payment interest and compensation costs automatically after 30 days without an obligation on the provider to request such a payment.
At that time, it was agreed to grant the Health Service Executive (HSE) a derogation for a period of two years from the commitment to automatic payment of compensation costs. The purpose of this derogation was to enable the reconfiguration of the HSE financial systems.
This derogation could not and did not exclude the HSE from its statutory obligation to pay, on foot of a claim from a supplier, late payment interest and compensation costs in cases where payment has been made outside the statutory limit. The derogation relates only to automatic payment of interest.
Based on a business case submitted by the HSE outlining the progress it has already made, and its commitment for future progress in developing standard payment processes, the Government has decided to grant approval for the extension of the derogation by a further two years.
The HSE remains obliged to engage with the reporting requirements under Prompt Payments Code and to report to the Department of Health on its payment performance.
133. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the number of applications to the innovation voucher scheme of Enterprise Ireland, by county, in each of the years 2010 to 2018, inclusive; the number of eligible and ineligible applications, respectively; the funds allocated to the scheme in each such year, including to date in 2019; and the amount subsequently expended in each year, in tabular form. [15665/19]
View answerThe Enterprise Ireland Innovation Voucher Initiative was introduced in 2007 in order to drive an on-going innovation culture shift within small enterprise by promoting and encouraging knowledge transfer between Ireland’s public knowledge providers and the small business community and creating greater synergies between the two. Under the initiative, vouchers worth €5,000 are allocated to small businesses whose proposals to work with public knowledge providers on specific innovation issues meet certain criteria.
The Innovation Voucher Programme has been running successfully since its inception and it is planned to continue the programme as long as the demand justifies it and it continues to meet a need in the small business sector.
It is not possible to supply numbers of all applications for vouchers as only those that pass basic eligibility criteria are recorded on Enterprise Ireland’s database. Vouchers are awarded following a review of both the eligibility of the applicant and the proposed research question and typically about 80% of applications are successful. The main reasons for applications failing to be approved are; non-eligibility of the applicant, insufficient information, ineligible activity and low levels of innovation.
The number of innovation vouchers awarded by county in each of the years 2010 to 2018 is set out in the following table.
|
County |
2018 |
2017 |
2016 |
2015 |
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
|
Carlow |
34 |
20 |
17 |
31 |
20 |
29 |
11 |
9 |
19 |
|
Cavan |
19 |
18 |
11 |
18 |
14 |
16 |
8 |
10 |
14 |
|
Clare |
13 |
14 |
21 |
16 |
13 |
12 |
25 |
15 |
21 |
|
Cork |
125 |
127 |
97 |
122 |
108 |
119 |
67 |
64 |
92 |
|
Donegal |
28 |
17 |
19 |
40 |
22 |
35 |
19 |
32 |
26 |
|
Dublin City & County |
215 |
217 |
220 |
256 |
239 |
278 |
259 |
227 |
230 |
|
Galway |
54 |
62 |
37 |
55 |
52 |
57 |
60 |
55 |
57 |
|
Kerry |
26 |
16 |
18 |
14 |
26 |
29 |
19 |
20 |
24 |
|
Kildare |
28 |
28 |
26 |
34 |
26 |
24 |
21 |
18 |
15 |
|
Kilkenny |
37 |
30 |
32 |
35 |
50 |
36 |
10 |
24 |
16 |
|
Laois |
7 |
9 |
5 |
4 |
12 |
11 |
6 |
5 |
14 |
|
Leitrim |
<5 |
5 |
5 |
9 |
9 |
13 |
10 |
<5 |
12 |
|
Limerick |
35 |
40 |
30 |
32 |
32 |
32 |
46 |
34 |
26 |
|
Longford |
7 |
5 |
7 |
5 |
11 |
<5 |
5 |
<5 |
6 |
|
Louth |
23 |
23 |
21 |
29 |
18 |
18 |
17 |
19 |
29 |
|
Mayo |
26 |
29 |
16 |
27 |
24 |
22 |
18 |
19 |
19 |
|
Meath |
31 |
22 |
17 |
15 |
17 |
18 |
12 |
8 |
15 |
|
Monaghan |
7 |
13 |
11 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
13 |
12 |
10 |
|
Offaly |
11 |
12 |
12 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
10 |
18 |
14 |
|
Roscommon |
13 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
15 |
9 |
11 |
16 |
10 |
|
Sligo |
26 |
25 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
13 |
11 |
19 |
15 |
|
Tipperary |
35 |
39 |
31 |
34 |
23 |
36 |
14 |
11 |
21 |
|
Waterford |
42 |
82 |
76 |
63 |
64 |
76 |
40 |
35 |
76 |
|
Westmeath |
8 |
<5 |
17 |
11 |
11 |
20 |
10 |
25 |
22 |
|
Wexford |
47 |
54 |
45 |
33 |
42 |
55 |
28 |
28 |
23 |
|
Wicklow |
16 |
26 |
27 |
23 |
27 |
33 |
17 |
18 |
27 |
Applications are initially assessed by Enterprise Ireland against the following criteria:
- Whether the company is a limited company
- That the company in question does not have a current “Active” Voucher
- That the company has not received more than the maximum number of Vouchers permitted. The maximum number of vouchers per company is three, one of which must be a co-funded voucher between Enterprise Ireland and the company.
- That the company has received less than €300k funding from Enterprise Ireland in the previous 5 years.
- De minimus rule – ensures that the company has received less than €200k of State funding in the previous 3 years as per EU State Aid rules.
If the application satisfies the above eligibility criteria the application proceeds to an evaluation. The evaluation of the application must demonstrate that the proposed activity requires an innovative solution which will have additional value and on-going benefits for the company. Each application is assessed against an agreed list of eligible and ineligible activities. The full list of eligible and ineligible activities is available on the Enterprise Ireland website at www.innovationvouchers.ie.
The value of the innovation vouchers issued each year and the value of the vouchers redeemed in each of the years since 2010 is set out in the following table.
|
Year |
Value of IV’s issued €m |
Value of IVs redeemed €m |
|
2010 |
4.3 |
2.6 |
|
2011 |
3.8 |
2.6 |
|
2012 |
3.8 |
2.5 |
|
2013 |
5.0 |
2.5 |
|
2014 |
4.5 |
2.6 |
|
2015 |
4.7 |
2.5 |
|
2016 |
4.2 |
2.9 |
|
2017 |
4.7 |
2.7 |
|
2018 |
4.6 |
2.7 |
|
2019, to April 2nd |
1.3 |
0.7 |
134. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the recourse persons have due to consumer protection regulations with respect to car rental companies charging different customers for the same pre-existing damage while forgoing to repair the vehicle (details supplied); and the number of related complaints submitted to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission relating to such car rental issues in each of the years 2014 to 2018, and to date in 2019, in tabular form. [15666/19]
View answerThe Deputy will appreciate that only the courts can authoritatively interpret and determine statutory provisions. The Consumer Protection Act 2007 which gives effect to Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair
Commercial Practices provides in section 43 that a commercial practice is misleading if, first, it involves the provision of false information, or would be likely to cause the average consumer to be deceived or misled, in relation to a range of matters, including the usage or prior history of a product, the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on a product, and the need for any part, replacement, servicing or repair in relation to a product, and, secondly, it would be likely to cause the average consumer to make a purchasing decision that he or she would not otherwise make. Section 46 of the Act further provides that a commercial practice is misleading if the trader omits or conceals material information that the average consumer would need in order to make an informed purchasing decision and the practice would be likely to cause the average consumer to make a purchasing decision that he or she would not otherwise make.
The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) is the statutory independent body responsible for the enforcement of domestic and EU consumer law in the State, including the enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 in relation to commercial practices in the car rental sector. Section 9 (5) of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 provides that the CCPC is independent in the performance of its functions. As investigations and enforcement matters generally are part of the day-to-day operational work of the Commission, I, as Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, have no direct function in the matter.
If the Deputy has specific information that a car rental company is engaging, or has engaged, in the practice referred to in his question, he should submit that information to the CCPC.
As much of the car rental by consumers occurs outside their country of residence and as the main companies engaged in car rental operate on a trans-national basis, action to tackle anti-consumer practices in the car rental sector needs also to be undertaken on an EU-wide basis. In response to an increase in complaints from consumers about car rental, in 2015 the European Commission and national consumer protection authorities in EU Member States, including the CCPC, engaged, through a common position, with the five leading car rental companies with a view to securing better compliance with EU consumer protection legislation. The five companies - Avis, Europcar, Enterprise, Hertz and Sixt - account for around two-thirds of all private car rentals in the EU. As a result of this engagement, the companies gave commitments on their commercial practices in a number of areas, including the procedures for inspection of vehicle damage and for handling of damage claims. The European Commission and the national consumer authorities agreed that they would continue to monitor the car rental sector closely. In March 2019, following further engagement with the national consumer protection authorities and the European Commission, the five main car rental companies agreed to change the way they present car rental prices in order to make them more transparent for consumers. These changes include a commitment to make clear in price offers the price and details of optional extras, in particular the insurance waivers that reduce the amount due in case of damage. This information should set out what is covered in the basic rental price regarding damage to vehicles, while any additional payments the consumer may have to make should also be clearly indicated. If additional insurance or damage waiver is purchased, what this does and does not cover should be clearly indicated before the consumer signs up for it.
The Car Rental Council of Ireland which represents the main companies involved in car rental in Ireland has established a Code of Best Practice for the sector. This includes provisions on pre-rental and post-rental inspection which require companies to provide customers with a written pre-rental inspection report and to give them an opportunity to check and agree the condition of the vehicle before signing this report. On the return of the vehicle, the Code provides that the company will inspect it in the presence of the customer and establish a written post-rental inspection report that must be noted and signed by both parties. Both parties are required to record on this inspection form any new damage found that was not recorded on the pre-inspection report. Membership of the Car Rental Council is subject to acceptance of, and compliance with, the Code of Best Practice. Section 45 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 provides that a commercial practice is misleading if it involves a representation that the trader is bound by a code of practice and the trader fails to comply with a firm commitment in that code where the representation would be likely to cause the average consumer to make a purchasing decision that he or she would not otherwise make.
Information on the number of complaints about car rental made to the CCPC since 2014 is set out in the following table.
|
Year |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 to date |
Grand Total |
|
Volume |
188 |
117 |
152 |
181 |
227 |
46 |
911 |
The Commission has advised me that in order to provide information on the number of complaints relating specifically to charges for pre-existing damage, it would have to review each complaint individually. As such a review could not be undertaken in the time available to answer the Deputy's question, I regret that I am not in a position to provide this information.
135. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the cost of making a video (details supplied) on regional enterprise plans; the Department that funded the video; the number of meetings she and senior staff have had with accounting officers and with staff from other Departments, including Accounting Officers who were involved in giving instructions and advice on promoting the video; and the details of all such meetings, in tabular form. [15667/19]
View answerMy Department commissioned the production of the video in question and will incur the full costs of same, amounting to €10,165.95 including VAT. No meetings were held between me or my staff and accounting officers or staff of other Government Departments to take instructions or advice in the promotion of the video.
136. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the status of the ratification process for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA; the number of member states that have ratified it; the status of the outcome of the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, ECJ, on the compatibility of the investment court system with the European treaties; and when the CETA agreement will be voted on by Dáil Éireann. [15671/19]
View answer137. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the European Union free trade agreements entered into since 2000 that have included a dispute settlement mechanism based on the World Trade Organization, WTO, dispute settlement mechanism, in tabular form. [15672/19]
View answer138. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the European Union free trade agreements entered into since 2009, which include investor to state dispute settlement mechanisms in trade and investment agreements, in tabular form. [15673/19]
View answer139. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the number of bilateral trade agreements entered into by EU member states since the late 1960s, which contain provisions to protect investments and investor to state dispute settlements. [15674/19]
View answer140. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the EU or national studies or research regarding employment growth, job creation and the increase in exports of goods and services as a direct result of EU free trade agreements, from an EU and Irish perspective, and other benefits accruing. [15675/19]
View answer141. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation the EU free trade agreements that are in pre-negotiation phase; and the details of the impact assessments with each such free trade agreement. [15676/19]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 136 to 141, inclusive, together.
The Common Commercial Policy, including trade, is an exclusive competence of the European Union under the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty extended this competence to cover foreign direct investment, as well as making the European Parliament a co-legislator alongside the Council on trade matters. The European Commission acts as lead negotiator on behalf of all EU countries regarding trade agreements with non-EU countries. Member States (in Council) approve negotiating directives (or mandates) before negotiations begin, are consulted as the negotiations proceed and have final approval at Council as has the European Parliament.
The EU’s suite of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has evolved over time, from the ‘First Generation’ FTAs dating back to the 1970s which focused on tariffs for goods, to the current ‘New Generation’ of FTAs which go beyond the reduction or elimination of conventional tariff barriers to include; non-tariff and regulatory barriers, services, investment, recognition of professional qualifications, intellectual property rights, access to public procurement, regulatory cooperation, sustainable development, labour and environment.
The EU’s trade agreements differ depending on their content, with:
- Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) supporting the development of trade partners from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
- Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) enabling market opening with developed countries and emerging economies by granting preferential access to markets.
- Association Agreements (AAs) bolstering broader political agreements.
The EU also enters into non-preferential trade agreements, as part of broader deals such as Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs).
Negotiations of all these trade agreements are conducted in accordance with the rules set out in Article 218 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.
Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are agreements which set the terms and conditions for investments between two states. Most BITs between EU member states (intra-EU BITs) date back to the 1990s when one or both countries were not yet a member of the EU. Their aim was to encourage investments by offering reciprocal guarantees against political risks which might negatively affect those investments.
Ireland is the only EU Member State with no BITs. A list of each EU Member State’s BITs can be found on the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) website, and can be accessed at: https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/.
EU Member States no longer conclude bilateral BITs, and MS BITs with third countries are superseded when new EU agreements with those countries are concluded.
In relation to trade Dispute Settlement, Article XXIV of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – the principal agreement under which the WTO operates - provides for the establishment and operation of Free Trade Agreements between parties to the WTO. The EU is currently operating approximately 70 preferential trade agreements in place world-wide, representing 40% of total EU trade.
The WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) has been in operation since 1994 under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement (Annex 2 to the main agreement). This mechanism provides an effective means of settling disagreements on whether a Member State has acted in conformity with its international obligations. This system of dispute resolution has been an effective mechanism in resolving disputes at the WTO.
The European Union has included a dispute settlement mechanism based on the WTO DSM in all of its Free Trade Agreements since 2000. The principals of the WTO DSM are mirrored in the dispute settlement procedures within FTAs negotiated by the EU. The FTAs stipulate consultation among the parties, referrals to a panel for arbitration, with a decision or recommendation issued on the substance of the claim. Decisions are binding with the losing party required to amend their trading practice and/or provide compensation to the injured party.
All EU-related FTAs are fully compliant with GATT and, in particular, Annex XXIV of the main agreement and Annex 2, the Dispute Settlement Mechanism.
Since 2015, the European Commission has followed a new approach to investment dispute settlement. The Investment Court System (ICS) was introduced as the EU’s preferred investment dispute settlement mechanism in bilateral trade agreements to replace Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which was first introduced in the 1960s. ICS was developed after a thorough consultation process which began in 2014 and involved the European Parliament, EU Governments and civil society at large. The development of ICS was a direct response to problems identified with ISDS. ISDS is a system based on the principles of commercial arbitration whereby parties who have a dispute appoint arbitrators who hear and resolve cases, often "in-camera". The problems with ISDS included a perceived lack of legitimacy, inconsistency, and a lack of transparency. ICS, by comparison, is based on the features of a permanent public domestic or international court including independent panel members and transparent and efficient proceedings.
The ICS model was first presented in September 2015 and it was first included in CETA, signed in October 2016. Since then, ICS has been the EU’s preferred mechanism for resolution of investment disputes for inclusion in its Trade and Investment Agreements. The EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement and the EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement both include ICS.
As the EU-Vietnam IPA, the EU-Singapore IPA and CETA are agreements of “mixed competence” – i.e. covers competences shared between the EU Commission and the Member States - they can only fully enter into force, including the CETA Investment Dispute Settlement elements, once each individual EU Member State has approved them in line with its own national procedures.
Insofar as the Deputy’s specific questions on CETA are concerned, CETA has been provisionally applied since 21st September 2017. The provisional application has allowed for the removal of customs duties, substantially improved access to the Canadian public procurement market, opened up new sectors of the Canadian services market, reduced regulatory barriers, and provided more transparent rules for market access. The provisions within CETA which relate to areas of shared competence, between the EU and the Member States, including the Investment Court System (ICS) have been excluded from provisional application. This means that Ireland and the other Member States will not be bound by these provisions until they are ratified by all Member States in accordance with their national laws.
In 2017, Belgium requested an Opinion (1/17) from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the compatibility of the ICS in CETA with the European Treaties. The Advocate General delivered his Opinion on this case on 29th January 2019, which found that the mechanism for the settlement of disputes is compatible with the EU Treaty, the FEU Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. While this Opinion is not binding, and the final Opinion of the Court may differ, it is often an important indicator for the final ruling. The Opinion of the CJEU on this matter is expected on 30th April 2019. My Department awaits this Opinion, which will inform my plans for ratification of CETA. To date, 12 EU Member States have ratified CETA: Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
In relation to EU & National Studies on Free Trade Agreements, I can inform the Deputy that the European Commission published its second annual report on the implementation of trade agreements on 31st October 2018. The report covers 2017 and shows that trade under existing EU trade agreements grew in 2017. For example, exports to South Korea increased by over 12%, exports to Colombia by more than 10%, and EU exports to Canada rose by 7% in the nine months following the entry into force of the EU-Canada Agreement. EU agri-food producers are among the main beneficiaries of the abolition of customs duties, with strong export increases last year. However, the report also found that European exporters could benefit even more from the opportunities offered by the Agreements in place. As a result, the European Commission is increasing its efforts to inform and help EU companies, especially SMEs, to benefit from trade deals. The report can be accessed at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/157468.htm.
Separately, my Department has commissioned a study to examine the economic impacts for Ireland of EU Free Trade Agreements that were recently agreed or are under negotiation, including Korea, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Mercosur, Australia and New Zealand. The objective is to understand the impacts of these FTAs on the economy such as output, trade, employment and income. It will contain a range of recommendations to assist Ireland in capitalising on the benefits of the agreements and guide us on further actions to reduce barriers to implementation. This report is due to be completed by Q2 2019.
At EU level, the European Commission regularly undertakes impact assessments of Free Trade Agreements. These assessments provide evidence and information to inform decisions on trade policy. Impact assessments identify problems and solutions; and describe the likely economic, environmental, social and human rights impacts of those solutions. For trade agreements, they aim to address questions as to how negotiations will improve trade relations with a specific partner and what issues should be covered in the negotiations. An impact assessment also includes an online public consultation of interested parties. The impact assessments are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/analysis/policy-evaluation/impact-assessments/.
On 18th January 2019, the European Commission adopted proposals for “Negotiating Directives” – or Mandates – for its proposed trade talks with the United States; one on conformity assessment (making it easier for companies to prove their products meet technical requirements on both sides of the Atlantic), and one on the elimination of tariffs for industrial goods (excluding agricultural products). The Commission published the draft mandates at the same time as submitting them to the EU Member States.
The proposed negotiating directives are currently being discussed by Member States and if approved by Council, the finalised mandates would set the parameters for formal negotiations to commence. However, it is important to note that these two mandates are of a limited scope, covering two distinct areas agreed in the July 2018 EU-US Joint Statement. They do not constitute a mandate for negotiations on a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, which would involve negotiations across a far wider range of sectors and topics, including sustainable development. My Department has engaged directly with stakeholders in Ireland on the terms of these mandates which has informed our approach. As these negotiations are sectorally-focused based on the July 2018 Agreement between Presidents Juncker and Trump, the EU will not be negotiating on agricultural products/access.
Finally, the tabular information requested by the Deputy is as follows:
Figure 1: EU Free Trade Agreements entered into since 2000 which include a dispute settlement mechanism based on the WTO dispute settlement mechanism
|
Title |
Parties |
Date of Signature |
Date of Entry into Force |
|
Albania-EC Association Agreement |
EU, Albania |
12/06/2006 |
01/04/2009 |
|
Algeria-EC Association Agreement |
EU, Algeria |
22/04/2002 |
01/09/2005 |
|
Bosnia-EC Stabilization Agreement |
EU, Bosnia-Herzegovina |
16/06/2008 |
01/06/2015 |
|
Chile-EC Association Agreement |
EU, Chile |
18/11/2002 |
01/02/2003 |
|
EC-Egypt Association Agreement |
EU, Egypt |
25/06/2001 |
01/06/2004 |
|
EU - SADC EPA Group Agreement |
EU, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland |
10/06/2016 |
05/02/2018 |
|
EU - Georgia Association Agreement |
EU, Georgia |
27/06/2014 |
01/07/2016 |
|
EU - Japan Economic Partnership Agreement |
EU, Japan |
17/07/2018 |
01/02/2019 |
|
EC-Jordan Association Agreement |
EU, Jordan |
24/11/1997 |
01/05/2002 |
|
EC - Lebanon Association Agreement |
EU, Lebanon |
17/06/2002 |
01/04/2006 |
|
Mexico-EC Cooperation Agreement |
EU, Mexico |
27/02/2001 |
01/03/2001 |
|
EU - Moldova Association Agreement |
EU, Moldova |
27/06/2014 |
01/07/2016 |
|
EU-Montenegro Association Agreement |
EU, Montenegro |
15/10/2007 |
01/05/2010 |
|
EC-Morocco Association Agreement |
EU, Morocco |
26/02/1996 |
01/03/2000 |
|
EC-Macedonia Association Agreement |
EU, North Macedonia |
09/04/2001 |
01/04/2004 |
|
EC-Serbia Association Agreement |
EU, Serbia |
29/04/2008 |
01/09/2013 |
|
EU-Korea FTA |
EU, South Korea |
06/10/2010 |
13/12/2015 |
|
CARIFORUM - EC EPA |
EU, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Dominican Republic |
15/10/2008 |
Provisionally applied from 29/12/2008 |
|
EU-Cameroon Interim EPA |
EU, Cameroon |
15/01/2009 |
Provisionally applied from 04/08/2014 |
|
CETA |
EU, Canada |
30/10/2016 |
Provisionally applied from 21/09/2017 [1] |
|
EU-Colombia/Peru/Ecuador FTA |
EU, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador |
26/06/2012 |
Provisionally applied between EU/Peru from 01/03/2013; between EU/Colombia from 01/08/2013; between EU/Ecuador from 01/01/2017 |
|
EU-Central America Association Agreement |
EU, Costa Rice, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama |
29/06/2012 |
Provisionally applied between EU/Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama from 01/08/2013; between EU/Costa Rica, El Salvador from 01/10/2013; between EU/Guatemala from 01/12/2013 |
|
EC- Cote d'Ivoire EPA |
EU, Cote d’Ivoire |
26/11/2008 |
Provisionally applied from 03/09/2016 |
|
EU-ESA EPA |
EU, Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe |
29/08/2009 |
Provisionally applied from 14/05/2012 |
|
EU-Papua New Guinea |
EU, Papua New Guinea, Fiji |
Signed by EU/PNG on 30/07/2009; signed by Fiji on 11/12/2009 |
Provisionally applied between EU/PNG from 20/12/2009; between EU/Fiji from 28/07/2014 |
|
EU-West Africa EPA |
EU, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo |
December 2014[2] |
N/A |
|
EU-Iraq Partnership and Cooperation Agreement |
EU, Iraq |
11/05/2012 |
Trade provisions entered into force provisionally on 01/08/2012 |
|
EU-Kazakhstan Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement |
EU, Kazakhstan |
21/12/2015 |
Provisionally applied from 01/05/2016 |
|
EU-Ukraine DCFTA[3] |
EU, Ukraine |
27/06/2014 |
Provisionally applied from 01/01/2016 |
|
EU-EAC EPA |
EU, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda |
01/09/2016 by EU, Kenya, Rwanda |
N/A |
|
EU-Singapore FTA |
EU, Singapore |
19/10/2018 |
N/A |
|
EU-Singapore IPA |
EU, Singapore |
19/10/2018 |
N/A |
|
EU-Vietnam FTA |
EU, Vietnam |
N/A |
N/A |
|
EU-Vietnam IPA |
EU, Vietnam |
N/A |
N/A |
|
EU-Mexico Global Agreement Modernisation |
EU, Mexico |
N/A |
N/A |
Figure 2: EU Free Trade Agreements entered into since 2009
|
Title |
Parties |
Date of Signature |
Date of Entry into Force |
ISDS Mechanism |
|
Albania-EC Association Agreement |
EU, Albania |
12/06/2006 |
01/04/2009 |
No |
|
Bosnia-EC Stabilization Agreement |
EU, Bosnia-Herzegovina |
16/06/2008 |
01/06/2015 |
No |
|
EU - SADC EPA Group Agreement |
EU, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland |
10/06/2016 |
05/02/2018 |
No |
|
EU - Georgia Association Agreement |
EU, Georgia |
27/06/2014 |
01/07/2016 |
No |
|
EU - Japan Economic Partnership Agreement |
EU, Japan |
17/07/2018 |
01/02/2019 |
No |
|
EU - Moldova Association Agreement |
EU, Moldova |
27/06/2014 |
01/07/2016 |
No |
|
EU-Montenegro Association Agreement |
EU, Montenegro |
15/10/2007 |
01/05/2010 |
No |
|
EC-Serbia Association Agreement |
EU, Serbia |
29/04/2008 |
01/09/2013 |
No |
|
EU-Korea FTA |
EU, South Korea |
06/10/2010 |
13/12/2015 |
No |
|
EU-Cameroon Interim EPA |
EU, Cameroon |
15/01/2009 |
Provisionally applied from 04/08/2014 |
No |
|
CETA |
EU, Canada |
30/10/2016 |
Provisionally applied from 21/09/2017 |
No-Investment Court System |
|
EU-Colombia/Peru/Ecuador FTA |
EU, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador |
26/06/2012 |
Provisionally applied between EU/Peru from 01/03/2013; between EU/Colombia from 01/08/2013; between EU/Ecuador from 01/01/2017 |
No |
|
EU-Central America Association Agreement |
EU, Costa Rice, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama |
29/06/2012 |
Provisionally applied between EU/Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama from 01/08/2013; between EU/Costa Rica, El Salvador from 01/10/2013; between EU/Guatemala from 01/12/2013 |
No |
|
EC- Cote d'Ivoire EPA |
EU, Cote d’Ivoire |
26/11/2008 |
Provisionally applied from 03/09/2016 |
No |
|
EU-ESA EPA |
EU, Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe |
29/08/2009 |
Provisionally applied from 14/05/2012 |
No |
|
EU-Papua New Guinea |
EU, Papua New Guinea, Fiji |
Signed by EU/PNG on 30/07/2009; signed by Fiji on 11/12/2009 |
Provisionally applied between EU/PNG from 20/12/2009; between EU/Fiji from 28/07/2014 |
No |
|
EU-West Africa EPA |
EU, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo |
December 2014 |
N/A |
No |
|
EU-Iraq Partnership and Cooperation Agreement |
EU, Iraq |
11/05/2012 |
Trade provisions entered into force provisionally on 01/08/2012 |
No |
|
EU-Kazakhstan Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement |
EU, Kazakhstan |
21/12/2015 |
Provisionally applied from 01/05/2016 |
No |
|
EU-Ukraine DCFTA |
EU, Ukraine |
27/06/2014 |
Provisionally applied from 01/01/2016 |
No |
|
EU-EAC EPA |
EU, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda |
01/09/2016 by EU, Kenya, Rwanda |
N/A |
No |
|
EU-Singapore FTA |
EU, Singapore |
19/10/2018 |
N/A |
No |
|
EU-Singapore IPA |
EU, Singapore |
19/10/2018 |
N/A |
No-Investment Court System |
|
EU-Vietnam FTA |
EU, Vietnam |
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
EU-Vietnam IPA |
EU, Vietnam |
N/A |
N/A |
No-Investment Court System |
|
EU-Mexico Global Agreement Modernisation |
EU, Mexico |
N/A |
N/A |
No-Investment Court System |
[1] The Investment Court System is not comprehended by the provisional application of CETA.
[2] Except Nigeria, Mauritania and Gambia. Gambia signed on 9th August 2018 and Mauritania on 21st September 2018. Nigeria remains the only country of West Africa that has still not signed the EPA.
[3] This is part of the broader Association Agreement (AA) whose political and cooperation provisions have been provisionally applied since November 2014.
142. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Minister for Health if he will restore pay to general practitioners following cuts under FEMPI legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15570/19]
View answerGeneral practitioners are not employees of the HSE and are not paid a salary; they are private contractors providing services under contract on behalf of the HSE.
Under the General Medical Services (GMS) contract, GPs are reimbursed for a range of services they provide to medical card and GP visit card holders. GPs are remunerated for these services primarily on a capitation basis, with a range of additional support payments and fees for specific items of service. GPs can also provide services to private patients if they wish. The arrangements and fees charged for such consultations are a matter of private contract between the patient and the GP and I have no role in relation to such private income for GPs.
As a consequence of the severe difficulties arising from the economic and fiscal crisis of recent years, between 2009 and 2013 a number of reductions were applied under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 (FEMPI) to the fees and allowances paid to healthcare professionals, including GPs who provide services under the GMS scheme.
Talks between the State and the IMO on the development of a package of measures and reforms to modernise the current GMS contract resumed in October 2018. There has been intensive engagement in recent weeks which has resulted in good progress being made, however there are a number of issues that remain to be finalised.
Agreement on the delivery of service improvements and contractual reform would provide substantial benefits for patients and facilitate a very significant increase in the resourcing of general practice on a multi-annual basis.
In line with the long-established approach to such processes, and by agreement of the parties concerned, I am not in position to give further details while engagement between the parties is under way.
