Richard Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if any element of the present decentralisation programme is open to revision; and the way in which he intends to evaluate proposals for modification of the programme. [18843/04]
Priority Questions.
Decentralisation Programme.
Budget 2004 included details of the Departments, agencies and jobs being transferred out of Dublin and the target number of jobs for each decentralised location. It also indicated that the Government might make some adjustments to the detailed provisions where necessary to ensure continued effective delivery of public services. Up to date details of the jobs being transferred to the various decentralised locations are available on the Central Applications Facility.
Implementation of the decentralisation programme is primarily a matter for each Minister. In addition, I appointed a decentralisation implementation group and a Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation was established as part of the overall implementation arrangements. A number of changes to the programme outlined in the budget have since been announced by my colleagues, the Ministers for Agriculture and Food and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. These changes, which involve additional locations and the transfer of some extra jobs overall, were approved by the Cabinet sub-committee.
I have received no other proposals to revise the programme and work on its implementation is now advancing in accordance with the report of the decentralisation implementation group.
Will the Minister accept that, if a post office was being closed down in one area and moved to another location, he and his party would want an analysis done on what was happening to the people being transferred, the service being delivered, the village that was losing its service, and how this would impact on the community? Will he agree there has been no such assessment in respect of decentralisation? There has been no assessment of how decentralisation fits into regional strategy. There has been no assessment of the risks that might be posed to some of the services being provided. There has been no human resource plan in regard to the options available to people who want to stay in Dublin. Will he accept that, as a mature citizens' democracy, there must be more open hearings on how the process will operate, so that where there are ideas — I am pleased the Minister has indicated that he is willing to make adjustments where necessary — and proposals for change, there will be a process of hearings and scrutiny so that we can get a proper set of proposals which will work? Will he afford the House such a process?
It will be no surprise to the Deputy that I beg to differ substantially with him. This process has been ongoing for more than four years. Decisions were finally made and locations were announced in the run-up to the budget last December. As I said on many occasions, the process is voluntary and I believe that not only will it be good for Dublin, but it will be good for the regions. Some political parties must make up their mind whether they are for or against decentralisation. They cannot be for decentralisation when at home in their constituencies and against it when in Dublin and briefing the Dublin media.
It has been an inherent part of Government policy for some time, and it was an inherent part of the policy of the Fine Gael Party. Not long before we announced the decentralisation programme, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party tabled a Private Members' motion in this House advocating the decentralisation of 18,000 public servants. All the questions tabled by the Deputy are being considered. The Deputy and others should note that much of the cant and speak about this matter can also be found in the United Kingdom. When Sir Michael Lyons was completing his report on decentralisation for Gordon Brown, all the cant and objections in the national media in recent months were repeated in the UK and were discounted. It is always difficult to get people to change their way of thinking, but the benefits of decentralisation are obvious to everyone who has considered the matter.
If the Minister is so confident in the robustness of his case, why will he not allow a debate in the Committee on Finance and the Public Service? Why is it not open to the Oireachtas to scrutinise this wonderful proposal? He said people must decide whether they are for or against decentralisation. That is not the situation. I can be for postal efficiency but I can also say there must be certain protections when deciding what post offices to close down. Similarly, I can be for decentralisation but expect a proper spatial plan and risk assessment of the service. Families who will be disrupted should be given options and they should not be expected to enter into a lottery for their own jobs.
It is not just a simple black and white issue, it is a question of getting it right and making the changes and modifications so that the system will work and deliver quality public services. Will the Minister agree that the issue of the delivery of quality public services has rarely entered into his description of how the process will work and that consideration for the public servants affected has rarely been mentioned by him? Will he accept that we must be more mature in a citizens' democracy and deal with this as an issue that deserves scrutiny, care and attention so that it works, and not just condemn everyone who opposes him as being guilty of cant and so on?
I am pleased the Deputy has repeated his accusation. The Deputy asked why will I not allow the Committee on Finance and the Public Service debate the issue. If the matter was raised some weeks ago, others might have stepped in and said I had no hand, act or part in doing anything with the committee.
The Minister's party whipped in its votes——
The Deputy said a minute ago that I did it, and the record of the House will show this. Since I may have thought others might have taken the chance to ensure that was not repeated, I now do so. I first knew the committee was sitting that day when a vote was called in Leinster House, I was here waiting, and a member of the committee told me he had objected to a debate on the matter. That was the full extent of my knowledge that the committee was sitting. I am pleased Deputy Bruton has given me an opportunity to put that on the record, because others might have done so in recent weeks. That was the full extent of my knowledge in regard to that committee.
It was a whipped vote by the Minister's party. If he was not aware of it, he should take up the matter with the Whip.
And with his backbenchers.
The Deputy said in the House that I had something to do with the matter. I had nothing to do with it.
The Minister represents the Government in this House.
Tax Yield.
Joan Burton
Ceist:2 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement on the recently published Annual Report of the Revenue Commissioners for 2003; the way in which the €1.52 billion raised as a result of special investigations by the Commissioners has been used or will be used; if legislative or administrative changes are planned arising from the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18745/04]
I welcome the recently published report of the Revenue Commissioners for 2003. The report indicates that the Revenue Commissioners are making significant progress on many fronts, including the special investigations referred to by Deputy Burton.
As regards the €1.52 billion raised as a result of these investigations, it is important to note that €596 million was the amount received to date. The remainder is reflected in the budgetary arithmetic for earlier years and served to improve the Exchequer balance in the years in which the relevant amounts arose. With regard to the amounts received this year, and how any additional amounts forecast may be used, it is important to recognise that such receipts are once-off in nature and cannot be treated as ordinary or ongoing resources. This fact has been recognised in the past when such once-off receipts from, for example, tax amnesties or the sale of State assets, have been used mainly to meet liabilities with no recurring costs such as reducing our debt burden or providing for future pension needs. Reductions in debt lead to interest savings which provide leeway to meet the Government's tax and expenditure targets in future years.
I have no specific plans, at this time, for legislative changes arising directly from the 2003 annual report of the Revenue Commissioners. However, general legislative provisions governing the tax system are considered annually in the context of the Finance Bill. In addition, my Department and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners are examining the recommendations contained in the report of the Revenue powers group which reported to me last November. I will consider those recommendations in the context of the forthcoming Finance Bill.
Administrative changes are primarily a matter for the Revenue Commissioners. At this time, I am not aware of any planned administrative changes arising directly from the recent annual report, but administrative procedures are kept under regular review by the Revenue Commissioners.
Will the Minister for Finance take this opportunity to acknowledge that tax evasion has been a way of life for an elite of business people and builders primarily associated with Fianna Fáil, its fund-raisers, and the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey and his agent, Mr. Traynor? Now that €1.5 billion has been collected, of which more than €500 million has been collected this year, will the Minister agree to set up a fund or trust to recompense honest and compliant taxpayers? Many of them are now pensioners and are forced to endure stays on hospital trolleys. Will he put the money garnered from the tax evaders and from that Fianna Fáil golden circle into the health service, public transport and major initiatives on the care of our elderly senior citizens who paid their taxes when these other people did not?
With regard to administrative changes, has the Minister noted in the Revenue Commissioners' report that a mere 16,000 audits, which is a very small percentage, resulted in a yield of more than €400 million? That was an increase of €160 million on last year. Does the Minister agree that there should also be a corruption assets bureau to deal with those people who, unlike most of their fellow citizens, continue to avoid or evade paying their fair share of tax which goes towards paying for our health and education system?
The success of the Revenue Commissioners in collecting these large amounts of money is testament to changes we made in the legislation over a number of years, primarily changes made in the Finance Act 1999. These gave considerable new powers to the Revenue Commissioners and at a level to which they could only have aspired in preceding years.
Tax evasion is, and always has been, an offence. However, the Deputy makes the political allegation that all the money collected from people in default involved only Fianna Fáil supporters. I do not know what evidence she has in that regard. Since approximately 40% of the people vote for Fianna Fáil, I assume that 40% of the people in the list are probably Fianna Fáil supporters. However, I have no evidence to suggest the figure is higher or lower.
The Minister should read the list.
Up to the end of May, approximately €596 million was collected through these investigations. The Deputy is correct that 15,770 audits were conducted last year which yielded approximately €429 million. The Revenue Commissioners hope to secure considerably more on foot of the offshore assets investigation which is ongoing. In that context, a number of people availed of the 60 day limit to pay their taxes by 29 May.
Of the €2.9 billion extra in current resources last year, on top of the amount for 2002, 83% was spent on health and education. It might interest the Deputy to note that if one added all the moneys collected from the investigations conducted — the bogus non-resident accounts, including the bank look-back audit; the voluntary disclosure in 2001; and, after November 2001, the offshore assets, Ansbacher, NIB, Clerical Medical and all the tribunals — and compared that with the total amount of tax collected over the past 20, 25 or 30 years, it would amount to the minute percentage of less than 0.5%.
Is the Minister saying that the tax evasion carried out by these people is simply to be dismissed as minor? It is a sum of €1.5 billion. There is a Cabinet memo which states that €400 million would pay for the opening of idle hospital beds which could be used for elderly people who honestly paid their taxes in the 1970s and 1980s. The Minister's tone with regard to the people who are named on the list is shameful. It is a shame that he could not state that they should have been paying the proper amount all along and instead said that the amounts were trivial. Shame on the Minister.
We must proceed to the next question. I call Question No. 3.
The amounts of money are substantial. If the Deputy asked any of the individuals who must pay them, they would testify that they are substantial and that it is painful to pay them. Everybody should pay his or her correct amount of tax every year and on time.
Banking Sector Regulation.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Finance if he has received the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority’s progress report on its first year in operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18731/04]
I have received a copy of the progress report which has been published recently by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, IFSRA. The authority was formally established on 1 May 2003. This is the first report on IFSRA's achievements since it was established and is in line with a commitment given in its first strategic plan for 2004 to 2006, which was published in January 2004, to publish a review of its first year in operation. It sets out in detail the progress that has been made to date on the numerous targets it has set for itself and which were set out in its strategic plan.
I am pleased that IFSRA is showing itself to be accountable for its operations. This is in line with the considerable emphasis on openness and accountability in the relevant legislation, which requires publication of strategic plans, budgets and annual reports. In that regard, the report to which the Deputy refers is not one of those required under the legislation but is an additional report to keep its stakeholders informed.
In the introduction to the progress report, the authority has stated that, in line with requirements under the 2003 Act, it will publish in mid-2005 a comprehensive annual report covering the period from 1 May 2003 to 31 December 2004. I look forward to receiving that report in due course.
In light of the revelations about the overcharging of customers by AIB to the tune of €50 million, which is the current estimate, does the Minister believe that IFSRA has sufficient consumer protection powers? As well as the overcharging on foreign exchange, it is now known that, since 2000, between 500 and 600 mortgage holders paid up to €50 extra per month for mortgage insurance without their approval. That is another example of the rip-off culture that is clearly very much a part of Allied Irish Banks. Does the Minister note that all this occurred under the watch of the Central Bank? Does he agree that it exposes, yet again, that the Central Bank failed to regulate the sector properly and to protect properly the customers of financial institutions? Does the Minister agree, therefore, that IFSRA needs to succeed where the Central Bank has clearly failed? This is even more reason for emphasis to be placed on it having sufficient powers to carry out its remit.
Is the Minister aware that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service last week heard a submission from the Irish Bank Officials' Association? Its representatives described a culture of fear among bank employees which resulted in a fear of speaking out. Does the Minister not agree that the recent revelations did not emerge as a result of IFSRA's work but as a result of the courageous actions taken by whistleblowers? As there is a culture of fear, we have depended on whistleblowers.
There is a clear need to ensure that every measure possible to assist the work of IFSRA is introduced as a matter of urgency. It is important that public confidence in financial institutions is restored and that there is public confidence in IFSRA and all its works. A whistleblowers' charter to protect employees who expose actions of gross misconduct on the part of their employers would be desirable in the public interest.
Since the Deputy's question concerned the recently published progress report from IFSRA, it is only fair to point out that the matters to which he referred, namely, the problems with a particular bank, could not have been taken account of in the report because it was published at the end of April and some of those issues only came to light around that time.
As the Deputy is a member of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, he will be aware of the changes we have made to financial regulations over the past two years. The Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2003, which was passed last year, created a single regulatory authority in the area. This only came into effect from 1 May 2003. As the Deputy will be aware, most of the matters to which he referred predate the setting up of IFSRA. The overcharging issue, which was the first major issue brought to light, is the responsibility of the Director of Consumer Affairs under the Consumer Credit Act 1995, which was introduced by a previous Administration. Any deficiencies in that Act were dealt with in the Bill that is currently before the Seanad, the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Bill 2003.
The Deputy and many others are inclined to criticise the Central Bank, but the matter of overcharging was not the responsibility of the Central Bank but of the Director of Consumer Affairs. I am not implying any criticism of the Director of Consumer Affairs — it would have been impossible to find out about these matters — I am simply pointing out how the system works.
Last year's Act set up IFSRA as the single authority in this area. It also made substantial changes. For example, under the old Central Bank Act it was strictly forbidden for the Central Bank to communicate to the Revenue Commissioners information about tax evasion. The prudential mechanism of its supervisory powers was ring-fenced in that regard. This changed after the 1994 money-laundering Act, but that was the legal position until then.
I find it difficult to accept that there was a culture of fear within the banking organisation. Perhaps in any big organisation some people will operate in this manner — there are many in my party and the Deputy's party who do — but I do not accept that it was widespread. AIB is made up of people at many different management levels. It is owned by shareholders the length and breadth of the country and all around the world. It is not a privately-run organisation headed by a single person. There are so many structures in place in these organisations that I find it hard to accept that there was a culture of fear. Perhaps there is at some level, but I do not buy into that allegation.
I have no doubt that a culture of fear exists and that those members of the IBOA who met us, representing all the major financial institutions, explained the reality.
The Deputy was a bank official, was he not?
Yes.
Was there a culture of fear in the Deputy's time?
It was a different fear.
It was a different time. There is a new culture in banks today under which pay is linked to performance. The culture is different from what it was in my time. The Minister should recognise that the basis of payment has changed substantially and is now based on performance and inter-branch competition. It is a serious matter. Because of this, ethics have gone out the door. We have ample evidence of this.
We must proceed to the next question. We have gone over time.
I am sorry the time does not allow us to discuss this further.
I do not have a difficulty engaging in a debate with the Deputy about performance-related pay and related matters in all organisations. I have my own views on this. However, it does not apply only to banking organisations. We will have a debate some time about it.
The Minister has not spoken about IFSRA. We should try to stay on the issue.
Perhaps performance-related pay should apply to the Government. If it did, the Minister for Health and Children would have a negative salary. Is that not the case?
We have used up nearly twice the allotted time for this question. It is completely unfair to other Deputies who are waiting for their questions to be taken.
Freedom of Information.
Paul McGrath
Ceist:4 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his views on the review of the operation of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 published by the Information Commissioner; and the recommendations which are being accepted by him. [18844/04]
The special investigation published last week by the Information Commissioner was carried out under section 36 of the Act and dealt with the practices and procedures adopted by public bodies for the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the Act and of enabling persons to exercise the rights conferred by the Act. I welcome the Information Commissioner's finding that public bodies are operating the Act in a fair and balanced manner.
In so far as the Information Commissioner makes recommendations on the policy concerning fees, I have no plans to review the position. The fees introduced last year were intended to strike a better balance between the cost of administering FOI and the need to continue to allow people to have access to information. I am satisfied that a better balance has been struck and that a greater appreciation of the service provided by public bodies and more considered and responsible use of the Act has resulted.
I am amazed at the Minister's response. The report issued by the Information Commissioner on the operation of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 contains some frightening figures. Surely the Minister must take this into account.
The overall use of the freedom of information measure has gone down by 50% since the Minister introduced that draconian legislation. Non-personal use is down by 75% since the changes were introduced. Media use is down 83% in the first quarter of 2004 compared to the first quarter of 2003. Business requests are down 53% in the same time. The Minister should consider the intentions behind the introduction of the freedom of information legislation. In spite of this, he has just about shut it down. Does he not have a conscience? Another day in the House I asked the Minister whether he felt any pangs of conscience about the work he does and he told me he had absolutely none.
I explained why I did not. I am a Fianna Fáil man, and we do not have a conscience.
Surely, in a democratic society, people are entitled to freedom of information. The Minister should not have shut down the system, as he has done. Furthermore, is he not ashamed to consider that Ireland is unique in the democratic world in applying charges for reviews and appeals under the Act? Will he not review that?
The Information Commissioner fully vindicated my stance on the Freedom of Information Act and the imposition of fees. No fee was charged for requests for personal information before or after the amended Act was introduced. There is a €15 charge for other requests. This is only the cost of a few pints. If people do not think it worth their while to pay €15, when the average cost of a request is more than €420, they must not be very interested in obtaining the information. This proves that the previous system was abused.
Many of the negative comments about the changes I made may have led people to believe that we stripped the Freedom of Information Act of its powers. The major changes in the areas of certificates and so on have not been made use of. The report fully vindicates my position on fees and I have no intention of changing the Act.
It is amazing how people interpret figures in different ways. It is not amazing that this Minister for Finance could review the figures and find that they vindicate his case, whereas the Information Commissioner who is independent says the fears many people expressed when the Minister introduced these amendments to the Freedom of Information Act were justified and that it is being shut down.
The Minister is disingenuous in referring to the €15 fee under FOI because if there is a further appeal to the Information Commissioner the fee will be €240. Even to the Minister €240 is a substantial sum of money. It is not to be sneezed at so let us not laugh it off as being equivalent to the price of a few pints. Surely when the Information Commissioner makes recommendations it is incumbent on the Minister to examine and assess them and not just come in here with a glib refusal to do anything about them. Has the Minister reviewed them? Has he examined them carefully? Has he thought about what is required in a democracy? Surely it is incumbent on him to do something about it.
Let me ask a possibly stupid question. Has the Minister read the report?
I have. Consequently, I am even more reinforced in my view that the changes I made were worthwhile and correct. Furthermore, we are unique in the area of freedom of information in that we do not charge for the time it takes to process freedom of information requests. That is not part of the Act and, therefore, a fee of €15 is payable initially if the request does not involve personal information. What would be termed substantial changes to the Act related to, for example, the ten-year rule regarding Cabinet papers, Secretary General certificates of which none were issued, and Cabinet working groups of which none were certified. No such decisions were made in 2003.
Regarding some of the people who were using the Act, particularly journalists, it seems their commercial organisations cannot afford to give them €15 for a freedom of information request but they expect the taxpayer to make up the bulk of the cost of €125. Regarding the fees for internal and external review, only 9% and 3.5%, respectively, ever go for internal or external review. The numbers were very small before and after the changes I made last year.
Perhaps they are closing down because of the terrible charges regime the Minister has introduced.
There is no change in the percentage. The numbers were small and they remain small.
Price Inflation.
Eamon Ryan
Ceist:5 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Finance the short-term threats that are posed to the economy here by rising inflation in the United States and a recent increase in interest rates in the United Kingdom. [18732/04]
In general, if higher inflation gives rise to higher interest rates it is likely that this would have some negative impact on US and UK growth and imports. However, there are many other factors which could offset or add to the adverse effects, such as changes in exchange rates, oil prices and consumer confidence.
US inflation was 3.1% in May 2004, up from 1.9% in January. The increase was partly due to the increase in oil prices. However, core US inflation, which is inflation excluding oil and food prices, was much lower, at 1.7% in May, less than half the rate of total inflation in the first five months of this year. There is no evidence that recent changes in US inflation rates have significantly impacted on the Irish economy to date.
While our short-term economic outlook is currently brighter than it has been for some time, there are still risks. The key risks are the possibility that US economic growth, burdened by twin deficits, might not be sustained into 2005 and that euro area growth will falter; that there might be further appreciation of the euro and further rises in oil prices; and that the increasing competition from abroad could give rise to job losses, particularly if pay increases were to exceed the levels just negotiated.
Any or all of these developments would be likely to impact on domestic output and jobs.
Would the Minister agree that the American Administration has perhaps learned from the Minister's example in the run-up to an election of running a massive budget deficit with very significant spending being flushed into the American economy at a time when real interest rates at 1% are almost one third of the inflation rate at 3%? Would the Minister agree that in those circumstances the real risk for this economy, which has massive inflation in the form of asset bubble inflation, that is, house price inflation, is that when that nirvana for President George Bush finishes, he or whoever is in the White House after November will have to make a serious correction in the US economy in terms of Government spending? The increase in inflation, partly due to oil price rises, will lead to increasing interest rates in America. We are again starting to see long-term Treasury bond rates rising as a future indicator of what is going to happen.
In those circumstances where there is a contracting fiscal policy and rising interest rates, the global economy could go into a severe contraction, leaving exposed Irish householders in particular who have been involved in an inflationary house bubble, purchasing houses often on interest only mortgages. Even a small interest rate rise in some circumstances would leave such buyers highly exposed and also leave the economy exposed to a downturn in the US and European markets. Does the Minister not see that high interest rate, high inflation scenario as being of real concern to the Irish economy?
I have alluded to the difficulties in the Unites States. Speculating as to what might occur there in the latter half of this year after the election can be somewhat tendentious. Some commentators would have us believe that nothing substantial will happen. Others take a view similar to the Deputy's. As I said in my reply, some people are of the view that US economic growth, which is burdened by the twin deficits of severe fiscal imbalance and a severe trade imbalance, will not be sustained into 2005. Any changes that occur in the US economy would have a negative impact on growth worldwide and since Ireland is most dependent on global economic conditions that would have a negative impact here.
The Deputy referred to house prices. Inflation in Ireland for the past number of months has been lower than anticipated but will rise in the second half of the year owing to oil prices in particular. At budget time we projected a rate of about 2.5% on average for the year. At the mid-term economic review and outlook we will give another guesstimate.
Regarding house prices, Ministers for Finance would prefer if there were a gradual increase in house prices each year rather than the double-digit growth we have seen for a number of years. However, double-digit growth is the result of the booming Irish economy and a number of other factors. The enormous growth in the house-buying population, very strong buoyant economic conditions, very low interest rates and an excess of demand over supply have pushed up prices. I note that recently the Central Bank conducted some investigations in this regard and has outlined to the financial institutions the care they should take in giving people loans. It has also concluded in its report that it does not see a great danger of a bubble effect.
I stress that people buying houses and getting into considerable indebtedness should always give consideration to how they will handle repayments if interest rates rise. Financial institutions are supposed to assist in that regard and they do. However, individuals should take that analysis very much to heart before committing themselves to very large indebtedness for 20, 25 or 30 years.
Will the Minister outline what he believes the Irish inflation rate will be at the end of this year? Could he also outline what powers he has? The British Government does not set interest rates but there is an independent ability to do so within the country. We are tied to interest rates which are more related to a sluggish European economy. What levers does the Government have and what measures can the Minister introduce in those circumstances both for householders who are putting themselves in a very precarious position given that interest rates could effectively double from the very low rates in a very short period of time and for the general economy, apart from sending out the occasional warning as does the Central Bank? Is there any fiscal or other regulatory instrument the Minister could avail of which would prepare us for this possible scenario?
Since we joined the euro, we do not have available to us the independence of setting interest rates. That is now done by the European Central Bank. That economic policy is no longer available. The right to set a currency exchange rate is no longer available to the Government either. We have to make do with budgetary matters and things within our own control. The most important thing to do is not to price ourselves out of the market. The situation in the UK is somewhat different, even though Gordon Brown handed control of interest rates over to the Bank of England. At least that control is still within the UK, whereas we have joined the eurozone and rates are set in Frankfurt. Borrowers should always be cautious and take into account the possibility that interest rates will rise and figure out how they can manage their own finances in such a situation. That is something that any prudent borrower should always do. There will always be those who borrow imprudently, but the vast majority of people take those things into account. If they do not do so, then they should.
What will the rate of inflation be at that time?
We are way over time and we have to proceed to the next question.
I will deal with that later in another question.
Priority questions are supposed to take 30 minutes yet they have now taken up 41 minutes. Deputies should appreciate that we are running behind time.
Special Savings Incentive Scheme.
Joe Sherlock
Ceist:6 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Finance the number of special savings investment scheme accounts opened at the latest date for which figures are available; the average amount of savings per investor per month; if, on the basis of any such figures, his Department can now give a definite figure for likely cost to the Exchequer of the special savings investment scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18609/04]
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that based on the analysis of the 2003 returns and declarations furnished to date by all qualifying savings managers, the total number of active accounts at 31 December 2003 was 1,113,317 and the average monthly subscription at that date was €165. Revisions may be necessary if amendments are received at a later date.
As indicated in replies to previous questions, it is not possible to give a definitive answer on the eventual cost of the scheme as it is subject to a number of variables such as whether participants die, withdraw from the scheme or vary their monthly contributions. The cost of the scheme in 2003 was €531.9 million. If the current average monthly payment for the first five months of 2004 continues for a full year the annual cost in 2004 would be approximately €540 million. This, however, is not a conclusive figure, and the final figure may be different if account holders change their monthly contributions. The total gross cost over the period of the scheme will be reduced by the exit tax to be received at the end.
I think it is the Minister's plan to release this €14 billion or thereabouts into the account just in time for the next general election. Does he have any plans to promote the sensible use of that money? Women who worked in the home and who have not sufficient pension or social insurance contributions might transfer some of these savings to an appropriate pension for later years. Will the Minister encourage other people who have not had an opportunity to adequately save for their retirement to use the funds? It is a €500 million Exchequer bonus to around 1.5 million people. Many of them are ordinary PAYE people but many of them are also very wealthy people who do not need any largesse from this Government.
Is the Minister making any plans? Fianna Fáil now has to accept the statement of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, that inequality is the Progressive Democrats stance in this Government and that it is good for us. Has the Minister any proposals to promote the sensible use of this bonanza when it is released in time for the general election?
I know I have great foresight and Deputies on both sides of the House attest to that every day before they eat their cornflakes. I announced this scheme in February 2001 on the publication of the Finance Bill for that year. That was at least 15 months before the elections in 2002. Deputies now want to believe that I was so brilliant and far-sighted that not alone would I anticipate the 2002 election results, but that I had a plan that would come on stream before the following election. I am willing to accept plaudits and kudos from everyone but the Deputies are going too far in giving me this credit. I am known for my modesty, but even I find this flattery too much.
It might have something to do with the leadership succession stakes.
Deputy Burton claimed this scheme favours the rich. There are more than 1.1 million people participating in the scheme. When the Revenue Commissioners compared this with revenue income distribution tables for the tax year 1999-2000, 45% of account holders had an income of less than €20,000, 42% of account holders had an income in the medium range of €20,000 to €50,000, and only 13% of account holders earned more than €50,000. This was published in the papers and I am sure the Deputy will be interested to know that. It disproves the point made by the custodians of the left that this favours the rich. In fact, very rich people did not bother their barney to get into the scheme at all, as we can well imagine. The scheme has been well subscribed. I have no plans at this stage on policy options when the scheme comes to fruition, but the scheme is designed to encourage people to save and it has done so.
Is the Minister or his Department carrying out any assessment of the impact of the release of this scale of money becoming available to account holders in a short period? Some estimate that €17 billion will become available, which is around 15% of GNP. Is he concerned about the impact on prices at the time? If people go out and spend on imported products it might affect the balance of payments. Will he carry out an assessment so that we can make prudent decisions? We could perhaps channel money into pension provisions such as PRSAs or into other areas. It should be done on the basis of objective assessment of the options and the possible risks.
The recent estimate by the Irish Insurance Federation gave a figure of about €15 billion to be released at that time. That figure assumes a capital growth of 15%, which seems a little bit high. Irrespective of that, it is impossible to know exactly at this stage but there will be a substantial amount of money. My Department will look at the impact on the economy at that stage. However, the purpose of this scheme was to encourage people back into saving.
The Insurance Federation will have a particular angle about all this and will want to encourage the Minister to go down a particular road which will benefit certain products. Part of the research done for the organisation, which was carried out by Lansdowne Market Research, gave indications on what account holders were intending to do at this stage. It found that 8% of account holders indicated that they would spend their funds immediately, 11% stated they would spend some of it immediately and the rest later, 22% stated they would spend some immediately and save or reinvest the rest, 16% stated they would save or reinvest it all, and 9% indicated that they would put some or all of it in a pension plan for use at retirement.
In an opinion poll, 16% of those polled claimed they would vote for Royston Brady in the European elections.
The Deputy has taken the words out of my mouth. I am so glad of the reception I got when I introduced the scheme. I did detailed research so that people would avail of it and yet I got abuse from all sides of the House. I am glad to note that the Irish people totally ignored it and did the sensible thing, as the Government anticipated they would. They will be equally as smart when they get the money in their pockets.
Price Inflation.
Fergus O'Dowd
Ceist:7 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Finance if he has revised his forecast for inflation; and the key elements making up his current forecast. [18693/04]
On budget day, inflation, as measured by annual changes in the consumer price index, or CPI, was projected to average 2.5 % in 2004. As measured by the HICP, which is the EU measure of inflation, it was forecast to average 2.3% in 2004. My Department will publish a Revised Estimate in the economic review and outlook in the summer.
As set out in the stability programme update published with the budget, this forecast is based on the following assumptions: a euro-dollar exchange rate of $1.16, oil prices of about $26, a short-term interest rate of 2.3 %, and a continued easing in services sector inflation, which has been borne out so far this year with service sector inflation averaging 2.9% in the first five months of 2004, compared with an average of 4.8% in 2003. The challenge now is to keep inflation down. Keeping public expenditure on target is vital if our inflation rate is to remain low. The Department of Finance will continue closely to monitor spending to ensure it remains within budget. Continued moderate pay developments are essential. We must be careful not to price ourselves out of export markets otherwise we will lose jobs.
I thank the Minister for his projections. I look forward to seeing the revised Estimates. When the Minister says public expenditure must be kept on target, does that imply he does not accept the view of many Government back-benchers that the spending strings need to be relaxed as part of the Government's response to the recent election result?
Will the Minister agree there is an undesirable pattern in price increases in state utilities ranging from electricity, water, health, gas, transport and postal services which are running at approximately 15%, at least six times the stated average rate of inflation? Does he believe he and his colleagues who are ultimately shareholders in these companies need to take a more robust view in terms of efficiency in the delivery of State services? Does he accept, as many people do, that part of our inflationary difficulties is that the competitiveness pressures, which the Minister rightly addressed, stem from stealth taxes in Government and from high cost increases in Government-owned companies?
The Deputy will be aware, as a former economist, that the CPI is designed to measure the impact of all increases. The weighting, based on a household survey undertaken every couple of years, gives weight to all these matters. The increases in the areas to which the Deputy refers are captured in the Consumer Price Index.
The Deputy also asked if such organisations are working to maximum efficiency and operating to their full potential. I would be a foolish Minister for Finance to state that every State organisation is doing so. However, such issues are matters for the board and the relevant line Minister. Most of the increases to which the Deputy refers are not what would be termed stealth taxes, something of which I know the Deputy is aware even though politically he must state they are. They are the charges made by various organisations for the delivery of services. They are user charges. We do not expect electricity, water, gas or health insurance to be provided free of charge. We must also increase such prices each year.
The Deputy is correct in saying that the more efficient the organisations, the better they are able to control costs, wages and ancillary items and, the lower will be price increases. However, they must also make enough money to provide for adequate capital spending into the future. They are given sufficient weighting so as to be captured by the CPI.
Is the Minister aware of the recent European Union publication which illustrates Ireland is the Union's most expensive State? For example, the cost of vegetables in Ireland is 43% more than the average in other European countries; child care costs are astronomically higher, as are medical costs for those who have to pay.
The Minister stated earlier that he favours performance-related pay. If members of the Cabinet were on performance related pay, does the Minister believe the Minister for Health and Children would deserve anything other than a basic salary? Would he not have to pay money back given that he has hopelessly failed to administer the billions of euro the Minister says he has given to him?
Whatever about other Ministers, I should be paid quadruple the rate I currently earn. Everybody in and outside Government, regardless of what I give them, believes he or she could do better if I gave them more. It would appear I am running a number of Departments although I am only responsible for the Department of Finance. My primary responsibility is to ensure the economy is run well so as to create the wealth and resources required by line Ministers to enable them to do all the things they wish to do in particular areas. If the Deputy is advocating an increase in my salary, I will gladly accept it.
I am aware of all types of surveys regarding the relative costs between Ireland and elsewhere. One of the pluses of the euro has been an ability to measure the price of goods in Ireland as compared with France, Italy, Germany, Spain and so on. That in itself should bring its own pressure in terms of reducing prices. There are two reasons prices in Ireland are high: the high cost of oil and the strength of the euro to the dollar and, inflation as generated by us. If we pay ourselves more without increasing productivity levels, the inevitable will happen — prices will increase. Also excessive wage increases result in our products becoming less competitive on the world market. If that happens one does not sell products, firms go out of business and jobs are lost. It is important we take control of such matters.
Oil prices increased dramatically recently. There will be dramatic increases in gas prices in the future regardless of what we do given our long term contracts are now coming to an end. I am told, regardless of what is happening in the world market, that energy costs will increase dramatically.
How would the Minister for Finance advise a line Minister on a request from, say, the ESB seeking a further increase in electricity prices beyond the 23% increases already given in the past two years? Would he offer the opinion that given inflationary concerns we could not afford it or would he allow him or her to decide whether an increase should be given? As regards stealth taxes and the user charges referred to earlier by the Minister, how would he describe the €60 million to €70 million which he took in dividends from the ESB this year? Was it a user charge paid for by the public or was it a classic example of what Deputy Bruton might call a stealth tax?
It was a distribution of profits. I am glad to have an opportunity to put on the record my view regarding the profits made by semi-State companies. Often the last person to be considered by commercial companies is the stake holder, the ordinary taxpayers. Matters such as workers remuneration and so on are considered but no consideration is given to those who are not members of the company. I have tried to enforce a policy of requiring each semi-State company to consider its dividend policy vis-à-vis the State. That money which accrues to the Exchequer pays for health services and welfare benefits. I have tried in recent years to encourage semi-State organisations to put in train a dividend policy. We have started from the position of stating that each semi-State company must have a dividend policy, as is the case with ordinary companies.
Deputy Bruton referred to matters such as ESB increases. They are user charges similar to the one advocated by the Deputy's party for water. There is a cost in providing water to one's tap and it must be paid. If it is not paid for by user charge — in that regard I am of the view that there should be a relationship between the quantity of water used and the charge — then the general body of taxpayers who use water efficiently must pay for it.
Perhaps the Minister might answer the question. How would he advise a line Minister seeking a rise in ESB charges?
I advise my Ministers to scrutinise every proposal put before them by any of the bodies within their remit. I am sure that all my ministerial colleagues do that in any event.
Would the Minister say "Yes"?
Decentralisation Programme.
Jack Wall
Ceist:8 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Finance the way in which the proposed system will work for Dublin-based civil servants who do not wish to move as part of the Government’s decentralisation programme in regard to the recent announcement by the Taoiseach; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18592/04]
Jimmy Deenihan
Ceist:23 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Finance if he will give serious consideration to the proposal to decentralise information technology posts to Tralee, County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18554/04]
Olivia Mitchell
Ceist:26 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance if he has finalised discussions with the public service unions on the proposed centralised applications facility; if he has identified each of the locations at which an existing building is to be acquired; and the locations at which site purchase is proposed. [18662/04]
Brian O'Shea
Ceist:30 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Finance if he will report on the work to date of the group chaired by Mr. Phil Flynn to oversee the decentralisation programme. [18598/04]
Paul Kehoe
Ceist:31 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Finance if any element of the present decentralisation programme is open to revision; and the way in which he intends to evaluate proposals for modification. [18704/04]
John Deasy
Ceist:34 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Finance the arrangements for transferring staff in State agencies which are moving under the decentralisation programme to new duties in the wider public service. [18701/04]
Liz McManus
Ceist:38 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the warning from the trade union, IMPACT, that it would, if necessary, take industrial action to protect the careers of civil and public servants who chose not to participate in the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18593/04]
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:39 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance if a survey has been carried out generally to establish the number of public servants willing to transfer to new locations in regard to his decentralisation proposals, or if any such survey is planned; his views on whether the move will be voluntary and that no public servant will suffer in regard to career options or promotional opportunities if he or she does not wish to move to a new location; if his attention has been drawn to the serious concern that has been expressed by various trade unions representing virtually all grades in the public service at the implication of the proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18590/04]
Dan Boyle
Ceist:41 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Finance the way in which it is proposed to allow civil servants to remain in Dublin if their Department is being moved elsewhere under the Government’s office relocation programme. [18706/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:43 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Finance if it is proposed to establish a second application stream for Dublin-based posts in the Civil Service in the context of decentralisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18721/04]
John Bruton
Ceist:49 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he will subject the Government’s decentralisation programme as completed to date and as planned to a formal review under the expenditure review initiative; and, if not, the reason therefor. [18558/04]
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:55 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance the total moneys expended to date as part of the Government’s decentralisation programme announced in the Budget Statement in December 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18591/04]
Róisín Shortall
Ceist:60 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the serious concern expressed by specialist public servants working in a variety of State agencies at the implications of the decentralisation proposals announced in the budget and the fear that if decentralisation goes ahead, it could lead to a significant loss of expertise by those agencies and a consequential deterioration in services to the public; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18594/04]
Phil Hogan
Ceist:80 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Finance the agencies in the ambit of his Department which will not be part of the decentralisation programme announced in December 2003; the reason for decisions in that regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14057/04]
Richard Bruton
Ceist:95 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the fact that public servants in the information technology area who do not yet know the location of their decentralisation will be at a considerable disadvantage under the CAF system, since their options to avail of the alternative locations will be much reduced by the time that they are in a position to make an informed choice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18848/04]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:97 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Finance the branch or branches of the Civil Service likely to be decentralised to County Kildare and the timeframe for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18875/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 23, 26, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39, 41, 43, 49, 55, 60, 80, 95 and 97 together.
Immediately after the announcement of the new decentralisation programme, a special sub-committee of the Civil Service general council was set up to facilitate discussions with the Civil Service unions. Regular discussions have been taking place not only with those unions but also with the ICTU group of unions representing staff in the State agencies. I am committed to continuing consultations with the unions throughout the implementation of the programme. I am aware of the different concerns expressed by union representatives concerning the decentralisation programme, and I feel that those can be addressed through the process of consultation and dialogue that has been put in place.
The decentralisation implementation group, known as the Flynn group, submitted a report to the Government at the end of March 2004. The Government accepted the report and it has now been published. It is available on my Department's website at www.finance.gov.ie. The group is continuing its work, and I expect to receive a further report at the end of July.
As recommended by the Flynn group, a central applications facility, or CAF, was launched on 12 May 2004 to receive applications from those wishing to relocate. The CAF allows staff in all participating organisations to apply for transfer to or express an interest in various provincial locations. The exact terms and conditions which will govern movements from one part of the public service to another and across professional streams are the subject of ongoing discussions with the public service unions.
I have stated from the outset that participation in the scheme is voluntary. Staff whose jobs are being decentralised and who opt to remain in Dublin will have to be reassigned in due course. As information becomes available from the CAF, it will be possible to identify vacancies which will arise in organisations remaining in Dublin as a result of individuals from those organisations applying for decentralised posts. The exact procedures which will apply to allow staff to be reassigned in Dublin will have to be discussed between public service management and staff interests.
No central survey of civil and public servants has been carried out to ascertain the numbers seeking transfers to decentralised locations. However, the results of the CAF should provide a reasonable assessment of interest in the programme. The same number of promotional opportunities will continue to exist across the public service, but in the future that will reflect the new geographical spread of staff.
I have no plans to carry out a formal review of this programme under the expenditure review process. I am satisfied that the arrangements which are in place for the implementation of the programme will ensure that it is implemented in a cost-effective way. The Flynn group requested that each organisation produce an implementation plan incorporating all risks which could arise as a result of the transfer of all or part of its operations. Such risks could include, for example, a loss of expertise or a deterioration in services to the public. Each organisation was also required to include risk mitigation strategies for each risk identified in its plan.
I provided €20 million in my Department's Vote to meet any decentralisation capital costs which arise during this year. No funds have yet been released from this subhead. My Department has already sanctioned the acquisition of sites in Longford and Carlow, and I expect finalisation of site acquisitions to accelerate in the coming months with a consequent increase in the rate of expenditure under this heading. To date, the cost of the Flynn group has amounted to €69,000, and the Office of Public Works has spent around €90,000 on costs associated with the identification and evaluation of sites.
The OPW is assessing the proposals received for each of the locations. Most are for the provision of sites, but the potential to purchase existing buildings is still an option in a small number of locations. It is expected that significant progress will be made in the transfer of organisations over the next three years.
The identification of the locations for the information technology staff, as outlined in the Flynn report, will be announced as soon as possible. Following that, the posts involved will be included in the CAF. The Civil Service unions have recently written to my Department seeking an extension to the time allowed for making priority applications to the CAF. I accept that people need a reasonable amount of time to consider their options.
My Budget Statement of 3 December 2003 set out the offices which are scheduled to transfer to County Kildare. Following is a table detailing the agencies in the ambit of my Department and showing those relocating. The criteria used to select organisations for decentralisation are set out in my budget documentation. I have already dealt with the question of a revision to the programme in a priority question.
Agencies in the ambit of Department of Finance
Central Bank: Not relocating
Civil Service Commission: Part relocating
Economic and Social Research Institute: Not relocating
Institute of Public Administration: Not relocating
National Treasury Management Agency: Not relocating
Office of Public Works: Relocating
Office of the Ombudsman: Not relocating
Office of the Revenue Commissioners: Part relocating
Ordnance Survey Ireland: Relocating
State Laboratory: Not relocating
Valuation Office: Relocating
Is the Minister's statement that he has no plans to review the structure that he has set up regarding the work being carried out by Mr. Flynn's implementation committee not a direct contradiction of the statement made by the Taoiseach on 7 June in Cabra that the Government would develop a similar facility to the CAF for those who wish to remain in Dublin city? He also said that he appreciated that there is a great deal of uncertainty among the many thousands of public servants who, although they wish to stay in Dublin, are having their jobs decentralised. Who is right? Is it the Minister for Finance who says that he has no plans to carry out any further review, or is it the Taoiseach who, on 7 June when opening a football facility in Phibsborough in Cabra in the heart of his own constituency, promised civil servants who wished to stay in Dublin a special applications facility?
Where does the Taoiseach's promise stand when it has now been disowned by the Minister for Finance, who has said that he has no such plans? As I understand it, the Taoiseach has no direct control over the decentralisation process; it is in the Department of Finance. The Taoiseach, on the eve of the local and European elections, made promises to civil servants who, for family reasons, cannot be decentralised, but the Minister for Finance has just said that he has no plans for a review. Where does the Taoiseach's promise stand?
There is no divergence between what the Taoiseach said on that date and what I have said in the past.
Where is the facility?
I assure the Deputy that it was always the intention, as I stated at the time, that when people indicated a preference to locate outside Dublin, the staff remaining in Dublin should have a similar facility available to them as to where they relocate within the city. That is exactly what the Taoiseach said in his speech. That was known many months ago.
No, that was not what he said. He said that the Government would develop a similar facility. This is more election promises and lies.
Allow the Minister speak without interruption.
It is quite simple. When the decentralisation programme is in operation and people go to the various parts of the country, there will still be thousands of civil servants left in Dublin and jobs to be filled. There will therefore be a similar central applications facility available for those people remaining in Dublin to indicate their preferences regarding where they go in the Dublin scene.
Is the Minister saying that it will be at the end of the process? Does he have no plans to do it now? That is contrary to what the Taoiseach said.
Order, please. The Minister should be allowed continue without interruption.
It will be ongoing. The Deputy should think about what she is saying and use a little common sense, something given to some of us. In reality, we will not know where the vacancies will be in the various Dublin offices until people relocating express a preference of going to the country. At that point, it will be possible for people in the Dublin area to signal their intentions regarding which offices they would like to relocate to. The facility that is available now for the decentralisation programme throughout the country will be available to those who wish to remain in Dublin. This programme is voluntary, as I have stressed repeatedly. Nobody is being forced to do anything. That makes sense. It was always the intention and remains so.
I have always said that members of the Government were the sultans of spin, but the Minister has confirmed it now. They are trying to create one version for Dublin and give a different version of answers when they are asked questions down the country. The truth of the matter is that the electorate saw through it in both locations.
I have specific questions for the Minister. How are employees of State agencies to be accommodated? Will they be offered transfers where they have been employed for specialist purposes? If they are not moving down the country, what will be on offer for those specialist grades? Does the Minister believe it fair not to announce the IT location, with the result that people who might wish to consider moving to the country to some other location cannot participate in the CAF lottery because they do not know where their jobs will go? Is it the case that on previous occasions about 40% of the transferred positions were filled on promotion and that this was how it was secured? If that is the case, will we see a significant hidden Bill on this in terms of promotions?
As regards disruption, is it the case that previous transfers have required five moves for every one post moved out of the capital and that there is an extraordinary degree of churning and disruption attached? Can we expect that to occur again here? This will go on and on, with an impact on services for a long time to come. Has the Minister factored in the impact on delivery of services in the areas affected?
On the first question relating to professional grades, there are ongoing discussions with the Civil Service unions representing those workers on how to accommodate them, as far as this is possible. This scheme is voluntary, I stress again, so we will have discussions with the unions on that matter. We should be in a position shortly to announce the IT locations. In the budget statement, which I mentioned earlier, I referred the question of the IT locations to the Flynn group which was to come up with options. It has reported and the Government will shortly be in a position to announce the IT locations. Furthermore, there was also a commitment as regards staff within the health sector and we hope to deal with that in the near future.
As regards promotion, when this is all working itself out, I am sure that the template of the past to which the Deputy refers will be relevant. I do not want, at this stage, to identify any particular areas for promotional opportunity. Promotions may arise. That is something to be worked out in talks with the Civil Service unions. On the last question, when for instance the TDs were moved from here in Leinster House across to Kildare Street and back again, there were complaints about disruption. One can never move an organisation without some disruption. I do not know whether the Deputy has ever been involved in moving, but in my professional background I have experienced at least two moves. There is always a certain amount of disruption. One must remember this is what Civil Service managers are paid to do and they do it quite well. Some Departments have considerable experience of decentralisation and have done it successfully.
We have decentralised thousands of people over the past 20 years, to Longford, Sligo and various parts of the country. Decentralisation is not something the Civil Service has no experience of. Some Departments have considerable experience and we hope to lessen potential disruption.
Given that decentralisation implies significant personal disruption for individuals and their families, was the requirement of availability for transfer to any location, as indicated, part of the condition of employment for the position advertised earlier this year in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Is that to be the norm in terms of recruitment to the public service in the future? Is this the formula the Minister intends to use to secure transferability and mobility of staff within the public sector? This is something I would like clarified.
As regards the pre-December 2003 announcement in the budget by the Minister of 10,300 positions to be decentralised, there was an agreement between the Department of Finance and Teagasc — the Minister's Department and the Department of Agriculture and Food — as regards decentralisation of its personnel, for which there was a €6,000 once-off payment for those opting to relocate outside Dublin. What is the current status of that arrangement? Has it been put on hold because the Minister was fearful that the arrangement in place with Teagasc staff might be expected to be replicated by other public service workers who were to be relocated around the jurisdiction?
Will the Minister give special consideration to Tralee in County Kerry for the IT jobs which, I understand, will be decentralised?
I am sorry, he has already promised them to Monaghan.
A joint submission has been made by Shannon Free Airport Development Company and Tralee Urban District Council to the Minister's Department outlining the case for Tralee, which is strong. Tralee is a town that has lost out considerably in technology jobs in recent years. This would be a major boost and I appeal to him to consider Tralee favourably when making his decision.
The least I can say about Deputy Deenihan is that he has been full square behind the programme of decentralisation. He has not spoken out of the two corners of his mouth about it in the past six months. I will give him credit for that. More than other Deputies in this House, he was for it, he spoke in favour of it and he has not delivered one message in Kerry and a different one here in Dublin. I compliment him on his honest approach to this. I cannot say the same for all members of his party or indeed of any party in the House.
I certainly will consider Tralee. It must be remembered we asked the Flynn group to consider where the IT jobs should be located. I am sure the Deputy is aware of the general recommendations made in the Flynn report in this regard. If I had the pick of the boom towns in Ireland, Tralee would be one of them. It has a strong local economy and does very well.
As regards the question raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin, certainly people should know when they are applying for jobs within the Civil Service that the new headquarters of a Department etc. is located in a particular part of the country. People who apply for the Civil Service from County Kerry know they will be located in Dublin, but they should know in the future that the Department being applied to may be in some other part of the country. Finally, on this topic, one of the reasons for the negative publicity is that a highly influential group of civil servants at a particular level is based in Dublin. Some of them do not want to go anywhere for obvious reasons. They are highly influential within the circles that most of us mingle and operate in and they have the ear of, say, the Dublin media.
There has been much unbalanced comment about this. Let us put it in perspective. Some 10,000 civil and public servants are being asked to relocate from Dublin. Take any percentage of this figure representing people who do not want to go at any cost, multiply this by five, to take account of a partner and four children, and there is still only a small number as a percentage of the total population of Ireland. The population of Ireland is currently 4 million, give or take a few thousand. No matter what way the figure is multiplied it is a minute number compared to the total population of Ireland, and even the population that lives outside the greater Dublin area. That should be borne in mind by everybody. I do not believe it is too much to ask since it is voluntary.
What about Teagasc?
The people in those jobs arein permanent and pensionable employment.When a private company collapses in Deputy Deenihan's or Deputy Ó Caoláin's constituency the employees do not have the option of having their jobs guaranteed forever. They must go on the dole or look for another job. Public servants are in the unique and privileged position that no matter what happens their jobs are protected. Their pensions are protected, and that is not given to everybody. I want to put those remarks on record to give some semblance of balance to this debate.
What about the issue of Teagasc?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.