Written Answers No. 138-149
138. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of staff in his Department who availed of study or training leave in 2012; the average duration of such leave; if all staff availing of this leave received full pay and benefits during the time; the number that will do so in 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31243/13]
Amharc ar fhreagra139. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of staff in organisations or agencies under the aegis of his Department who availed of study or training leave in 2012; the average duration of such leave; if all staff availing of this leave received full pay and benefits during the time; the number that will do so in 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31259/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 138 and 139 together.
In response to the Deputy’s questions, the following table outlines the number of staff within my Department and those under my aegis who availed of study or training leave in 2012 and the estimated number in 2013:
|
Number of staff availing of Study/Training Leave |
- |
- |
- |
|
Department / Office |
2012 Number of Staff |
2012 Average Duration (days) |
2013 Number of staff (Estimate) |
|
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform* |
10 |
4 |
20 |
|
Ombudsman ** |
13 |
13 |
6 |
|
Public Appointments Service |
9 |
3 |
4 |
|
State Laboratory |
5 |
2.8 |
5 |
|
Valuation Office |
4 |
4 |
5 |
|
Office of Public Works |
17 |
6 |
14 |
|
Total |
58 |
6.3 |
54 |
* In addition to the study leave mentioned, 59 members of staff pursued formal training courses in 2012 and the respective figure to date for 2013 is 163. Depending on scope and content, formal training courses can vary in length from a set number of hours to a specified number of days.
** One staff member took 35 unpaid study leave days in 2012.
All staff received full pay and benefits and, at this time, I am not aware of any further applications for study, exam or training days for the remainder of 2013.
140. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if it is his intention to abolish the pension-related deduction from 2014. [31325/13]
Amharc ar fhreagra141. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the reason a front-line worker on €20,000 pays a pension-related deduction of 10% but a person on more than €60,000 pays only 10.5%, with the deduction being on gross salary, the higher the pay, significantly more relief from tax, pay-related social insurance and universal social charge, meaning effectively the lower paid worker paying more. [31327/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 140 and 141 together.
Within the next few days, and in compliance with the duty placed on me by section 13 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, I will lodge with both Houses of the Oireachtas my annual review and report on the public service Pension-related Deduction (PRD), which is the subject of the Deputy’s questions.
Without unduly anticipating the findings of that review and report, I can state that I do not plan to abolish the PRD from 2014. PRD remains a critical financial emergency measure, supporting the fiscal position to the extent of some €1 billion annually.
I would however note that, as lately legislated in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013, and as provided for in the Haddington Road Agreement, the rate of PRD on the €15,000 to €20,000 band of pay received in a year will fall from 5% to 2.5% on 1 January 2014. This rate cut will be worth €125 annually in gross terms to most public servants, with those taxed at the standard rate enjoying the greater gain in terms of take-home pay boost.
This progressive aspect of the January 2014 PRD adjustment with respect to take-home pay is mirrored by the progressive design of the PRD itself. As an income-graduated measure applying to pensionable public servants, PRD is structured in such a way that increasing rates of deduction are applied to increasing bands or slices of an affected person’s pay each year. In this matrix of band and rates a zero per cent rate applies to the first €15,000 of earnings, which is especially important for lower-paid public service workers, in that it markedly dampens the proportion of pay deducted. In terms of its detailed composition, PRD is currently applied by reference to the following set of income bands and associated reduction rates:
First €15,000 of earnings: exempt
Earnings between €15,000 and €20,000: 5%
Earnings between €20,000 and €60,000: 10%
Earnings above €60,000: 10.5%
Based on this set of deduction rates, the PRD imposition on a public servant paid €20,000 in a year is €250, or 1.25% of pay, not 10% of pay as stated in the Deputy’s second question. Likewise, the PRD taken from a public servant paid €60,000 in a year is €4,250, or 7.08% of pay, not 10.5% as stated by the Deputy.
In terms of the actual outturns in the example cases raised by the Deputy, the large difference in PRD impact between 1.25% of pay at €20,000 and 7.08 % of pay at €60,000 shows how, across this pay gap, PRD acts in a manifestly progressive way. While this large difference would lessen in a post-tax relief analysis, the lower paid person would undoubtedly retain a clear edge.
For the record, PRD, though tax-relieved, does not qualify for relief from PRSI or USC. All such reliefs are a matter for the Minister for Finance.
142. Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 142 of the 16 May 2013 and 67 of 23 May 2013, if he will clarify that the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2013 that will provide for a statutory qualified privilege for private papers of Members and official documents of the Houses will include that of political staff working in their parliamentary and constituency offices in terms of their documents, emails and other communications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31442/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2013 provides for a statutory qualified privilege for the private papers of Members and official documents of the Houses. Section 104 of the Bill (as amended in the Select sub-Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform) provides a definition of what constitutes a “private paper” within the meaning of the Bill.
In the first instance, it is a matter for the Houses to regulate which documents will be designated as private papers. Section 107 of the Bill provides that a Member may at any time apply to the committee designated for this purpose (the “Part 10 committee”) for a determination as to whether a document is a private paper. Additionally, Section 108 of the Bill empowers a House to prepare and issue guidelines to provide practical guidance for Members including protocols to be followed relating to maintaining a document as a private paper.
In addition, Section 104(2) of the Bill provides that nothing in Part 10 shall be construed to prejudice the power of each House to make rules and standing orders pursuant to Article 15.10 of the Constitution to create a protection for private papers referred to in that Article and irrespective of whether the definition of “private paper” provided for in such rules and standing orders overlaps, whether in whole or in part, with the definition of “private paper” in Part 10 of the Bill.
143. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if his attention has been drawn to the massive increases in commercial rates due to be levied on businesses in County Waterford on foot of a statutory revaluation of commercial rates in Waterford city and county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31447/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy will be aware, the national revaluation programme aims to provide up-to-date valuations for individual properties across all economic sectors that are subject to local authority rates. The revaluation process is the mechanism whereby economic changes that take place in the property market are reflected in the valuation lists for rates purposes and in individual ratepayers’ rates liabilities. The national revaluation programme is a priority for Government and is a feature of the Action Plan for Jobs 2012. The programme is particularly important given the significant changes that have occurred in rental values following the economic downturn of recent years. The purpose of a revaluation is to distribute commercial rates liabilities more equitably among ratepayers based on up-to-date values. Following revaluation, there will be a much closer relationship between rental value and commercial rates liability. Even though property values have fallen generally, given that the purpose is to redistribute the overall rates liability, some ratepayers will obtain a reduction while others will experience an increase from the process of redistribution but, overall, revaluation results in a fairer distribution of the rates burden.
In line with Government priorities, I am very keen that the revaluation programme would be expedited so that the first revaluation in 25 years can be completed as soon as possible across the country. In keeping with Government policy, I have introduced the Valuation (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, 2012, which is currently before the Oireachtas. The primary purpose of this legislation is to accelerate the revaluation process. The Bill also includes new features which provide for the streamlining of the valuation appeals procedures available to ratepayers and as part of the efforts to accelerate the national revaluation programme, it also provides the legislative basis for carrying out a revaluation based on self-assessment by ratepayers and also for the external delivery of elements of the valuation process.
Under Irish law, there is a distinct separation of function between the valuation of rateable property and the setting and collection of commercial rates. The amount of rates payable by a ratepayer in any calendar year is a product of the valuation of that property determined by the Valuation Office and the annual rate on valuation (ARV) set annually by the elected members of the rating authority. Revaluation is the mechanism whereby movements in property valuations as a result of economic factors are reflected in valuation lists. Following the first revaluation in each area, the Valuation Act 2001 provides for subsequent, recurring revaluations to be carried out at intervals of a minimum of 5 years and no later than 10 years. This will ensure that movements in the property market are tracked and reflected in rateable valuations within a reasonable timeline, which has not been the case heretofore. Accordingly, individual valuations would be established and remain fixed for a 5-10 year period. On the other hand the ARV can, as determined by the elected members of the rating authority, vary from year to year and therefore so can the amount of rates payable annually.
Valuations reflect the value of all individual properties in particular rating authority areas at the statutory valuation date (28th October 2011 for Waterford). Movements in valuations since the last date by which valuations were set (1988/89) reflect the relative changes to rental values within and between sectors such as retail, industrial and hospitality between 1988 and 2011. Accordingly, some businesses will have an increase in their rates liability while others will experience a decrease following revaluation.
The setting of valuation levels during a revaluation exercise such as that underway in Waterford City Council, Waterford County Council and Dungarvan Town Council is based on market evidence available to the Valuation Office, including information solicited from and provided by ratepayers. In establishing the levels for rateable properties, the Commissioner of Valuation is independent in carrying out his function. In relation to particular cases there is, of course, a well established statutory process whereby a ratepayer, if he or she considers that the proposed valuation or any of the details contained in the Proposed Valuation Certificate are incorrect, can make representations to the Valuation Manager. There is also a subsequent statutory right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, an independent body set up for such purposes and subsequently, on a point of law, there is an appeal to the High and Supreme Courts.
In keeping with the principle of separation of function between the valuation of rateable property and the setting and collection of commercial rates, the amount of rates that a rating authority can raise is generally a matter for decision by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and does not come within the competence of the Commissioner of Valuation whose sole responsibility lies in administering the system of rateable valuation as underpinned by the Valuation Act, 2001. However, in so far as valuation legislation is concerned, there is a specific provision in the 2001 Act which allows the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to make an order requiring a rating authority to exercise its powers to make rates in such a manner that it does not exceed the amount of rates liable to be paid to it in the first year following a revaluation except for any increase determined by the consumer price index.
144. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the number of applications the micro finance loan fund received since it was started; the number of loans that have been awarded; the average size of the loans; the average time from an application being lodged to a loan awarded; the number of loan applications that have been denied and the reason for same; if there is a breakdown available of the industries receiving loans; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31191/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraA full progress report on the operation of the scheme from 1 October 2012 to 31 March 2013 can be found on my Department’s website (www.enterprise.gov.ie) and the Microfinance Ireland (MFI) website (www.microfinanceireland.ie). I hope to publish the next MFI progress report by mid-July.
The report contains all the information requested by the Deputy apart from the reasons for decline, which are, as the Deputy will appreciate, confidential to individual clients.
145. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the number of staff in his Department who availed of term time in 2012; the average duration of such in 2012; the number that will do so in 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31209/13]
Amharc ar fhreagra146. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the number of staff in organisations or agencies under the aegis of his Department who availed of term time in 2012; the average duration of such in 2012; the number that will do so in 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31225/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 145 and 146 together.
81 members of staff in my Department availed of the shorter working year scheme (previously known as term time) in 2012. The average duration in 2012 was 5.42 weeks.
82 members of staff in my Department are availing of shorter working year scheme in 2013. The average duration in 2013 will be 5.35 weeks.
The granting of term time in the agencies under the aegis of my Department is a day to day matter for the agencies concerned. I have asked the Agencies to respond directly to the Deputy.
147. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the number of staff in his Department who availed of study or training leave in 2012; the average duration of such leave; if all staff availing of this leave received full pay and benefits during the time; the number that will do so in 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31241/13]
Amharc ar fhreagra148. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the number of staff in organisations or agencies under the aegis of his Department who availed of study or training leave in 2012; the average duration of such leave; if all staff availing of this leave received full pay and benefits during the time; the number that will do so in 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31257/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 147 and 148 together.
The number of staff of my Department who availed of study leave and training days in 2012 and 2013 is set out in the tables following. All staff receive full pay and benefits while availing of training courses or on study leave.
The Deputy should note that figures for training in 2013 are up to and including 31st March, as these are the latest figures available to the Department. The figures in relation to study leave for 2013 are to the current date.
It is not possible in the time available to provide information regarding the average duration of training leave.
The granting of study and training leave in the Agencies under the aegis of my Department is a day to day matter for the Agencies concerned. I have asked the Agencies to respond directly to the Deputy.
2012 - Training
|
Number of Departmental Staff who attended training |
Number of training days |
Average duration of training leave |
|
525 |
918 days |
Not available |
Study Leave
|
Number of Staff who availed of Study Leave in 2012 |
Number of Study Leave days taken |
Average duration of Study Leave in 2012 |
|
17 |
95 Days |
5.6 days |
2013 - Training
|
Number of Departmental Staff who attended training |
Number of training days |
Average duration of training leave |
|
122 |
291 |
Not available |
Study Leave
|
Number of Staff who availed of Study Leave in 2013 |
Number of Study Leave days taken |
Average duration of Study Leave in 2013 |
|
33 |
121.5 |
3.7 |
149. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to reintroduce the groceries order to prevent below-cost selling of all alcohol products. [31368/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI assume the Deputy is referring to the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 (S.I. No.142 of 1987) which prohibited below invoice price selling of those goods rather than banning below cost selling of certain goods. In effect, the Order allowed wholesalers and suppliers to determine minimum retail prices being charged to consumers, thereby seriously constraining competition in the grocery trade.
Since the repeal of that Order in 2006, no statutory basis exists for me, as Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, to make a minimum pricing order.
The use of aggressive pricing strategies in any business is a legitimate marketing tool and is the normal outcome of the competitive process. Low cost and below cost selling by a retailer is not of itself an offence unless it involves abuse of a dominant position. A determination on whether a retailer is abusing a dominant position in the marketplace would necessitate a comprehensive investigation by the Competition Authority.
The Authority is the independent statutory body responsible for enforcing competition law in the State and complaints of any alleged anti-competitive practice should be referred to it.
The sale of alcohol, essentially regulated by the liquor licensing laws, which are the policy responsibility of the Minister for Justice and Equality, is a matter in which I have no direct function.
