Written Answers Nos. 103-11
103. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the cost of the National Asset Management Agency's scheme to make retention payments to staff who remain with it; the amount each staff member will be paid; the reason he agreed to the scheme; his views that the payments are justified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38784/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs I have previously advised the Deputy in Dail Question 90 of 24 September 2015, the overall cost of NAMA's redundancy programme will not exceed €20 million. That figure includes a retention payment element which is designed to ensure that NAMA retains key staff, and the expertise they hold, within the organisation for as long as they are needed. As set out in my Department's Section 227 Review of NAMA in July 2014, the ability of NAMA to obtain the best achievable financial return for the State is heavily dependent on its retention of expertise. That view has been strongly endorsed by the NAMA Board. Given that, I agreed with the NAMA Board in the context of NAMA's accelerated senior debt redemption target and its ancillary residential and commercial development funding activities, that a redundancy programme reflecting public sector norms and also comprising a retention payment element would be introduced to enable NAMA retain key staff. The retention payment for individual staff is dependent on NAMA achieving its targets and on satisfactory individual performance ratings and will only be paid in the year the staff member leaves the organisation. I should add that the retention payment is subject to normal employment taxes and levies. The overall cost of NAMA's redundancy programme of €20 million should be read in the context of projected cash generation by NAMA over its life of €40 billion.
104. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the amount the State Claims Agency paid in legal costs to solicitors representing it and acting for plaintiffs in 2013 and in 2014; the top ten payments made to named legal firms representing it and representing plaintiffs in 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38785/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn response to the Deputy's question the State Claims Agency (SCA) have supplied the following information:
Table 1.
Total Agency solicitors' fees paid in 2013 & 2014
|
Year |
Agency solicitor costs (€) |
|
2013 |
12,271,052 |
|
2014 |
13,298,397 |
|
Total |
25,569,449 |
The level of legal costs paid to plaintiffs' legal representatives is carefully reviewed and, wherever possible and by means of negotiations, the SCA seeks to achieve the maximum possible reduction in legal costs. If the SCA cannot successfully agree the level of legal costs to be paid to plaintiffs' legal representatives, the matter is determined by a Taxing Master.
Plaintiff legal costs relate to the payment made to the Plaintiff's legal team i.e. Solicitors and Counsel and are also inclusive of expert fees which are discharged by the Plaintiff's solicitor. These expert fees may relate to actuarial, engineering, medical, witness fees etc.
Figures included in table 2 below include Plaintiff legal costs paid by the SCA in 2013 & 2014.
Table 2.
Total plaintiff legal costs paid in 2013 & 2014
|
Year |
Plaintiff legal costs (€) |
|
2013 |
24,314,354 |
|
2014 |
30,412,339 |
|
Total |
54,726,693 |
A number of solicitors act on behalf of the agency in defence of clinical negligence and general negligence cases. Figures included in table 3 below relate to the top 10 total amounts paid to Agency solicitors acting on behalf of the SCA in 2014. The figures shown are the total amount of all transactions paid to each solicitor firm within the transactional year.
Table 3.
Top 10 payments to Agency solicitors in 2014
|
Solicitor |
Total Paid (€) |
|
Hayes Solicitors |
2,573,233 |
|
Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors |
2,540,703 |
|
Doyle & Co. Solicitors |
1,104,575 |
|
Arthur Cox Solicitors |
1,035,471 |
|
Comyn Kelleher Tobin Solicitors |
1,022,747 |
|
A & L Goodbody Solicitors |
934,817 |
|
DAC Beachcroft Solicitors |
644,289 |
|
RDJ Glynn Solicitors |
629,803 |
|
Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors |
477,971 |
|
VP McMullin Solicitors |
388,724 |
Figures included in table 4 below relate to Plaintiff legal costs and it highlights the top 10 total amounts paid to plaintiff legal firms by the SCA in 2014. The figures shown are the total amount of all transactions paid to each legal firm within the transactional year.
Table 4.
Top 10 total payments to plaintiff legal firms in 2014
|
Legal firm |
Total Paid (€) |
|
Augustus Cullen & Co. |
6,984,277 |
|
Callan Tansey Solicitors |
2,749,512 |
|
Ernest J. Cantillion & Co Solicitors |
2,315,819 |
|
MM Halley & Son Solicitors |
1,125,167 |
|
Donal T. Ryan & Co. Solicitors |
616,666 |
|
Kelly & Griffin Solicitors |
557,456 |
|
Sheridan Quinn Solicitors |
424,295 |
|
O'Donovan Mahon Cowen Solicitors |
409,110 |
|
Denis O'Sullivan & Co. Solicitors |
400,286 |
|
Cian O'Carroll Solicitors |
390,524 |
Notes:
- All figures are based on payments made within a transactional year.
- All figures are inclusive of VAT.
- Figures are correct as of 03/11/2015.
105. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Finance if a primary medical certificate will be awarded to a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38787/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Scheme provides relief from VAT and Vehicle Registration Tax (up to a certain limit) on the purchase of an adapted car for transport of a person with specific severe and permanent physical disabilities, an exemption from motor tax, and a fuel grant (up to a certain limit).
In order to participate in the scheme, an individual must apply to the Senior Medical Officer in their local Health Service Executive office for a Primary Medical Certificate. If a Primary Medical Certificate is refused, an individual may appeal this refusal to the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal.
It would not be appropriate for me to intervene in the clinical determinations of a Senior Medical Officer of the Health Service Executive or of the Medical Board of Appeal.
107. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 146 of 22 October 2015, the impact that any additional tax revenue in 2015 and 2016, over and above current projections, would have on the fiscal space for 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38793/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraEstimates of the gross and net fiscal space for the period 2017 to 2021 using the Expenditure Benchmark can be found in Tables A8 and A9 on pages C.50 and C.51 of the Budget 2016 book.
The Expenditure Benchmark, restricts the year-on-year growth of government expenditure, net of discretionary revenue measures, to given reference rates, adjusted by the GDP deflator. The relevant reference rate set by the European Commission annually is a 10 year average of the potential growth of the economy less a convergence margin. This is applicable in cases, such as Ireland's, where the medium term budgetary objective set under the balanced budget fiscal rule has yet to be achieved. In short, the Expenditure Benchmark adjusts the expenditure based on the previous year and only takes account of discretionary revenue measures.
Therefore additional tax revenue generated due to buoyancy, via growth in the economy or otherwise, has no impact on future available fiscal space. However, additional revenue generated via discretionary policy measures increases fiscal space but decisions which lead to a decrease in revenue reduce the overall fiscal space.
The carryover effect of Budget 2016 tax measures was taken into account when estimating the fiscal space available in 2017 included in Tables A8 and A9. It should also be noted that there is provision for indexation of the tax system included in the baseline Budget figures and the potential additional revenue that would be generated from a political decision not to proceed with indexation is included as a discretionary revenue measure in the fiscal space calculations in Tables A8 and A9. The final choice of measures will be a matter for decision by the next government.
108. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Finance the estimated cost to the Exchequer from the changes to the tax treatment of the expenses of non-resident non-executive directors, as envisaged in the Finance Bill 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38879/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the information which would be necessary to provide a cost estimate along the lines sought by the Deputy is not a feature of the information which is sought from companies as part of their annual tax returns.
Where expenses incurred by an employee or office holder, such as non-executive director, do not satisfy the criteria which would allow them to be reimbursed free of tax, appropriate PAYE/PRSI/USC should be operated on the payment by the employer and the amount of the expenses forms part of the emoluments of the employee or office holder. In this respect, it is not possible to identify, on the employer's return to Revenue, the amount of emoluments paid to an employee or office holder which is attributable to expenses rather than salary.
As a consequence of the above, it would not be possible to provide an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the measure referred to by the Deputy.
109. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan asked the Minister for Finance if a cash refund will be made to a person making a claim under MED 1 expenses, when the person's income is so low that it does not fall into the tax net, so a tax credit is of no use (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38885/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraSection 469 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provides for tax relief for an individual in a year of assessment where that individual has incurred relevant health care expenses in that year of assessment. In this context health care expenses includes non-routine dental expenses such as the fitting of braces.
Section 469(2) provides that where an individual qualifies for this relief, the income tax charge for the year of assessment "shall be reduced by the lesser of-
(i) the amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the specified amount [i.e the expenses], and
(ii) the amount which reduces that income tax to nil,
The section, therefore, specifically precludes the making of a refund where the individual concerned had no liability to tax in the year of assessment in which the expenses were incurred.
In the case of health expenses incurred by a person prior to that person's death, any tax relief due in respect of health expenses would normally be claimed by the individuals personal representatives based on any tax paid by the deceased individual prior to their death.
As the claimants in both cases referred to by the Deputy do not appear to have had any income tax liability in the relevant periods the legislation does not provide for any repayment of tax.
110. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of applicants awaiting transfer in his Department to locations other than their present location; the number of applications, by location; the rules that apply for such transfers; if an applicant has a defined position on the list for transfer; the grounds that apply to applicants being moved up or down on the list; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38761/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) operates an internal transfer list to facilitate, where possible, staff moves between the various offices of PER, the National Shared Services Office and the Office of Government Procurement. There are currently four staff on the list seeking a transfer to a different location, one of whom is based in Killarney while the other three are based in Clonskeagh, Dublin.
A request to move location is covered by the terms of the Department's Mobility Framework. Under this framework, staff who have been in their current role for at least two years can apply for a transfer. Staff must be
- committed to their own career development;
- able to assume new or different responsibilities; and
- able to take the initiative to show that they are ready to learn new skills.
Staff whose performance has been rated as unsatisfactory under the PMDS process or who are subject to disciplinary proceedings are not eligible to apply for a transfer.
The final decision on whether an individual staff member can be moved is one for divisional management taking account of business needs in both the current office and the proposed new location. Given the numbers involved, it has not been necessary to rank applications on the transfer list. Rather, all requests for transfer are reviewed at regular meetings of the Department's Workforce Planning Group to determine whether any given request can be facilitated.
DPER does not maintain an external transfer list for staff seeking a move to a different location but seeks to support such mobility, where appropriate, through redeployment; the circulation of notices offering secondment opportunities across the Civil and Public Service; and the facilitation of "head to head" transfers arranged by individual staff members.
111. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 146 of 22 October 2015, the impact that any additional recurring expenditure in 2015 and 2016, over and above current projections, would have on the fiscal space for 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38794/15]
Amharc ar fhreagra112. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 146 of 22 October 2015, the manner in which the expenditure rule impacts on the fiscal space for 2017; the circumstances in which overall expenditure for 2017 could be increased from current projections; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38795/15]
Amharc ar fhreagra113. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if Supplementary Estimates are permitted under fiscal rules from 2016; how expenditure overruns within individual Departments will be dealt with from 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38796/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 111 to 113, inclusive, together.
The framework for the conduct of budgetary policy relating to the issues set out in the Deputy's question were detailed in the Budget and Expenditure Report documentation published on the Budget 2016 website available at www.budget.gov.ie.
My statement on 13 October last on the Expenditure Estimates for 2016 and that of the Minister for Finance on the Budget, highlighted the progress achieved in securing fiscal sustainability. This is demonstrated by Ireland's exit from the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) at the end of this year and its transition to the preventive arm which will set the context for the delivery of our fiscal targets from 2016 onwards.
As the Deputy will be aware, the core of these fiscal rules is the Medium Term Objective (MTO) which is to achieve a balanced budget in structural terms (i.e. once allowances are made for once-off temporary factors and the impact of the economic cycle on the public finances estimated using the agreed EU methodology). Compliance with the MTO will require an improvement in the structural budget at a rate greater than 0.5% of GDP each year until the MTO is met.
The second pillar of the fiscal rules relates to the Expenditure Benchmark which supports the achievement of the MTO by explicitly setting the rate - aligned to the estimated potential growth rate of the economy - at which aggregate public expenditure can grow other than when the relevant expenditure is funded by discretionary revenue measures.
Ministerial Expenditure Ceilings within which Departments should deliver the services for which they are responsible were set out in the Expenditure Report. These are consistent with our obligations under the fiscal framework set by the preventive arm of the SGP and the need to maintain hard-won fiscal stability. Under the EU fiscal rules additional resources in excess of those ceilings may only be allocated in a manner that is consistent with our obligations under the preventive arm of the SGP. For example from 2016 onwards any supplementary estimates needed to meet unplanned additional spending would need to be funded through expenditure savings and efficiencies elsewhere or via discretionary revenue measures.
The Ministerial Expenditure Ceilings for the period to 2018 set out in the Expenditure Report 2016, take into account a range of expected expenditure developments including demographic pressures in Health, Education and Social Protection, the carry-over impact of certain Budget 2016 measures, expected lower numbers on the Live Register and the revised capital envelope set out in the Capital Plan.
The Deputy may wish to note that as set out by my colleague the Minister for Finance in his response to Parliamentary Question No. 146 of 22 October 2015, the amounts set out in the Budget 2016 documentation in relation to gross and net fiscal space for the period 2017 to 2021 are not final for the reasons set out in the reply.
Actual aggregate expenditure beyond 2016 will ultimately be a matter for Government decision-making, in light of the available fiscal space determined under SGP obligations at that time and its allocation between tax and expenditure measures as determined by Government.
I am satisfied that the Government decision-making which underpinned Budget 2016 demonstrated how an appropriate balance can be struck operating strictly within the fiscal rules of achieving budgetary sustainability and directing available public resources to areas of greatest need.
