Written Answers Nos. 41-65
41. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the position regarding the restoration of pay for members of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52493/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraSimilar to other sectors in the public service, the pay of Permanent Defence Force personnel was reduced as one of the measures to assist in stabilising national finances during the financial crisis.
The recovery in the economy has provided the fiscal resources to provide for a fair and sustainable recovery in public service pay scales.
Pay is being restored to members of the Defence Forces and other public servants in accordance with public sector pay agreements. The focus of these increases is weighted in favour of those on lower pay.
Members of the Permanent Defence Force have received the pay increases due under the Lansdowne Road Agreement. In addition in 2017, following negotiations with PDFORRA, improved pay scales for general service recruits and privates, who joined the Permanent Defence Force post 1 January 2013, were implemented.
In 2016, the Government established the Public Service Pay Commission to provide objective advice to Government in relation to Public Service pay policy. Following the publication of the Public Service Pay Commission report in May 2017, the Government initiated negotiations on an extension to the Lansdowne Road Agreement.
The Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020, provides for increases in pay ranging from 6.2% to 7.4% over the lifetime of the Agreement. The focus of these increases is weighted in favour of those on lower pay. The increases due from 1 January 2018 and 1 October 2018 have been paid to Permanent Defence Force personnel. Further increases in pay are scheduled for 2019 and 2020.
By the end of the current Public Service Pay agreement the pay of all public servants (including members of the Defence Forces), earning under €70,000 per annum, will be restored to pre FEMPI levels. The restoration of the 5% reduction to allowances cut under FEMPI is also scheduled in the agreement.
New entrants who joined the Defence Forces since 2011, will also benefit from the measures which were recently announced in relation to interventions at points 4 and 8 of the relevant pay scales for all such new entrants to the public service. This measure, should it be accepted by the Permanent Defence Force Representative Associations, will be effective from 1 March 2019.
In accordance with the provisions of Public Services Stability Agreement 2018-2020, the Government has tasked the Public Service Pay Commission with conducting a more comprehensive examination of the specific recruitment and retention challenges in the Defence Forces, which the Commission identified in Chapter 6 of its report in May 2017.
The Commission's work is on-going. The Government will give due consideration to the findings and recommendations that arise from the work of the Commission.
42. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the amount spent on third party public relations advice, communications advice, online advertising and public awareness campaigns to date 2018, by month and company engaged in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52544/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe information requested by the Deputy in relation to the amount spent on third party public relations advice, communications advice, online advertising and public awareness campaigns to date in 2018 by my Department, by month and company engaged, is set out in the following table.
|
Company |
Month |
Amount |
Description |
|
Be Winter Ready Campaign |
|
|
|
|
Spark Foundry |
November |
€25,221.96 |
Radio Advertisements |
|
Spark Foundry |
November |
€5,535.00 |
Twitter campaign |
|
Spark Foundry |
November |
€2,583.00 |
Management of Twitter campaign |
|
Irish Independent |
November |
€6,150.00 |
Advertisement |
|
O’Sullivan Safety |
November |
€5,528.61 |
HiViz waistcoats and backpacks |
|
Word Perfect |
November |
€656.94 |
Irish translation of winter ready leaflets, Ministers speeches etc. |
|
Bridge Interpreting Services |
November |
€238.80 |
Sign Language Interpreter at launch |
|
The Annual Easter Sunday Commemoration |
|
|
|
|
Spark Foundry |
July |
€4,222.14 |
Advertisement |
|
The 60th anniversary of participation by Ireland in United Nations peacekeeping operations |
|
|
|
|
Word Perfect |
July |
€46.64 |
Translation services |
|
Spark Foundry |
July |
€20,372.05 |
Newspaper advertisement |
|
Total |
|
€70,555.14 |
|
43. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if funding will be made available for the purchase of additional horses for the Defence Forces equitation school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52545/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe mission of the Army Equitation School is to promote the Irish horse through participation in national and international competitions at the highest level. The Equitation School has discharged this task with considerable distinction through the years. Through its participation and numerous successes in equitation events both at home and abroad it successfully promotes the qualities of the Irish horse.
The Army Equitation School continues to source suitable Irish bred horses that meet the required standard as judged by the School's Horse Purchase Board. Horses are acquired through either purchase or lease agreement.
The School currently has a stock of 37 horses made up of show jumpers and eventers.
While it is difficult to predict the number of future acquisitions, the Deputy should note that the Army Equitation School purchased 4 horses in 2017. To date in 2018, the School has acquired two horses with plans for a further acquisition before the end of the year.
44. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the estimated full year cost of increasing the number of personnel in the Reserve Defence Forces to 4,500; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52546/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe White Paper on Defence sets out a developmental path for the Reserve Defence Forces (RDF). It provides for an overall establishment of the Army Reserve and Naval Service Reserve of 4,169 personnel, which will be achieved by increasing the Naval Service Reserve establishment from 200 to 300 personnel. Currently, the establishment for the RDF is set at 4,069 personnel.
Providing for numbers beyond the current establishment would require consideration of the capability requirements underpinning such an increase and an assessment of the associated cost implications which, as with the PDF, would include personnel and equipment costs. The Department does not retain such costings.
45. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of reservist recruits who have been assigned to combat and combat service support units within the Defence Forces, that is, units other than core units in the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52547/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Military Authorities have advised me that from July 2013 to 28th September 2018 (latest figures to hand), 138 RDF recruits have been assigned to Combat Support (Army CS) functions and 9 have been assigned to Combat Service Support functions (Army CSS).
The organisational structure co-locates Reserve Combat Support and Reserve Combat Service Support elements alongside their Permanent Defence Force (PDF) counterparts in PDF installations. This approach has ensured optimum access to equipment and expertise and facilitates appropriate training. Reserve Infantry Units are located both within PDF installations and also at sixteen other locations throughout the State. Intending members of the Reserve are welcome to apply and serve at the location best suited to their particular needs.
I remain committed to the ongoing development of the RDF within the framework set out in the White Paper in order to achieve a sustainable and fit for purpose Reserve Defence Force.
46. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to meet formally with the US Secretary of Defence. [52548/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI currently have no plans to meet with the US Secretary for Defence, Mr. James Mattis.
47. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has spoken to his UK counterpart since the deferred voted in the UK Parliament on the draft withdrawal treaty. [51796/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraBrexit is a priority issue for this Government, and the Taoiseach, my cabinet colleagues and I have taken every opportunity to engage with EU partners and the UK to advance Ireland’s priorities. On 10 December, I met with Jeremy Hunt, in Brussels, in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council, prior to Prime Minister May’s decision to postpone the meaningful vote on the Withdrawal Agreement in the House of Commons and I have been in contact with David Lidington since. The Government, together with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, have made it very clear that the Agreement cannot be renegotiated. This includes the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement and which includes the backstop provisions. The Withdrawal Agreement, which was endorsed by the EU and agreed with the UK Government, is the best possible deal to protect UK and EU interests and to ensure an orderly withdrawal.
As President Tusk has stated, the European Council is ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement. It may be possible to provide the UK with reassurances or statements of clarification, but the EU, and the Government, have made it clear that these can in no way contradict or change the meaning of the legal text agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement.
48. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the number of passports issued to date in 2018; the type of passport in each case, that is, first time, renewal and so on; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52491/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraBetween January 1 and November 29 this year the Passport Service issued 745,345 passports. Of these, 171,377 were issued to first time applicants and 573,968 were issued to renewal applicants. 458,908 passports were issued to adults and 286,437 passports were issued to children. The Online Passport Renewal Service was launched on 30 March 2017. From January 1 to November 29 this year 193,724 passports were issued on foot of applications made through the online service. This figure represented over half of eligible applicants. The Online Passport Renewal Service has recently expanded to include the online renewal of children’s passports, to introduce a passport card for children and to expand the cohort of adults eligible to renew online. The service brings significant benefits for citizens with faster turnaround times of 10 working days for all online applications, excluding postage. In addition, the cost of renewing a passport online is significantly cheaper than alternative methods, with fees for all online applications being reduced by €5 across all application types. The expanded service is now available to all adults and children who wish to renew their passport.
As the online service is the most convenient and most efficient method of renewing a passport, I would urge all applicants who are eligible to do so, to consider using this application channel.
49. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress in dealing with legacy issues in Northern Ireland and the provision of necessary support to victims and survivors as outlined in a report (details supplied) ten years ago; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52578/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraComprehensive progress on legacy issues from the Troubles is crucial in order to meet the legitimate needs and expectations of victims and survivors, and to contribute to broader societal reconciliation as an integral part of the Peace Process. The Government will continue to engage in support of that, consistent with our role and responsibilities as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement. The Programme for a Partnership Government commits to building on the progress made to establish the comprehensive institutional framework for dealing with the past that is provided for under the 2014 Stormont House Agreement, maintaining the needs of the victims and survivors at the core of our approach. Victims and survivors have had to wait for far too long for a suitable and effective system in Northern Ireland to deal with the legacy of the Troubles. Successive efforts over the last ten years, from the commencement of the Eames-Bradley process in June 2007, have sought to address legacy issues, in particular to meet the legitimate needs and expectations of victims and survivors. However, this is still sought and is urgently needed.
Over the last 18 months, I have engaged intensively with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and with all of the political parties to support a way forward on the implementation of the comprehensive legacy framework that was agreed under the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. I have also consistently emphasised in these discussions the need to ensure proper resourcing of legacy inquests in Northern Ireland, and I continue to raise this matter with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, seeking urgent progress.
Secretary of State Bradley and I are agreed on the imperative of moving ahead with the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement legacy framework.
On 11 May, I welcomed the launch of a public consultation by the British Government on their draft legislation to establish the legacy bodies provided for in the Stormont House Agreement as an important step forward. The consultation closed for submissions on 5 October and the responses are now being considered by Secretary of State Bradley ahead of a British Government response to the consultation.
While that consultation is about UK legislation to establish the institutions, legislation will also be required in this jurisdiction to provide for cooperation with the Stormont House Agreement legacy bodies. The drafting of legislative proposals for consideration by the Government and Oireachtas is advancing, led by my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality.
50. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the position on the backstop following the deferred vote in the UK Parliament. [52118/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraOn 10 December, the UK Government decided to defer the meaningful vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Agreement. The European Council will discuss Brexit developments at its meeting on 13 December, taking account of an update from Prime Minister May. The Government’s position on the backstop remains unchanged. Throughout the negotiations it has been a priority to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, and to ensure that there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland under any circumstances. This remains our position, which is shared by our EU partners and is fully protected in the Withdrawal Agreement.
The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, have made it very clear that the Agreement cannot be renegotiated. This includes the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement and which includes the backstop provisions.
President Tusk has stated that the European Council is ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement. It may be possible to provide the UK with reassurances or statements of clarification but the EU and the Government have made it clear that these can in no way contradict or change the meaning of the legal text agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement.
We are hopeful that, when the vote is rescheduled, the UK Parliament will decide to approve the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration on the Framework for the EU-UK Future Relationship, which have been agreed following long and difficult negotiations and which represent a fair and balanced outcome.
51. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the steps Ireland is taking by way of diplomatic efforts through the EU to ensure that the peace deal in South Sudan holds; if Ireland will continue to support the humanitarian efforts in South Sudan that are addressing the root cause of this conflict; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52626/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra52. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his plans to ensure that funding is continued and support provided for the vital conflict resolutions and peace-building efforts at community level by an organisation (details supplied) in partnership with INGOs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52627/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 51 and 52 together.
South Sudan continues to endure a terrible humanitarian crisis, primarily the consequence of conflict. I am deeply concerned by the continued high level of violence, and by reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, which perpetuate the crisis and impact negatively on its scale.
The current conflict began in 2013 and has had devastating consequences for civilians. The war, compounded by drought, has led to severe food insecurity and caused massive population displacement and suffering throughout the country, with women and girls suffering the most. It is estimated that almost 400,000 people have died, and 7 million people are currently in need of humanitarian assistance.
On 12 September last, the President of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, signed a peace agreement with the opposition. While this peace agreement has the potential to mark a new departure, it is critical that South Sudan’s leaders implement it without delay. Achieving lasting peace will require sustained effort and commitment as well as a genuinely inclusive approach to building the future South Sudan.
Ireland strongly supports efforts to build peace in South Sudan. In November 2017, during his visit to Addis Ababa, the Tánaiste met representatives of IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) and the African Union to discuss the situation in South Sudan. On that visit, the Tánaiste announced funding to the IGAD High Level Revitalization Forum, the process which delivered the revised peace agreement. Ireland will continue to support IGAD’s work on monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the agreement in 2019.
Our Embassy in Addis Ababa, which is accredited to South Sudan, monitors the situation and engages with local, regional and international parties on an ongoing basis. The Irish Ambassador in Addis Ababa visits Juba frequently where she meets with key government, UN, NGO, Red Cross and diplomatic partners, including the EU Delegation. Her most recent visit took place in November.
We are committed to supporting efforts towards peace in South Sudan and have contributed to projects aimed at peacebuilding. In 2018, this has included supporting partners’ meditation efforts and empowering civil society, in particular women’s groups, to facilitate their engagement in peace processes. As well as our direct bilateral support, we are actively involved in the efforts of the EU to support peace in South Sudan. Two officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been seconded to the EU Delegation in South Sudan, including one as Head of Mission. The EU Delegation is strongly supportive of the peace process, in particular by providing support to the implementing and monitoring bodies of the peace agreement. The Tánaiste discussed these efforts with the EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, Alexander Rondos, when he visited Dublin on 7 November.
While a sustained resolution to the conflict is the ultimate goal, we have a duty now to deal with immediate humanitarian needs. Since 2012, Ireland has provided €61 million in direct humanitarian assistance to South Sudan. Over €10 million in Irish funding has been provided so far this year, including to Irish NGOs to assist them in reaching the most vulnerable. Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Oxfam, Trócaire and World Vision, with support from Irish Aid, are working in partnership with local organisations and NGO networks to provide lifesaving supplies to meet the basic needs of those suffering from the conflict.
As well as this direct bilateral aid, Ireland has also contributed significantly to humanitarian support in South Sudan through the multilateral system. Ireland is a significant contributor to the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund, which has allocated $187 million to alleviate the crisis in South Sudan since 2011, as well as to the EU, which has provided more than €90 million so far this year.
With humanitarian needs likely to remain acute in 2019, Irish funding will continue to support both those in need inside South Sudan as well as South Sudanese refugees in neighbouring countries.
53. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the issues discussed at the recent Foreign and General Affairs Councils; the outcome of such discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52631/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on Monday 10 December. EU Foreign Ministers discussed Western Balkans, EU-African Union cooperation, Iran, Ukraine and Venezuela. Ministers exchanged views on the Western Balkans and took stock of progress in the past year and expectations for the region in 2019. We discussed EU-African Union cooperation, ahead of the inaugural AU-EU Ministerial taking place in January. The Finnish Foreign Minister, Timo Soini, and I had written to High Representative Mogherini to underline the importance of ensuring an active role for youth and women in the prevention, management and mediation of conflicts in Africa, and I called for greater prioritisation of this area.
My colleagues and I also discussed relations with Iran. While we have concerns in relation to Iran and actively pursue these, Iran is fulfilling its commitments under the nuclear agreement which is very important for nuclear non-proliferation. We support the continued implementation of the agreement and the development of the trade links it is also intended to facilitate.
We had an opportunity discuss recent events in Ukraine with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. Ireland continues to firmly support the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
We also addressed the situation in Venezuela, and our concern at the deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation there.
The Minister of State for European Affairs, Helen McEntee T.D., attended the General Affairs Council on 12 November 2018.
The General Affairs Council held a policy debate on the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027. Ministers outlined their views on issues of importance for a future agreement, in the light of work done so far. Minister McEntee identified the protection of the Common Agricultural Policy as a priority for Ireland. The guidance provided by Ministers guided further discussions between Member States at technical level in the run-up to this week’s European Council.
Ministers also discussed the state of play of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure concerning Hungary.
The Commission provided the Council with an update on the latest developments regarding judicial reform in Poland.
The Council started preparations for the European Council meeting on 13-14 December by discussing an annotated draft agenda.
The Council held its fourth annual rule of law dialogue which focused on trust in public institutions and the rule of law. With the participation of the Director of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, Ministers discussed the main factors which determine the level of trust in public institutions, and how the media, civil society, the EU and Member States can help to encourage this trust.
Ministers exchanged views on the 2019 Commission work programme.
The Commission presented its subsidiarity package published in October.
As part of the preparation of the next European Semester, the Austrian Presidency and the incoming Romanian Presidency presented the 2019 European Semester roadmap.
54. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the residency status and eligibility for naturalisation and consequently an Irish passport in the case of persons (details supplied) in view of the fact that one of their children’s passports was withdrawn and that matters have not progressed since; if the matter will be examined with a view to clearing up confusion arising from failure to qualify under a case; if the deportation order in question will be set aside to facilitate a full evaluation of the case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52660/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe case referred to by the Deputy is a matter under the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and Equality. I am able to comment only in relation to the broader question of how eligibility to hold an Irish passport is established.
All passport applications are subject to the provisions of the Passports Act, 2008 (“the Act”), as amended. Under the Act, before a passport can issue, the Passport Service must be satisfied as to the identity of the applicant and that he or she is an Irish citizen. Irish citizenship is determined by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 Act (“the 1956 Act”) as amended. Under the 1956 Act, a person is entitled to Irish citizenship (and therefore a passport) if they were born on the island of Ireland before 1 January 2005 or after that date subject to certain conditions. Section 6A of the 1956 Act, provides that person born in the State on or after 1 January 2005 where neither parent is an Irish or British citizen or otherwise entitled to reside in the State or Northern Ireland without restriction, may claim citizenship by birth in the State where a parent has been lawfully resident in the State for 3 years of the 4 years preceding their birth.
A person who has obtained Irish citizenship through naturalisation is also entitled to an Irish passport. Information on the documents required for a first time applicant who is naturalised is available on the website www.dfa.ie/passport.
55. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Finance if an independent review will be conducted of the VAT rate increase in the hospitality sector after three months of its implementation in order to assess its impact; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52487/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe 9% VAT rate was introduced as a temporary measure in Finance (No. 2) Act 2011, to cease at the end of 2013. This period was subsequently extended but during last year’s Finance Bill a commitment was given to undertake a review of the 9% VAT rate.
This Review, which was published in July 2018, assessed the relevance, cost, value-for-money and impact to date of the 9% VAT rate. However, the Review also undertook an analysis of the estimated impact on the various tourism sectors of removing the VAT rate. The review found there is a lack of competitiveness in the sector and that if the 9% rate were to be increased, this would likely not materially impact demand or employment in the sector.
The review found that tourism expenditure is more sensitive to income growth and the economic cycle than to price changes. The economy is currently performing well, with high levels of employment and strong demand in the tourism sector. Growth is also expected to continue in the medium term. This positive economic outlook means that the income channel of demand is likely to ensure that economic activity within the sectors to which the 9% VAT rate applies remains strong.
Given the impact of an increase in the VAT rate on the hospitality sector has only recently been reviewed by the Department, there does not seem to be a case for reviewing the impact of the increase three months after its implementation.
56. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Finance the audit and consultancy fees paid by his Department and agencies or bodies attached to or under the remit of his Department to companies (details supplied) in each of the years since 2009; the percentage of audit consultancy fees that these payments represented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52500/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe details of the audit & consultancy fees paid by the department to KPMG, Ernst & Young, Deloitte and PriceWaterhouseCooper in each of the years since 2009 are provided in the following table:
|
Year |
Supplier |
Expenditure € |
Percentage of Audit Consultancy Fees that these payments represent |
|
2016 |
PriceWaterhouseCooper |
€73,031 |
45.60% |
|
2018 |
KPMG |
€69,938 |
0.02% |
|
2014 |
Deloitte LLP (UK) |
€97,937 |
0.02% |
Of the seventeen bodies under the aegis of my Department, I am informed that six have not made payments in respect of audit and consultancy services to the specified companies since 2009. These are the Credit Union Advisory Committee, the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, the Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal and the Credit Union Restructuring Board (ReBo). While ReBo made no audit and consultancy payments during the period in question, a payment was made by this Department for €69,937.80 in 2018 to KPMG for professional services relating to the wind-down of ReBo in 2017.
The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA), the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland (SBCI) were not in a position to provide the information requested in the time available. Therefore I will make arrangements to provide a response with respect to these three bodies in line with Standing Orders.
Details provided by the remaining seven bodies are in the following table.
|
Body |
Year |
Company & Fees Paid |
Percentage of audit & consultancy fees |
|
* Central Bank |
2009 |
Deloitte - €621,000 Ernst & Young - €178,000 KPMG - €2,009,000 PwC - €1,733,000 |
94.5% |
|
2010 |
Deloitte - €209,000 Ernst & Young - €188,000 KPMG - €7,000 PwC - €1,213,000 |
26.7% |
|
|
2011 |
Deloitte - €2,637,000 Ernst & Young - €2,483,000 KPMG - €98,000 PwC - €75,000 |
16.2% |
|
|
2012 |
Deloitte - €399,000 Ernst & Young - €2,634,000 KPMG - €684,000 PwC - €223,000 |
20.4% |
|
|
2013 |
Deloitte - €615,000 Ernst & Young - €9,613,000 KPMG - €5,855,000 PwC - €40,000 |
72.2% |
|
|
2014 |
Deloitte - €2,152,000 Ernst & Young - €11,617,000 KPMG - €6,165,000 PwC - €450,000 |
84.8% |
|
|
2015 |
Deloitte - €179,000 Ernst & Young - €396,000 KPMG - €46,000 PwC - €944,000 |
21.7% |
|
|
2016 |
Deloitte - €184,000 Ernst & Young - €779,000 KPMG - €299,000 PwC - €865,000 |
29.0% |
|
|
2017 |
Deloitte - €206,000 Ernst & Young - €1,989,000 KPMG - €556,000 PwC - €426,000 |
29.5% |
|
|
2018 |
Deloitte - €342,000 Ernst & Young - €1,272,000 KPMG - €53,000 PwC - €309,000 |
12.9% |
|
|
Credit Review Office |
2009 - 2014 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
2015 |
Ernst & Young - €3475.98 |
100% |
|
|
2016 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
2017 |
Ernst & Young - €3475.98 |
100% |
|
|
2018 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
**Investor Compensation Company Limited |
2009 |
PwC - €13,365 |
100% |
|
2010 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
2011 |
PwC - €10,285 |
100% |
|
|
2012 |
PwC - €32,595 |
100% |
|
|
2013 |
KPMG - €9,225 |
100% |
|
|
2014 |
KPMG - €9,225 |
100% |
|
|
2015 |
KPMG - €9,225 |
100% |
|
|
2016 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
2017 |
KPMG - €18,450 |
100% |
|
|
2018 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
***Irish Bank Resolution Corporation |
The information provided is for the period from 2013 to date. Information prior to the appointment of the Special Liquidator in 2013 is not readily available and the compilation of this information would incur a significant expense given that all legacy systems are no longer operational. Given IBRC is in liquidation, there are no audit fees since the date of liquidation. |
||
|
2013 |
Deloitte - €367,000 PwC - €4,197,788 |
2.45% 28% |
|
|
2014 |
Deloitte - €68,233 PwC - €1,261,433 |
2.6% 47% |
|
|
2015 - 2018 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
Office of the Revenue Commissioners |
Data is not readily available for the years 2009-2012. Revenue is pursuing the retrieval of the relevant data, and this information will be provided in line with Standing Orders. |
||
|
2013 - 2017 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
Social Finance Foundation |
2018 |
Ernst & Young - €46,000 |
100% |
|
2009 |
PwC - €16,000 |
100% |
|
|
2010 |
PwC - €21,000 |
64% |
|
|
2011 - 2017 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
|
2018 |
Deloitte - €15,000 |
49% |
|
|
Tax Appeals Commission |
2009 - 2017 |
N/A |
Nil |
|
2018 |
KPMG - €4,900 |
8% of all consultancy fees paid in 2018 |
*The Central Bank of Ireland, in support of its mandate, engages external vendors as required for a range of specialist services. Fees incurred can also include the provision of services to the Central Bank such as the provision of services in support of IT functions. A significant portion of fees incurred are in turn recovered from the banks or wider industry.
** Fees disclosed for ICCL all relate to statutory audit services. ICCL would have incurred fees in relation to the certification of claims in accordance with the Investor Compensation Act, 1998 from individuals who are partners of PWC and KPMG. However, ICCL do not consider those fees to be consultancy as they relate to a statutory role and the appointment is made by the Court and not ICCL.
*** While KPMG have been paid significant fees from the liquidation of IBRC, these do not constitute either audit or consultancy fees so have not been included.
57. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Finance if copies of previously issued P45 documents can reissue to a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52560/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraRevenue has advised me that it does not issue P45 documents to taxpayers. These documents are provided directly to employees by employers where an employment is ceased.
Revenue has however been in direct contact with the person in question and has provided them with written statements setting out the required details (per Revenue’s records) in respect of the employments listed by the Deputy.
58. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the year in which the Central Bank code of practice on the transfer of mortgages was established; if it is still deemed applicable by the Central Bank; if it has been superseded by the consumer protection code; if it is voluntary or mandatory; if, under the code of practice, the Central Bank deems written consent to be given when the mortgage contract is signed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52598/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra59. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if consideration has been given to placing the code of practice on the transfer of mortgages on a statutory footing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52599/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 58 and 59 together.
The Code of Practice on the Transfer of Mortgages (the Code of Practice) was issued by the Central Bank of Ireland in 1991 to institutions involved in mortgage credit. It may be applied on a voluntary basis by any institution involved in mortgage credit.
The Code of Practice applies to a loan secured by the mortgage of a residential property. For the purposes of this Code of Practice, a residential property is not limited to a principal private residence.
This Code of Practice remains in place, but as it is a voluntary code, it does not have a legislative basis and is not subject to the Central Bank of Ireland’s administrative sanctions process. In relation to written consent being given when the mortgage contract is signed, the Central Bank has informed me that it cannot comment on individual mortgage contract terms.
The Central Bank’s Consumer Protection Code 2012 (the Code) is a statutory Code which must be complied with by all regulated financial services providers providing financial services within the State. This Code requires that, where a regulated lender intends to transfer all or part of its loan book, it must provide advance notification to both the Central Bank and affected consumers. I would draw Deputies' attention to Provision 3.11 of the Code which states: “Where a regulated entity intends to cease operating, merge with another, or to transfer all or part of its regulated activities to another regulated entity it must: a) notify the Central Bank immediately; b) provide at least two months notice to affected consumers to enable them to make alternative arrangements; c) ensure all outstanding business is properly completed prior to the transfer, merger or cessation of operations or, alternatively in the case of a transfer or merger, inform the consumer of how continuity of service will be provided following the transfer or merger; and d) in the case of a merger or transfer of regulated activities, inform the consumer that their details are being transferred to the other regulated entity, if that is the case.” Where the transferee is an unregulated entity, the Code requires that the regulated lender also notify the consumer of the regulated entity that will be ‘servicing’ the loan for the unregulated entity.
In addition, the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 ensures that borrowers whose loans are transferred retain the same protections which they had prior to the transfer, including protections under the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears and the Consumer Protection Code. I do not have to remind the Deputy of his own Private Member's bill which will require the regulation of loan owners. Therefore I do not have any plans to put the Code onto a statutory footing at present.
60. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance when proposals will be brought forward on the regulation of moneylenders and the rates that are charged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52634/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Consumer Credit Act 1995 already provides for the regulation of moneylenders though it does not provide for a maximum rate of interest. The legislation provides that the Central Bank can refuse to grant a licence to a moneylender if it is of the opinion that the cost of credit to be charged is excessive. Since the Central Bank assumed responsibility for the licensed moneylending sector in 2003, I understand that it has not permitted an increase to the maximum APR charged in the sector. During the Central Bank’s engagements with new or potential applicants It examines, on a case-by-case basis, if the proposed costs of credit are excessive and I understand that it has successfully challenged firms in this regard. In addition, the Bank has not licensed any moneylender to provide a ‘pay-day loan’ service such as exists in other jurisdictions such as the UK.
As the Deputy may be aware, Deputy Doherty initiated a Private Member's Bill which would cap the amount of APR chargeable on loans issued by licensed moneylenders at 36 per cent APR. As outlined during the debate, the following work needs to be done before an interest rate restriction is introduced:
- consider how to persuade the other approximate 50% of credit unions to take part in the "It makes sense" loan scheme.
- consider how to cater for individuals on low incomes who are NOT social welfare customers since the PMC scheme only works for social welfare recipients.
- analyse the sector in more detail to see the impact that setting interest rate restrictions is likely to be on the various types of moneylenders, and
- examine illegal moneylending as far as we can.
Both the Social Finance Foundation and the Interest Rate Restriction report made it clear that the recommendation that rates be restricted should not be separated from the proviso that these restrictions are to be conditional on there being a reliable alternative to licensed moneylenders and key to this is getting the credit union movement to commit to serve the community currently serviced by the moneylending firms, subject to adherence to prudent credit guidelines.
61. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the implications for an insurance company if it does not fulfil its duties and obligations under the Solvency II Directive; the role the Central Bank plays in enforcing Solvency II for companies operating here under freedom of services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52644/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraAt the outset I would like to say that as Minister for Finance, I am responsible for the development of the legal framework governing financial regulation, and have no role in the day to day supervision of insurance companies. I have therefore consulted with the Central Bank on the matters raised by the Deputy.
The Central Bank has advised that the Solvency II Directive represented a substantial overhaul of European insurance regulation. It set out new, more comprehensive EU-wide requirements on capital adequacy and risk management for insurers with the key aim of increasing policyholder protection. The Directive entered into force on 1 January 2016, and is transposed into Irish law by the European Union (Insurance and Reinsurance) Regulations 2015 (SI 485 of 2015). All insurance undertakings across the European Union must comply with the requirements of the Directive (with certain limited exceptions). Failure to comply with its duties and obligations can result in the withdrawal of an insurance company’s authorisation under Article 144 of the Directive. Further detailed provisions are also in place around their capital requirements and what happens should they breach them (Articles 136 to 143).
A central element of Solvency II Directive is that it allows an insurance undertaking authorised in one member state to conduct business in another EU/EEA state either through:
- establishing a branch operation in the host country and thus conducting business on a ‘freedom of establishment’ (FOE) basis; or
- writing business from the home country (i.e. where authorised) into the host country on a ‘freedom of services’ (FOS) basis.
Where an insurer conducts business in this State either through FOE or FOS, the supervisory authority who has authorised the company (Home supervisor) is responsible for the prudential supervision and regulation of the Irish business of such undertakings. However, I have been informed that the Central Bank actively engages with the National Supervisory Authorities of all entities writing material levels of business in Ireland in order to keep itself up to date on developments. In this regard, I understand that the Bank has developed close working relations and established regular contact with relevant Home supervisors to discuss concerns, issues and market changes and challenges.
However, it should be noted that as a Host Supervisory authority, the Bank is empowered under Article 155 of Solvency II to take steps in the event an insurance undertaking is not complying with legal provisions applicable to it when operating here. This Article therefore facilitates the Bank's supervision of undertakings authorised in another Member State in relation to how they conduct their business in this country.
In conclusion, while the provision of cross-border insurance is an essential part of the Single market, it is acknowledged that there are obvious difficulties which arise when an insurer fails. It is important therefore that EU supervisors properly and consistently supervise the insurers that they authorise, and that there is greater communications between supervisors across the EU about their respective companies conducting cross-border business. It should be noted that as part of the ongoing review of the European Supervisory architecture, there is a proposal to further improve cross-border co-operation and communication through the strengthening of Cross-Border Collaboration Platforms. These already operate on an ad-hoc basis, however this proposal would ensure a more formal structure is put in place where an insurer is doing a lot of cross border business. This would therefore give the supervisors of countries into which insurance is written a greater insight into how the business is being conducted.
62. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the implications for regulating authorities, such as the Central Bank, in the European Union which do not enforce the Solvency II Directive and other EU rules in regard to insurance companies effectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52645/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra63. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the role the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority plays in enforcing the Solvency II Directive and other EU rules in regard to insurance; if it has the role of holding national authorities to account; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52646/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 62 and 63 together.
At the outset I would like to say that as Minister for Finance, I am responsible for the development of the legal framework governing financial regulation, and have no role in the day to day supervision of insurance companies. I have therefore consulted with the Central Bank on the matters raised by the Deputy.
The Central Bank has advised me that all firms conducting business within the EU must comply with the requirements of the Solvency II Directive, which came into force from 1 January 2016. Solvency II was designed to modernise supervision, deepen market integration and increase the competitiveness of European insurers.
EIOPA is part of the European System of Financial Supervision which is an integrated network of national and European supervisory authorities that provides the necessary links between the macro and micro prudential levels, leaving day-to-day supervision to the national level.
EIOPA’s core responsibilities are to support the stability of the financial system, transparency of markets and financial products as well as the protection of policyholders, pension scheme members and beneficiaries. EIOPA is commissioned to monitor and identify trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities stemming from the micro-prudential level, across borders and across sectors.
EIOPA, where necessary, provides for non-legally binding guidelines and recommendations concerning the implementation of the provisions of the Solvency II Directive and its implementing measures in order to enhance the convergence of supervisory practices.
EIOPA and the supervisory authorities of the Member States collaborate closely with each other to facilitate the supervision of insurance and reinsurance within the EU and including the examination of any difficulties, which may arise in the application of the Solvency II Directive.
National Supervisory authorities are required to inform EIOPA of any major difficulties in the application of the Solvency II Directive and both EIOPA and the supervisory authorities of the Member States concerned in such situation shall examine those difficulties as quickly as possible in order to find an appropriate solution.
In accordance with their founding EU Regulation (1094/2010 EU) ,EIOPA may investigate non-application by national supervisory authorities of the Solvency II Regulations, or their application in a way, which appears to be a breach of Union law, resulting in a written recommendation to that supervisory authority. Where the competent national authority does not follow the recommendation, the EU Commission may issue a formal opinion taking into account the EIOPA recommendation, requiring the competent authority to take the actions necessary to ensure compliance with Union law. Finally, in exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, EIOPA may, as a last resort, adopt decisions addressed to individual financial institutions. In addition, EIOPA is required to report regularly and at least every two years to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the progress of the supervisory convergence in the EU.
The Central Bank has indicated that it fully participates, endorses and supports EIOPA’s mandate to contribute to the establishment of high quality common regulatory and supervisory standards and procedures and regularly contributes and provides feedback to enhance such convergence.
In February 2017, EIOPA developed a cross-border platform of cooperation between National Supervisory Authorities, and the Central Bank of Ireland has advised me that they participate fully in these platforms with other relevant supervisory authorities. These platforms provide all National Supervisory Authorities with the opportunity to discuss concerns in relation to specific undertakings, local markets and share general market developments. It should be noted that as part of the ongoing review of the European Supervisory architecture, there is a proposal to further improve cross-border co-operation and communication through the strengthening of these Cross-Border Collaboration Platforms in order to give supervisors of countries into which insurance is written a greater insight into how the business is being conducted.
Finally, I understand that the Central Bank of Ireland was also part of the EIOPA working group set up to amend the General Protocol to increase the level of information shared between National Supervisory Authorities. In January 2017, EIOPA revised the General Protocol now called EIOPA Decision on the collaboration of the insurance supervisory authorities. The new Decision addresses new flows of information and increased collaboration between supervisory authorities and strengthens EIOPA’s role as the central hub for information collection and sharing.
64. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if managing general agents in the insurance industry have a role in ensuring the companies they represent are financially healthy or acting in compliance with European regulations; the level of regulation in place for such agents here; if the Central Bank has a register of such agents; the number operating here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52647/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraAt the outset I would like to say that as Minister for Finance, I am responsible for the development of the legal framework governing financial regulation, and have no role in the day to day supervision of insurance companies. I have therefore consulted with the Central Bank on the matters raised by the Deputy.
The Central Bank has advised that under European law, the Home supervisory authority is responsible for the prudential supervision and regulation of undertakings operating in Ireland on a freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment basis. In the case of freedom of service business the role of a managing general agent (MGA) is in general terms, to provide access to the market for the cross border insurer. In carrying out this function it must comply with the relevant domestic insurance distribution legislation and the conduct of business rules. While an MGA has a responsibility to its consumers to treat them in a fair and transparent way, and it is in their interests to be selling products from a financially sound insurer, it has no insight into the underlying financial health of such companies other than any publically available information. In addition the overarching prudential framework (Solvency II) is designed to provide them with the necessary certainty that any insurer they act on behalf of is financially sound
Despite the many safeguards in the solvency framework which are designed to minimise the likelihood of insurance failure and the costs to policyholders in the event of failure, it should be noted that Solvency II is not a 'no-failure' regime. It is not possible to build a viable system that provides a cast iron guarantee that no insurer will ever fail. Solvency II is a risk based approach and it is not feasible for insurers to hold sufficient capital to cover every possible event. Instead, it provides that sufficient capital be held in order to ensure that insurers will be in a position, with a probability of 99.5%, to meet their obligations to policyholders and beneficiaries over the following 12 months. In the design of any regulatory system, it must be kept in mind that protection comes at a cost, in other words the higher the level of the guarantee, the higher the cost to policyholders and the economy as a whole. A balance has to be struck in order that insurers can offer affordable, yet sufficiently safe insurance products.
The Deputy should also note that the Central Bank actively engages with the National Supervisory Authorities of all entities writing material levels of business into the Irish market. I understand that it has developed close working relations and established regular contact with the Home Authorities to discuss concerns, issues and market changes and challenges.
In relation to the regulation of MGA’s the Central Bank is the competent authority in Ireland for the authorisation and supervision of insurance intermediaries under the European Communities (Insurance Distribution) Regulations 2018 (IDR). The supervision process for an insurance intermediary mirrors the general supervision approach of the Central Bank. This general supervision approach seeks to ensure that all regulated financial services providers meet their responsibilities to have strong management, internal control and compliance procedures in place, and have people of integrity and competence at all levels in their organisations.
The Central Bank recently published the findings from a thematic inspection of Retail Intermediaries acting as Managing General Agents (MGAs). The report can be found here:
https://centralbank.ie/news/article/findings-of-managing-general-agents-thematic-inspection-and-motor-insurance-research-released
The Central Bank maintains a register of Insurance Intermediaries that is publically available on its website. As MGAs are authorised under the IDR they are included in this register. The register can be found here: http://registers.centralbank.ie/.
65. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he has raised issues with his European counterparts regarding insurance regulation, consistent enforcement of European insurance regulation and the need for compensation mechanisms to be put in place across the EU; the dates on which these issues were raised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52648/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraAt the outset, the Deputy should note that I am very conscious of the problems caused in recent years by a number of non-life companies passporting into the Irish market particularly on the motor side. I am very unhappy that supervisors in the authorising countries in question have not done their job adequately, and as a result the Irish Compensation Fund and by extension, Irish policyholders have had to pay the price for these failures. On the other hand, however, Ireland is a major beneficiary of the cross border passporting regime particularly on the Life insurance side. In addition, as you are aware all interested observers of the Irish motor insurance market in recent years have been signalling the need to make it more competitive by encouraging new entrants. Generally because of the relatively small scale of the Irish market most new entrants will be freedom of service operators. Consequently, whilst there are undoubtedly some problems with the passporting model, it is likely that consumers would have greater difficulty getting competitively priced cover in its absence.
In relation to engaging at European level, my officials attend the Commission Expert Group on Insurance issues which is held at least three times per year (e.g. 6 February, 29 May and 20 September 2018 this year). This Group provides a forum to discuss issues such as the consistent application of Solvency II as well as proposals for any amendments to the Directive including Commission Delegated Regulations. As it has been some time since the Council has discussed insurance matters I have not to date directly raised with my European counterparts issues regarding insurance regulation, consistent enforcement of European insurance regulation and the need for compensation mechanisms to be put in place across the EU. However, the Deputy can be assured that as and when appropriate I will do so.
At present, there is no harmonisation of insurance guarantee schemes across Europe. However, there have been a number of reports and initiatives in this area in recent years including:
- A 2010 Commission white paper on the introduction of an EU wide framework of Insurance Guarantee Systems. No significant progress was made on this framework subsequently as the development of Solvency II was the priority piece of work.
- A 2015 Commission discussion paper on the possibility of introducing a recovery and resolution regime for insurance undertakings which could include an Insurance guarantee Scheme.
- In 2017 the Commission issued a questionnaire to all Member States seeking information on Recovery and Resolution including experiences with failures and near-failures of insurers.
- The European Systemic Risk Board published a report “Recovery and Resolution for the EU insurance sector: a macro prudential perspective” in August 2017. The Central Bank of Ireland was represented on the drafting team.
- EIOPA published an Opinion to Institutions of the European Union on the Harmonisation of Recovery and Resolution Frameworks for (Re) Insurers (July 2017).
- Work is also underway at an EIOPA level, where a project group has been set up to examine more broadly recovery and resolution within insurance and in relation to Insurance Guarantee Schemes, a discussion paper was published on this topic:
https://eiopa.europa.eu/Publications/Consultations/EIOPA-CP-18-003_Discussion_paper_on_resolution_funding%20and.pdf
Recently, in May 2018 the European Commission proposed an amendment to the Motor Insurance Directive which would oblige member states to set up Insurance Guarantee Schemes to cover the cost of insolvent motor insurers. This is still subject to negotiation so the technical details are being worked out, but you can rest assure that my Department and the Central Bank are continuing to work closely with their European counterparts on this issue.
Finally, while the provision of cross-border insurance is an essential part of the Single Market, it is acknowledged that there are obvious difficulties which arise when an insurer fails. It is important that EU supervisors properly and consistently supervise the insurers that they authorise, and that there is greater communications between supervisors across the EU about their respective companies conducting cross-border business. It should be noted that as part of the ongoing review of the European Supervisory architecture, there is a proposal to further improve cross-border co-operation and communication through the strengthening of Cross-Border Collaboration Platforms. These already operate on an ad-hoc basis, however this proposal would ensure a more formal structure is put in place where an insurer is doing a lot of cross border business. This would therefore give the supervisors of countries into which insurance is written a greater insight into how the business is being conducted.
