Written Answers Nos. 57-74
57. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the recent peace monitoring report published by an organisation (details supplied); his plans to discuss this report with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and with the parties represented in Stormont; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2214/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am aware of the report to which the Deputy refers.
The recent peace monitoring report from the Community Relations Council is extensive and covers topics ranging from the Northern Irish economy to LGBT rights. The report highlights the continuing challenges facing Northern Ireland and the peace process overall, and how they are being exacerbated both by the continued absence of a functioning Executive and the challenges of Brexit. My officials are further analysing its contents and will continue their engagement with the CRC and broader civil society in Northern Ireland
As this report highlights, the lack of devolved Institutions is having a negative impact on everyday life in Northern Ireland. I am currently engaging with Secretary of State Bradley on how both Governments can most effectively secure the full operation of all of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, and in turn support the entrenchment of the peace process. Additionally, both Governments are continuing to engage with all of the political parties to seek a way forward to restore the institutions. I held discussions with the leaderships of the main political parties during my trip to Belfast on 9th-10th January last and all re-affirmed their commitment to operating the devolved institutions and have provided views on their key concerns and issues.
My Department is committed to supporting the essential reconciliation work being carried out by civil society and individuals in Northern Ireland and across this island. In May of last year I announced an additional €1 million of funding towards the Reconciliation Fund, bringing the total available through the fund to €3.7 million.
58. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the work carried out at EU level and with the French Government in relation to plans to facilitate Irish trucks exiting in a different queue than British trucks at Calais port in France post-Brexit; if this has been fully agreed with France and funding secured from the EU; and the estimated timeline this facility can be in place in the event of a no-deal Brexit. [2236/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Government’s planning for Brexit has from the start included issues relating to the continued effective use of the UK landbridge. This is a priority for the Government, given the importance of the landbridge in getting Irish products, in particular agrifood products, to market on continental Europe. This is an important issue with regard to protecting the competitiveness of our producers and ensuring continued unhampered access to the EU Single Market.
The issue of the landbridge and the facilitation of Irish traffic at ports, including Irish trucks at the port of Calais, has been raised actively at both Ministerial and official level.
At Ministerial level, the issue has been raised on a number of occasions, including at Minister Ross's meeting with Élisabeth Borne, the French Minister of Transport on 23 November 2018, and at my meetings with Minister for European Affairs, Nathalie Loiseau on the margins of the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 16 October and again in Paris on 31 October 2018.
At official level, the Landbridge Project Group, which is chaired by my Department, and involves all relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Finance, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Transport Tourism and Sport, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Health, and the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, has been instrumental in working closely with the European Commission and other affected Member States (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden) with a view to preparing EU ports to facilitate the transit of EU products through the UK once it becomes a third country through the use of EU rules on internal transit set out under the Union’s Custom Code.
As part of this process, officials are meeting regularly on a bilateral basis with relevant Member States, including France, to discuss, among other issues, the landbridge and infrastructure around ports and airports. Most recently, a cross-departmental delegation travelled to Paris for consultations on Brexit preparedness where the issue of the landbridge was comprehensively discussed, including the need for infrastructural solutions, such as designated lanes, at French ports to facilitate the free movement of Irish trucks transiting the UK. Officials also met with the European Commission for technical consultations on the landbridge in December 2018. In addition to meetings of Irish based officials, Embassy Paris has met with French authorities in relation to port infrastructure, including the Mayor of Calais, the Port of Calais, and the operators of Eurotunnel, and made representations regarding the segregation of Irish traffic arriving at the port of Calais and the Eurotunnel after transiting through the UK.
These meetings have been productive and there is an openness at all levels in France to work with us to ensure the efficient transit of Irish trucks through French ports. However, it is also clear that it will be very challenging in a no deal scenario for these ports to have the necessary permanent infrastructural solutions in place by 29 March 2019. The Government will continue to work with our partners in France to seek suitable temporary solutions as part of our no deal planning, while, at the same time, working with them on permanent solutions, particularly in an orderly withdrawal scenario, so that the landbridge can continue to be an effective route for our operators trading with the rest of the EU.
59. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the talks that have taken place at EU level and commitments sought and secured in relation to state aid and EU financial support post-Brexit to assist Ireland; if no talks have taken place and no commitments sought, his plans in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2237/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraMaking the case for supporting measures at EU level that recognise where Brexit represents a serious disturbance to the Irish economy is a key pillar of the Government’s response to Brexit.
There is a firm understanding at EU level of the unique and disproportionate impact that Brexit will have on Ireland. This has been reflected in a number of concrete measures and commitments to date, such as the EIB’s support for the Government’s Brexit Loan Scheme. In its Contingency Action Plan of 13 November, the European Commission confirmed that it would support Ireland in finding solutions addressing the specific challenges of Irish businesses.
In March last year, EU Commissioner Gunther Oettinger visited Dublin and met with the Taoiseach, Minister Donohoe and Minister of State D’Arcy to discuss the negotiations on the EU’s post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). In the same visit, I met with him to discuss the negative consequences to the Irish economy resulting from Brexit, and the possibility of EU assistance was raised.
In November 2017, the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation met with Commissioner Vestager (European Commissioner for Competition) to discuss, amongst other issues, the impact of Brexit on Irish businesses. As a result of this meeting, a Technical Working Group comprising representatives from DG Competition, the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Enterprise Ireland and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was established to assist in the scope and design of schemes to support enterprises impacted by Brexit. Minister Humphreys will meet with Commissioner Vestager (DG Competition) in Dublin on 24 January where State Aids issues and the scope for flexibilities will be further discussed.
60. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the amount spent in each year for the past five years on accountancy and consultancy firms in relation to capital projects; the specific capital project in which the costs were incurred; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2263/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department commissions external expertise where highly specialised skills are not available internally, particularly for capital projects where independent project evaluation advice is required for key decisions. During the course of their engagements, these consultants/experts may prepare reports and other documentation for the Department. This work contributes to a more effective and targeted use of resources and greater accountability in the allocation of budgets.
These services are procured by open competitive tender in accordance with EU and national rules and comply with the overall value for money objective of the Department.
Separately, a small number of consultancies are occasionally engaged directly by our Missions abroad.
The following table set out the details of the amount spent in each year for the past five years on accountancy and consultancy firms in relation to capital projects and the specific capital project in which the costs were incurred
|
Year |
Total amount spent on consultancy firms on capital projects |
Breakdown of Projects |
|
2014 |
€8,961.80 |
Embassy Abuja, Nigeria |
|
2015 |
€0.00 |
|
|
2016 |
€0.00 |
|
|
2017 |
€15,927.82 |
Headquarters AccommodationEmbassy Washington D.C., USA |
|
2018 |
€83,649.05 |
Headquarters AccommodationEmbassy, Washington D.C.Tokyo New Ireland House |
61. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Finance if the tax relief for long-term leases of farmland to landlords who provide tenants with long-term leases of accommodation will be extended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2070/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraI understand that the Deputy is referring to a proposed extension to the existing exemption of certain income from long-term leasing of farm land to include rent received by a lessor in respect of a residential property.
Section 664 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provides for the exemption of certain income from leasing of farm land, where the land is let under a qualifying lease, by a qualifying lessor, to a qualifying lessee.
A qualifying lease must have a minimum definite term of five years or more to qualify for the relief. Following Finance Act 2014, a qualifying lessor is exempt from income tax on progressively increasing amounts linked to lease duration as follows:
|
For leases entered into: |
Between 1 Jan 2007 and 31 Dec 2014 |
On or after 1 Jan 2015 |
|
Lease term |
€ |
€ |
|
5yrs or more (but less than 7yrs) |
12,000 |
18,000 |
|
7yrs or more (but less than 10yrs) |
15,000 |
22,500 |
|
10yrs or more (but less than 15yrs) |
20,000 |
30,000 |
|
15yrs or more |
N/A |
40,000 |
For the purposes of the relief, the definition of “farm land” includes a building “other than a building or part of a building used as a dwelling".
This relief was designed to encourage longer term leases of farm land in recognition of the advantages of long-term leasing over the short-term conacre system. The 2014 Agritaxation Review recognised the key role of long-term leases in assisting with the mobility and productive use of land, and suggested a number of enhancements to the relief which were implemented in Finance Act 2014.
As the extension proposed by the Deputy would be outside the targeted policy objective of the relief, I do not propose to make such a change to the measure at this time.
62. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance when the review into the local property tax will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2072/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe report of the review of the LPT is currently being finalised in conjunction with the Departments of the Taoiseach, Public Expenditure and Reform, Housing Planning and Local Government, and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. I will of course carefully consider the conclusions and recommendations of the report when it is presented to me.
63. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if greater resources will be provided to the Central Bank and specifically the client asset specialist team for the purpose of regulating appropriate investment firms or life companies in view of the expected rise in the use of private pensions by workers in the coming years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2217/19]
Amharc ar fhreagra64. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the staffing levels of the client asset specialist team of the Central Bank. [2218/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 63 and 64 together.
The independence of the Central Bank of Ireland is enshrined in the Central Bank Acts, the Treaties of the European Union and by the Statute of the European System of Central Banks, and in that context the Central Bank Commission is responsible for the Bank's overall staffing levels and the allocation of those staff across the Bank.
The Client Asset Specialist Team (CAST) has cross-sectoral ownership within the Central Bank for client asset and investor money risk. The primary role of CAST is to supervise and inspect client asset and investor money arrangements, and monitor the risks to the safekeeping of client assets and investor money in investment firms and fund service providers.
CAST had 8 staff at end December 2018. I am informed by the Central Bank that this is expected to increase to 10 staff by the end of March 2019. The protection of client assets remains a key priority of the Central Bank, and the ongoing resourcing of all prudential supervisory activities, including client assets, is reviewed regularly to ensure agreed supervisory strategies and outcomes can be met.
65. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether it is necessary to review section 48(1) of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 and the investment firms regulations 2017 in view of the expected rise in the use of private pensions by workers in the coming years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2219/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraSection 48(1) of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (the Act) gives the Central Bank of Ireland the power to make regulations for the proper and effective regulation of regulated financial service providers.
The benefit of Section 48(1) is that it allows the Central Bank to make detailed and technical sector specific Regulations. The approach adopted in Section 48 was agreed following extensive discussion with the Attorney General’s Office. The Central Bank’s discretion in making Regulations is limited to setting standards and procedures, which is appropriate to its role as a regulatory authority. Regulations made under Section 48 must be effective and proportionate having regard to the nature, scale and complexity of the regulated entities. Furthermore, consultation provisions are set out in Section 49 of the Act, which require, amongst other things, that the Central Bank consult with me as Minister for Finance before making regulations.
Prior to this Act, the Central Bank already had extensive powers to set out detailed regulatory standards across a number of areas, including consumer protections, client assets, account switching and related party lending. However, providing the Central Bank with the power to make Regulations, the Central Bank now has the means to put these requirements on a statutory basis, thereby underpinning the importance of compliance and allowing for a commensurate level of sanctions, as a breach of the Regulations is a prescribed contravention and subject to the Administrative Sanctions Procedure.
The Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (Section 48(1)) (Investment Firms) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 Regulations) apply to MiFID investment firms and to certain investment business firms authorised under the Investment Intermediaries Act 1995. These Regulations were introduced by the Central Bank to give full effect to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), which was transposed into Irish law by S.I. 375 of 2017.
The 2017 Regulations, for example, include the client asset regime that applies to MiFID firms and Investment Intermediary firms which are based in Ireland. Ireland invoked the Member State discretion under MiFID II that allows for gold-plating of the client asset requirements as set out in the Directive. This means we have a client asset regime in Ireland that is over and above what is required at European level.
The 2017 Regulations along with the additional provisions imposed on investment firms based in Ireland due to MiFID II are only in effect since 3 January 2018.
Regarding the proposed implementation of an automatic enrolment pension system which will lead to a rise in private pensions by workers, my colleague the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Regina Doherty, has primary responsibility in this area. However, I have been informed that the detailed evidence building and consultation processes required to deliver an automatic enrolment system is now being undertaken within an initial project planning phase. This will involve an investigation of the potential organisational models for delivery and the likely costs involved. It will also include an assessment of whether a trust-based model, under a Master Trust regime, or a contract-based model will be pursued and whether additional levels of regulation will be required.
Until this work is completed and a preferred model chosen, it is not possible to confirm the specific operational structure and design characteristics of the automatic enrolment system.
66. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the average monetary value of a pension fund accumulated by workers using personal retirement savings accounts, approved retirement funds or an occupational pension fund; if the maximum limit under the investor compensation scheme is sufficient to cover these monetary values in the event of a failed investment firm or broker; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2220/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am advised by the Pensions Authority (PA), a body under the aegis of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, that at the end of Q3 2018, the value of assets held in PRSA accounts stands at circa €6.6bn. The number of PRSAs established at that time was 275,739 resulting in a mean average value of PRSAs of circa €24,000. I am further advised by the PA that not all of the established PRSAs are current active contacts. Therefore, the average value of assets held within active PRSA accounts would likely increase if such accounts were excluded.
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that ARFs are not pension funds, per se. They are investment options into which the proceeds of certain pension arrangements can be invested on retirement. Based on a survey of Qualifying Funds Managers which Revenue conducted during 2017 and 2018, I am advised that the mean average value of ARFs was almost €187,000 and the mean average value of Approved Minimum Retirement Funds (AMRFs) managed by those fund managers was almost €58,000. I stress that these figures are from a survey rather than drawn from tax returns. I should also point out that some individuals may hold more than one ARF.
Regarding the average value of occupational pension funds, I am advised by the PA that the most accurate approximation can be made from examining annual scheme information data, based on data from 2015 Annual Scheme Information (ASI) returns, which show a total value of assets held in occupational pension schemes of circa €95.4bn and 1,267,787 scheme members.
Coverage of the Investor Compensation Scheme (ICS) is set out in the Investor Compensation Act 1998 (the Act). I refer the Deputy to my recent response to PQ 1174/19 which sets out coverage of the ICS in relation to Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (PRSA), Approved Retirement Funds (ARF), and Occupational Pension Funds.
The Deputy will recall that investment instruments which are eligible for compensation under the Act are set out in section 2 of the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995 (IIA) and Schedule 1 Part 3 of the European Union (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2017 (MiFID).
It is apparent from the investment instruments referred to in section 2 of the IIA that PRSAs are listed and therefore in-scope, subject to all other elements of the compensation obligations being satisfied in accordance with the Act.
An ARF is not a defined investment instrument within the scope of the Act. Therefore, the compensation obligation, if any, would need to be considered, on a case-by-case basis, by an Administrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act to validate any claims received from clients of the relevant failed firm.
A pension or retirement fund is defined as an "excluded investor" for the purposes of the Act and is therefore outside the scope of ICS coverage.
The ICCL does not collect product specific data from all 3,410 member firms in respect of the individual investors with whom those firms provide investment services, and that would be deemed to be eligible investors under the Act as the ICCL.
In respect of eligible clients’ investments, the compensation obligation of the ICS relates to eligible client money held, and, eligible client investment instruments held, administered and managed in connection with the provision of certain investment services, that the failed investment firm is unable to return to the eligible investor in accordance with legal and contractual conditions applicable. The compensation obligation is limited to 90% of the eligible investors’ net loss, subject to a maximum compensatable payment of €20,000 per eligible investor.
Due to the introduction in January 2018 of the new requirements for investment firms under MiFID and also to the experience of ICCL in dealing with compensation claims over a number of years, at this point in time it is considered that the maximum payment threshold applicable in Ireland is adequate.
Regarding the proposed implementation of an automatic enrolment pension system, my colleague the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, has primary responsibility in this area. However, I have been informed that the detailed evidence building and consultation processes required to deliver an automatic enrolment system is now being undertaken within an initial project planning phase. This will involve an investigation of the potential organisational models for delivery and the likely costs involved. It will also include an assessment of whether a trust-based model, under a Master Trust regime, or a contract-based model will be pursued and whether additional levels of regulation will be required. Until this work is completed and a preferred model chosen, it is not possible to confirm the specific operational structure and design characteristics of the automatic enrolment system.
67. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his plans to increase the maximum cover of €20,000 as outlined in the investor compensation scheme to bring it in line with the financial services compensation scheme in the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2222/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Investor Compensation Directive (97/9/EC) sets out the basis for clients of investment firms to receive statutory compensation when an authorised investment firm fails. In Ireland, the Investor Compensation Act 1998 provides for the establishment of the Investor Compensation Company DAC (ICCL) which administers the Investor Compensation Scheme.
The Investor Compensation Scheme deals with investor compensation claims where an investment firm fails and is unable to repay monies owed or return money and financial instruments held in accordance with its legal obligations to eligible investors.
Compensation is paid from a central pool of funds collected through assessed contributions from authorised investment firms or licensed credit institutions based in Ireland.
The limit of compensation is set at 90% of the eligible investors net loss, which is dependent on any amounts recovered on behalf of clients by the administrator appointed to the failed firm, with a maximum payment of €20,000 permitted per eligible investor.
I would note that in the transposition of the Markets in Financial instruments Directive (S.I. 375 of 2017) Ireland exercised the Member State discretion that enabled us to "gold-plate" the client asset requirements as set out in the Directive. This means we have a client asset regime in Ireland that is over and above what is required at an European level.
The legislation applies extensive client asset and consumer protection rules to regulated investment firms. While certain entities (for example, intermediaries) are exempt from MiFID, they are still required to have analogous consumer protection rules as covered by the Central Bank’s Consumer Protection Code 2012. They are also subject to the same client asset requirements as MiFID authorised firms.
I have also been informed by the ICCL that the €20,000 maximum compensation limit currently in place has satisfied the claims of the majority of small investors in the compensation cases it has handled in recent years.
Due to the introduction of the new requirements for investment firms due to MiFID as outlined above in January of last year and the experience of ICCL with compensation claims over a number of years, at this point in time it is considered that the maximum payment threshold applicable in Ireland is adequate.
68. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the amount paid out by the investor compensation scheme in each of the past ten years; the number of investors that have availed of compensation in each of these years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2223/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Investor Compensation Directive (97/9/EC) sets out the basis for clients of investment firms to receive statutory compensation when an authorised investment firm fails. In Ireland, the Investor Compensation Act 1998 provides for the establishment of the Investor Compensation Company DAC (ICCL) which administers the Investor Compensation Scheme.
The Investor Compensation Scheme deals with investor compensation claims where an investment firm fails and is unable to repay monies owed or return money and financial instruments held in accordance with its legal obligations to eligible investors.
I have been informed by the ICCL that it can only provide detailed records for claims paid from 2012 onwards. Based on the information provided, the total value of claims paid and numbers of eligible investors are as follows:
|
Year |
Value |
No. of Investors |
|
2008-2011 |
Not available |
Not available |
|
2012 |
€1,000,000 |
49 |
|
2013 |
€5,624,280 |
384 |
|
2014 |
€214,393 |
99 |
|
2015 |
€186,617 |
70 |
|
2016 |
NIL |
NIL |
|
2017 |
€431,712 |
22 |
|
2018 |
€28,001 |
10 |
|
2019 |
NIL |
NIL |
69. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his views on the Pension Outlook 2018 report of the OECD released on 3 December 2018; his further views on the concerns in the report on approved retirement funds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2224/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe OECD Pensions Outlook 2018 provides comprehensive analysis and insight into the challenges facing developed nations that must design and apply appropriate pension policies to best meet the needs of their existing and future older populations.
My colleague the Minister for Employment Affairs & Social Protection outlined last year this Government's approach to reforming all aspects of pension provision in the Roadmap for Pensions Reform 2018-2023 (the Roadmap).
As the Deputy will be aware, my Department chairs the Interdepartmental Pensions Reform and Taxation Group (IDPRTG), which is currently undertaking a review of a range of pension issues assigned to it in the Roadmap, including a review of the Approved Retirement Fund (ARF). Some of these issues are discussed in general in the OECD report, including the design of financial incentives and drawdown products and the IDPRTG will consider this work in completing its report.
ARFs were introduced in Finance Act 1999 to provide control, flexibility and choice to the holders of personal pension plans and proprietary director members of occupational pension schemes in the drawdown of their retirement benefits. Prior to that Act, any person taking a pension from a defined contribution (DC) scheme or a Retirement Annuity Contract had to purchase an annuity with their remaining pension pot after drawing down the permissible retirement lump sum. These options have since been extended to the benefits taken by any individual from DC pension arrangements generally.
An internal review of tax relief for pension provision, undertaken by my Department and Revenue in 2005, found that the ARF option was largely not being used to fund an income stream in retirement as was intended, but rather was being us to build up funds in a tax-free environment over the long-term. To counteract this, Finance Act 2006 introduced, with effect from 2007, an imputed or notional distribution of 3% of the value of the assets of an ARF where the ARF owner is 60 years or over for the whole of a tax year. This was phased in from 2007 to 2009: 1% in 2007; 2% in 2008; and 3% from 2009. The notional amount is taxed at the ARF owner's marginal income tax rate. Funds actually drawn down by ARF owners are credited against the imputed distribution in that year to arrive at a net imputed amount, if any, for the year. Finance Acts 2011 and 2012 increased the rate of the notional distribution to 5%, and 6% in respect of ARFs with values over €2 million.
To reduce the risk that individuals in the age group 60 to 70 years might out-live their ARF funds, Finance Act 2014 reduced the 5% rate to 4% for ARF owners under the age of 70, where the value of assets in their ARF is €2 million or less.
While most ARF owners take drawdowns at least equal to the notional distribution rate, there is no obligation on them to do so. The requirement in the legislation is not a statutory minimum drawdown condition. The only requirement is that tax is paid from the ARF on either the notional drawdown amount, whether it is drawn down or not, or on the amount actually drawn down if that is greater than the notional amount.
It is important to note that on drawdown of retirement benefits, the decision regarding the purchase of an annuity or an ARF is a decision made by an individual based on that individual’s specific requirements for retirement. Due to the current perceived poor value in annuities, ARFs are often a more popular post-retirement choice.
It is also important that we protect the integrity of our Exempt, Exempt, Taxed (EET) approach to pension taxation by ensuring income is drawn down in retirement. Our system of pension tax relief ensures contributions and investment returns are exempted from tax and the pension drawdown amount is subject to tax. As stated previously, the IDPRTG, as part of its overall work is currently conducting a broad review of the utilisation of the ARF option, which in conjunction with its other work will inform future policy in this area.
70. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of complaints that have been taken to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman in relation to the tracker mortgage scandal; the value arising from these complaints; the number that have been decided on; the number that have been decided in favour of the complainant; the number that are still outstanding; the value of those complaints still outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2226/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraFirstly, I must point out that the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is independent in the performance of his statutory functions. I have no role in the day to day workings of his office.
However, I have been advised by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman that he currently has 1,221 complaints on hand in January 2019 which relate to tracker mortgage issues. Of those, 723 complaints were received in 2018.
The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman has maintained that the most effective and efficient way to provide redress and compensation to borrowers who have been wrongly denied tracker mortgages was for the banks to co-operate fully with the Central Bank Examination. Therefore, whilst the Examination was still underway individual tracker mortgage-related complaints were placed on hold pending confirmation that the Central Bank Examination had concluded in respect of those complainants.
In July 2018, a decision was taken to begin to take complaints that could potentially progress, off hold. The duration required to investigate a complaint can vary depending on the number of submissions made by the parties to the complaint as each one will trigger a transparent and sometimes extensive exchange of evidence and submissions. Each complaint is considered on its own merits. No legally binding decisions on trackers were issued by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman in 2018.
The, now dissolved, Financial Services Ombudsman dealt with tracker complaints since 2009. It received approximately 2,000 complaints relating to tracker mortgages. Findings were issued in respect of 683 complaints. Of these 115 (17%) were upheld, 59 (9%) were partly upheld and 509 (74%) were not upheld. A number of these findings directed financial service providers to restore tracker mortgages to complainants.
In addition, to issuing findings and decisions both the FSO and the FSPO resolved complaints, including tracker mortgage complaints through informal mediation and through the acceptance of settlement offers made by financial service providers after the engagement of the FSO and FSPO.
I understand from the Ombudsman that calculating a “value” for complaints is not possible until the Ombudsman arrives at his decision which may include potential compensation/rectification.
I understand that the FSPO wrote to all members of the Houses of the Oireachtas informing them of the Protocol for the Provision of Information to Members of the Oireachtas by State Bodies and providing a dedicated email address for the timely provision of information to members of the Oireachtas.
71. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Finance the amount spent in each year for the past five years on accountancy and consultancy firms in relation to capital projects; the specific capital project in which the costs were incurred; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2262/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraI can confirm that my Department has spent the following on accountancy and consultancy firms in relation to capital projects in the past five years.
|
Division |
Amount spent in each year for the past five years on accountancy and consultancy firms in relation to capital projects; |
The specific capital project in which the costs were incurred; |
|
Corporate Affairs |
2016 - €4,206.60 2016 - €31,957.05 2017 - €9,009.32 |
Technical advice in relation to preparation of an RFT for the procurement of an eDiscovery System Legal and technical advice in relation to preparation of an RFT for the procurement of an eDiscovery System Legal and technical advice in relation to preparation of an RFT for the procurement of an eDiscovery System |
72. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of trucks that pass through Dublin Port on a daily basis entering and exiting the port, respectively; the contingency plans in place to deal with delays at the port post 29 March 2019; if traffic management plans have been drawn up; if additional land will be purchased by 29 March 2019; and if not, when. [2242/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe number of HGV's passing through Dublin Port varies on a daily basis. The daily peak occurs between the hours of 2-6 each morning and numbers between 300-360 HGV's. The contingency plan takes this figure into account.
The Office of Public Works, on behalf of the relevant State agencies, is working with Dublin Port to ensure that an effective traffic management plan is in place.
All land required in a no deal scenario has been secured.
73. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the position in relation to the financial commitment towards the development of a centre (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2056/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis is a matter for the Minister for Culture, Heritage and Gaeltacht in the first instance.
Overall responsibility for the management and delivery of the project referred to by the Deputy rests with Cork City Council, with Exchequer grant funding being administered through the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
I have been advised by the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht that in 2013, a grant of €10m was awarded to the local authority for the development of the project. This was increased to €12m in 2015. To date €1m has been drawn down by the local authority. In December 2018, I understand that the Department wrote to the local authority in response to a request for the provision of additional public funding. I understand that officials from that Department will meet with the local authority shortly to discuss aspects around the public funding elements of the project.
74. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the amount spent in each year for the past five years on accountancy and consultancy firms in relation to capital projects; the specific capital project in which the costs were incurred; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2267/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe information requested by the Deputy is included in the following table.
|
Year |
Company |
Capital Project |
Cost |
|
2015 |
Dovetail Technologies |
eCohesion IT Project |
€46,371 |
|
2016 |
Knowledge Pool as part of CAPITA Consulting |
Business case to deliver a new shared model to deliver learning and development for the Civil Service |
€106,063 |
|
2017 |
Astron Consulting Limited |
eCohesion IT Project |
€22,140 |
|
2018 |
Astron Consulting Limited |
eCohesion IT Project |
€11,070 |
Information in respect of the National Shared Services Office, which was a Division of my Department until the end of 2017 and is now a Scheduled Office under its aegis, will be forwarded directly to the Deputy.
