Dáil debates
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Credit Union Bill 2012: From the Seanad
2:25 pm
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendment No. 1 is grouped with Seanad amendments Nos. 163 to 165, inclusive, and with Seanad amendments Nos. 175 to 179, inclusive.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This grouping deals with a change to the Short Title of the Bill and with the inclusion of an area that we now intend to implement.
A number of amendments were made to section 1 on Committee Stage in the Seanad. These amendments and the related Schedules are designed to provide for measures which will allow the Central Bank of Ireland greater capacity to co-operate with its counterparts in other countries. Specifically, these amendments, where enacted, permit the Central Bank to sign the International Organization of Securities Commissions', IOSCO's, multilateral memorandum of understanding, MMOU, by the end of this year. In light of the pressing end of year timeline for signing the MMOU, it has been necessary to make these amendments as part of the Bill.
The purpose of the MMOU is to allow the Central Bank to co-operate and share information with other regulators, including other securities commissions around the world, in accordance with international best practice. The provisions being inserted into this Bill are currently part of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011. Colleagues will be aware that Bill is slowly wending its way through the Houses of the Oireachtas. To cut to the chase, we are including the area contained in that Bill in this Bill because of the timeline by which we must sign the MMOU- by the end of the year. If we had to wait until the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill, which is due for Committee Stage in January 2013, we would miss the end of year deadline for signing the MMOU.
The IOSCO organisation is an international group of regulators, of which the Central Bank is a member on behalf of this country. One of its key functions is to control and provide information to different members on international fraud. The Central Bank of Ireland, as regulator and a member of IOSCO, requested the Government to allow it sign the memorandum and this is the reason we are bringing in section 4. Lest colleagues are concerned this might be some kind of movement two minutes from midnight, that is not the case. The case is we were asked to do this and are bringing it forward from the Bill that is currently only approaching Committee Stage.
These amendments were made in the Seanad and the changes envisaged include enacting section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill so that the Central Bank may use its powers on behalf of overseas regulators; enhancing and consolidating authorised officer provisions; and provisions for guarding the Central Bank confidentiality regime. Given that these amendments are not related to credit unions, it was also necessary to amend the Short and Long Titles of the Bill to accommodate them. I would like to emphasise that the expeditious passage of the Credit Union Bill through the House is necessary to allow the €250 million to be contributed to the credit union fund by the end of this year, as there is no scope in the 2013 figures for this to be done after the end of this year. This money is essential for the restructuring process to get under way.
These amendments deal with a number of new sections we wish to include to deal with allowing Ireland to extend its membership of IOSCO. I believe the Central Bank would highlight some of the important benefits of membership if it had an opportunity to do so. In the circumstance where there is international fraud or an allegation of fraud through securities, for example, it should be open to member states of the organisation to pass information freely to other member states. Having this memorandum in place will have benefits for Ireland, as a signatory to the agreement, in terms of governance and international regulation. I commend this group of amendments to the House.
2:30 pm
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister of State for his comments on the amendments. I would like to ask an overarching question about the spirit of the Committee Stage debate on the Bill. We need to go through a lot of detail in interpreting the Bill, as amended by these 179 amendments. The fundamental question I would like to ask relates to whether the Bill, as amended, makes it clear that the current Central Bank legislation that relates explicitly to credit unions-----
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I cannot hear the Deputy.
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is not my mobile phone.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My mobile phone has been turned off.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think there are some technical problems.
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My essential question relates to the application to credit unions of the existing body of Central Bank legislation. Is it made clear in the broad thrust of the amendments being introduced that only those elements of the Central Bank legislation that have related to credit unions up to now will apply as we move forward? Will the Minister of State assure the House that the Central Bank legislation will not apply to credit unions in a way that it has not applied to them before now, as an unintended consequence of the amendments?
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Michael McGrath's question relates to one of our key concerns about the Bill. We are at the final stage of the debate on it. I want to commend the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, for the way he has engaged with the Opposition on the legislation from the start. I also commend the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, who was involved in part of the discussion on Committee Stage. It is fair to say that at all stages of the legislative process the Minister listened to the concerns of the Opposition about the effect the legislation might have on the credit union movement and all parts of the sector, especially smaller credit unions. I am glad that he introduced amendments in the Seanad after listening to us. Almost 180 amendments are being presented in the House today. It is clear that Sinn Féin would have liked further changes to be made to the Bill and we continue to have concerns about some aspects of it. We will stay in touch with the credit union movement at national and local level and I hope we will not have to return to the issue, but we will do so, if necessary. I am satisfied with the engagement that has happened. It is an example of the true engagement we should have when we are dealing with legislation. I do not want to hark back to what happened earlier other than to say that was not the way to deal with legislation. In fairness to the Minister, he commended me and other Members of the House for introducing practical suggestions. It is clear from the many amendments before the House that our concerns were listened to and I hope we will continue to see that spirit in 2013. I welcome that engagement. I do not have a concern about the group of amendments before the House.
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to say the same. This has been a model exercise in how the Oireachtas should work. Organisations representing the credit union movement made their views known about the Bill initially proposed by the Government. Representatives of various parties listened to those concerns and brought them to the attention of the Government which took action to change the Bill as a result. That is how democracy should work. I would be interested to hear detailed explanations of some of the formulations proposed by the Government, as there may be some issues that we would still like to raise. In general, the Government has engaged genuinely with the Opposition on this matter and listened to the concerns of the credit union movement. The Bill has been improved substantially as a result. Like Deputy Pearse Doherty, I cannot help wishing the Government had engaged with the public and the Opposition on other matters, some of which we discussed earlier today and in the last week, in the same way. If it had done so, it would have enhanced the credibility of the House and politics generally to a great degree. I hope the manner in which the Bill has been approached will be the manner in which the Government will approach other Bills in the future.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This group of amendments will give the Central Bank the authority to sign the memorandum of understanding. When this issue was brought to our attention during the Seanad debate which I attended, the fundamental question I asked was related to when this was brought to our attention. I appreciate the constructive remarks the Deputies have made. This is important because a watchlist of countries that have not signed the memorandum of understanding will be circulated by the International Organization of Securities Commissions by the end of the year. We did not want this country to be highlighted for not having signed the memorandum of understanding when other countries had done so. This net issue was part of the original Central Bank Bill which would have been passed. That is why we have brought it forward. I should have sent a note to my colleagues on the other side of the House when this issue was brought to the attention of the Seanad. I should apologise to the House for this, as it was my responsibility. I note the Deputies' comments that they have no difficulty with the signing of the memorandum of understanding. It is important for this country not be on some kind of blacklist of non-signatory countries as we move into next year. I appreciate the Deputies' remarks in that regard.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, who ostensibly dealt with the Bill on Second and Committee Stages before I became involved gave a commitment in advance of Report Stage that he would respond in the Seanad to a range of amendments the Members opposite had introduced and teased out at the select committee. He was true to his word in considering these amendments which we have tried to reflect as far as we can in the body of amendments being introduced today. The reason it is imperative for this legislation to get over the line before the end of the year relates to the provision of half of the €250 million required for the restructuring of the credit union movement. The rest of the money will be put up through levies within the organisation. That is why it is important for this work to be done by the end of the year. We had a very fruitful discussion in the Seanad with the Members of that House about many of the ideas championed by my colleagues on the other side of this House. As we go through the amendments, I hope the Deputies in question will see how their ideas are being put into law as a result of the changes made in the Seanad.
Deputy Michael McGrath asked a specific question about the definition, with which amendment No. 5 deals. The Minister gave a commitment to amend this legislation to make it clear that only the legislation that already applied to credit unions would be covered by this definition. That will be highlighted when we reach the amendment in question. This will have an effect on what happens in the future. When we reach that amendment, the Deputies will see that the Minister's bona fides are well in tune.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As Seanad amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 157 are related, they may be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Given that these provisions amend the Central Bank Reform Act 2010, it was also necessary to update the citation of the Central Bank Acts. The amendments provide for such an update. This simple change needs to be made as a result of the change made in amendment No. 1. This grouping is consequential on the first grouping having been passed.
Seanad amendment No. 3:Section 1: In page 5, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsection:“(3) The Central Bank Acts 1942 to 2011, sections 36, 37, 48(2) and 57(2), Part 5 (in so far as it amends any of those Acts), and Schedules 2 and 3 (in so far as they amend any of those Acts) may be cited together as the Central Bank Acts 1942 to 2012.”.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As Seanad amendments Nos. 4 and 48 are related, they may be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 4:Section 4: In page 6, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following subsections: “(2) Notwithstanding anything in the rules of a credit union, the board of directors may, by resolution passed during the transitional period, make such amendments of the rules of the credit union as may be consequential on the provisions of this Act. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the transitional period is the period of one year from the commencement of this section. (4) Notwithstanding anything in section 14(4) of the Principal Act, after the expiry of one year from the commencement of this section, the Bank shall not be required to register any amendment of a credit union’s rules unless such consequential amendments of the registered rules as are mentioned in subsection (2) either—(a) have been made before the Bank receives the amendment; or (b) are to be effected by the amendment.”.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A number of amendments were made to section 4 on Committee Stage in the Seanad. These amendments mirror subsections (6) to (8) of section 14 of the Credit Union Act 1997 and provide for changes to the rules of credit unions consequential on the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 4 clarifies that during the first year following the commencement of this section, the rules of the credit union may be amended by a resolution of the board of directors rather than by the members of the credit union where such changes are necessary to comply with the provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 48 provides for a reduction in the number of board members from 15 to 11 by amendment to the rules of the credit union.
2:40 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This arises from the proceedings on Committee Stage in the Seanad. I brought forward an amendment on Committee Stage to address concerns relating to the definition of financial services legislation. During Report Stage in Dáil Éireann and Second Stage in this House I indicated that I would bring forward an amendment to clarify that it is only legislation that already applies to credit unions that would be covered by this definition. The amendment made on Committee Stage in the Seanad provides the clarification sought. I know this was an issue raised by colleagues opposite at all stages when the Bill was being discussed here.
The amendment provides that the financial services legislation definition only relates to provisions applicable to credit unions acting under any authorisation from the Central Bank as provided for by law. Such authorisation may include acting as an investment intermediary under the Investment Intermediaries Act 1995. The amendment clarifies any misunderstanding that the definition somehow applies a corpus of "banking" legislation to credit unions inappropriately. I again clarify that this definition does not apply financial services provisions to credit unions anew, nor could it be used for that purpose. The perception, that this definition turns on to credit unions a range of new legislative provisions from the wider financial sector, is mistaken.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As the Minister of State said, this is an issue that exercised me, my party and the credit union movement as well as many other Opposition Deputies on Committee Stage. I want to put on record that this is a sensible amendment which is appropriate and deals with the fear that the entire suite of financial services legislation, or a part of it that would not be appropriate, could be applied to the credit union movement. I welcome the Minister of State's amendment.
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I very much welcome this amendment, which is very much in the spirit of the suggestions made by all sides of the Opposition and which were fully acknowledged by the Government both on Committee Stage and Report Stage. This satisfies the concerns raised by the credit union movement. I welcome the amendment and commend the Government.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is very generous. We should bottle that.
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Take it while it lasts.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is a technical amendment which clarifies that the secretary is a member of the board, unlike, for example, the position of a company secretary.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We move to Seanad amendment No. 7. Seanad amendments Nos. 10, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30 and 32 are related. The amendments will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A number of amendments were made on Committee Stage in the Seanad in order to set out the principles of regulation making power in these sections by clarifying that the Central Bank may only make regulations in respect of these sections where they are necessary to protect members' savings. These sections provide for borrowings, savings, blending and investments.
Amendment No. 20 sets out the basis on which credit unions may borrow money and links it to the purposes of the credit union's objects as set out in section 8 of the Credit Union Act 1997. These include the creation of sources of credit for the mutual benefit of members, the use and control of members' savings for their mutual benefit and the improvement of the well-being and spirit of the members community.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 provide that the bank may only make regulations that are necessary in respect of credit union lending practices, reporting loans to the credit union and the holding of provisions for loans or categories of loans.
Amendment No. 30 inserts a test of necessity in respect of the power of the Central Bank to make regulations under this section. This provision states that the Central Bank may make regulations prescribing the investments that a credit union may invest in, including any other matter the bank considers necessary in the circumstances.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We move to Seanad amendment No. 8. Seanad amendment Nos. 9 and 11 to 14, inclusive, are related. The amendments may be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 8: Section 7: In page 9, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following: "(2) The conditions imposed by the Bank under subsection (1) may include requiring a credit union-- (a) to notify the Bank of any events of such significance that could materially affect the credit union including any change to the strategic plan of the credit union; (b) to operate a more limited business model agreed with the Bank; (c) to cause to be undertaken an independent review of the credit union's business within 12 months in order to ensure that the credit union is complying with all legal and regulatory requirements.".
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A number of amendments were also made on Committee Stage in the Seanad to provide for some of the types of conditions the bank may impose on the registration of credit unions under subsection (1). These include a condition that the credit union must notify the bank of significant events, a condition to operate a more limited business as agreed with the bank and a condition to undertake a review of the credit union's business within 12 months of registration to ensure it is compliant with all requirements. Conditions such as these must be necessary to protect the savings of credit union members. Conditions may need to be imposed in the formative years of a new credit union, as it may be required to build up the requirement risk management and compliance controls within the credit union.
This amendment also provides that only these conditions that are necessary may be imposed as a condition of registration. Any condition imposed may be capable of being appealed by the credit union to the Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal. These conditions may only be imposed on new registrations, and there have been very few of these in recent years. Further amendments are consequential on this amendment.
This applies into the future in respect of new credit unions. Clear powers are given to the Central Bank as a means of ensuring that people's savings, shares and deposits are well maintained.
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
With regard to the independent review which the Central Bank may require to be conducted in respect of a credit union, who is it envisaged would carry out such an independent review, what would be a competent body to do so and who would pay for it?
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The credit unions themselves would be asked that. They could, in certain circumstances, ask an accountancy firm or some consultancy to produce a report outside of the credit union. However, the first request would come from the bank to the credit union and it would be a matter for the credit union to then furnish the bank with the requisite information.
2:50 pm
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 16, 22, 23 and 25 are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A number of minor technical amendments were made to section 8 which allow the regulations to set limits in the form of a monetary amount as well as a percentage. This section gives effect to recommendation 10.3.27 of the report of the Commission on Credit Unions. It repeals section 27 of the principal Act and replaces it with a provision allowing credit unions to raise funds by issuing shares to members or by accepting deposits. The Central Bank may make regulations in regard to setting limits on the amount of savings or category of savings a member can hold, the ratio of deposits to shares the credit union may hold and any other requirement or limit on the bank consistent with that.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 are minor technical amendments which allow the regulations to set limits in the form of a monetary amount as well as a percentage.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 118 to 120, inclusive, are related and will be taken together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 18 and 19 involve a redraft of the Bill as published. Following further consideration of the Bill, it was felt that the provisions under section 29, which propose to insert a new section 84A into the 1997 Act, would be more suitable under section 9. The latter deals with the policies, procedures and practices a credit union must have in place to ensure it is compliant with requirements imposed on it. For example, the Central Bank may make regulations imposing liquidity requirements on credit unions under section 30 of the Bill. At present, credit unions have a minimum liquidity requirement of 20%. The amendment allows the Central Bank to make regulations prescribing the operational practices, policies and procedures to be adopted by the credit unions more generally. These may include requiring credit unions to adopt monitoring procedures to ensure the 20% liquidity requirement is complied with. Regulations may also require credit unions to ensure people involved in monitoring liquidity have an understanding of the calculation of liquidity and maturity mismatches. These regulations may also deal with reporting requirements, including arrangements for reporting breaches to the board of directors of the Central Bank. A number of consequential amendments following on from amendment No. 18 were also made in the Seanad.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 19 gives the Central Bank and the registrar of credit unions broad regulatory powers. I am not objecting to that, because it is the purpose of the Bill. However, I have made the argument consistently as the legislation progressed through this House that a memorandum of understanding between the credit union movement and the Central Bank would strengthen the Bill and would be helpful in terms of identifying what each should expect of the other. I have lost the debate on that point and do not intend to re-engage in it now. However, I will make a last-ditch appeal to the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, to consider, after the Bill has passed, the merit of having a memorandum of understanding between the credit union movement and the Central Bank. The Minister has made positive soundings in this regard.
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To echo Deputy Pearse Doherty's point, the credit union representatives to whom I spoke said they would find it very helpful if the requirements and obligations they must meet were set down in a simple and readily understandable way. The Bill has been much improved since its introduction and we have already had this particular discussion. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to consider what is a reasonable request by the credit union sector.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand the Minister, Deputy Noonan, has discussed this issue with the Deputies. A consultation protocol was established two weeks ago. The Minister's view is that were he to include provision in the Bill for what the Deputies are proposing, that might tie the hand of the regulator and be too prescriptive. The Oireachtas gives the regulator powers on the basis that he or she will operate them in accordance with the independence of the office. The Minister has made clear that he has an open mind on the issue. As I said, the consultation process is now established and we will glean something from that. However, the Minister is not proposing at this stage to formalise it in the way the Deputy has suggested. We do not wish to cut across the very important work of the regulator in this matter or to tie his or her hands. I hope common sense and judgment will prevail in dealings between the Central Bank, the regulator and the credit unions, which will ensure there is no need to impose prescriptions on the regulator. A memorandum of understanding is a more formal way of specifying what we all want to see, namely, a proper protocol for dealing with these matters. We will keep a watching brief on the situation.
Seanad amendment No. 19: Section 9: In page 11, line 33, to delete "legislation."." and substitute the following:"legislation. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Bank may make regulations prescribing—(a) certain oversight, policies, procedures, processes, practices, systems, controls, skills, expertise and reporting arrangements which the credit union is required to maintain where the Bank considers this is appropriate in the interest of protecting members’ savings or otherwise appropriate to ensure compliance with the requirements imposed under financial services legislation; (b) requirements in relation to the oversight, policies, procedures, processes, practices, systems, controls, skills, expertise and reporting arrangements required to be maintained under this section.".".
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
An amendment was made to section 11 on Committee Stage in the Seanad to provide for a transitional arrangement whereby an approval by the Central Bank under the existing section 35(2) of the Credit Union Act 1997 in respect of longer-term lending by a credit union would continue to have effect upon commencement of this section. The amendment simply clarifies the existing position in order to put it beyond doubt.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This amendment was made on Committee Stage in the Seanad. It is a minor amendment to rectify an incorrect cross-reference in the text.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is another of the Opposition amendments that was debated with the Minister, Deputy Noonan, at the select committee.
Amendment No. 31, made in the Seanad, follows on from the discussion on Committee and Report Stages in this House where the Minister committed to examining this section in order to allow a credit union to invest in public projects. This amendment arose out of discussion with the Office of the Attorney General on the issue, and makes clear that the power of the Central Bank to make regulations relating to investments includes scope for making regulations in respect of investments in public projects. The Minister remains open to credit unions coming forward at an early stage to outline their proposals in respect of such investments. A further amendment to this section was made in the Seanad. What the Minister has done in the amendment we asked the Seanad to agree - as it did - is effectively to include public projects for the purposes of allowing the Central Bank to make regulations. I know that was a key concern of Members opposite.
3:00 pm
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Again, I commend the Government on this amendment. It is one of the most important moves to acknowledge explicitly in the Bill a very positive suggestion made by the credit unions. In these rather bleak times when we often argue with one another about what not to do, and desperately look around for positive suggestions about what we might do, this is a positive, forward-looking and imaginative proposal by the credit unions that can benefit everybody. Not only is it important to include it in the Bill but I urge the credit unions, as did the Minister of State, to come forward with their proposals so that we can look at them and thereby take this suggestion seriously. It seems as if some of the desperately needed investment funds we would all like to see made available to invest in employment-rich and socially valuable projects are being offered to us by an organisation whose members have the best interests of this country at heart. It is a very positive move and I hope we not only include it in the Bill but also that we take up this suggestion and seek to develop it.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister of State for responding positively to the request to put this amendment in the Bill, as tabled by me on Committee and Report Stages. I would have preferred a more explicit statement on State-guaranteed public projects but I recognise the wording presented by the Minister of State does not prohibit this, so I find it acceptable.
As the Bill passes into law, I acknowledge the Minister of State's comment that he is open to meeting the credit union movement. It is now up to the movement to step up to the mark. It has been seeking this amendment and therefore it should come forward with proposals. It is equally important that the Department of Finance should co-ordinate a position that can be proposed to the credit union movement. This would state the kind of investments envisaged, would point out that the credit unions had wanted the measure and note that it has been enshrined into law in terms as clear as day. It can ask them what their proposals are, ranging from small, medium and large packages. These may be the concern of the Department with responsibility for housing or the Department of Education and Skills, which can put them together with the co-ordination of the Department of Finance. It is a two-way street. I welcome this move.
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I concur with the sentiments of previous speakers. This amendment is to be welcomed. It is satisfactory and gives explicit recognition to the possibility of credit unions investing in projects of a public nature, which is something they will welcome. I share Deputy Doherty's view that this option should now be explored fully by credit unions.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I hear what all the Deputies are saying. There is an opportunity here to do something imaginative. Although this section is all about ensuring that credit unions use their investments with judgment and common sense, there must be a recognition that where public projects arise that could have a mutual benefit for credit union members in communities known to credit unions, it makes sense to invest in them, having regard to any potential risks. The way we approached this in the amendment was to give power to the Central Bank to bring forward the regulations. This seemed to get over the legal hurdle that had been present up to the point when we had our discussions with the Office of the Attorney General. There is nothing to stop the Department of Finance, with other Departments, as Deputy Doherty suggested, bringing forward ideas and proposals or a scheme of ideas, in tandem with the regulations the Central Bank will make. This is positive because it is about delivering for an entire community. Such a community also looks to the future as to where its investments can best lie and how community benefit can best be obtained. They are the people who know best, and that can be tempered by a standard form of regulation which the Central Bank can stand over. I believe we are all in agreement on that.
Seanad amendment No. 33:Section 15: In page 19, to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute the following: “(6) The board of directors of a credit union shall be elected— (a) where the organisation meeting occurs after the commencement of this provision (as amended by section 15 of the Credit Union Act 2012), by secret ballot at the organisation meeting and, subject to subsection (15) and section 57, subsequent vacancies on the board of directors shall be filled by secret ballot at an annual general meeting, and (b) in any other case, by secret ballot at the annual general meeting first occurring after the commencement of this provision (as amended by section 15 of the Credit Union Act 2012) or, if earlier than that annual general meeting, at a special general meeting called for the purpose of such ballot and, subject to subsection (15) and section 57, subsequent vacancies on the board of directors shall be filled by secret ballot at an annual general meeting.”.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 33, made in the Seanad, makes provision for the election of the board of directors at the first annual general meeting or special general meeting called after the organisation meeting of a new credit union. This amendment was necessary to ensure consistency between the ways the board oversight and the board of directors are elected. It provides a transitional arrangement for the election of the board of directors at the first agm or sgm, following the commencement of the section. This was necessary given the decrease in the maximum number of directors that may be appointed to the board under this Bill - a reduction from a maximum of 15 to a maximum of 11, which was well debated on all sides.
On Committee Stage in the Seanad I noted there were incorrect cross references in these amendments and stated I would bring forward amendments on Report Stage to rectify these inconsistencies. They should refer to section 53(15), not to section 53(16). These amendments were made on Report Stage in the Seanad and the correct cross references have now been included in subsection (6).
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendments Nos. 34, 37, 38, 40, 42 to 46, inclusive, 51 to 54, inclusive, 65, 73, 91, 93, 115 to 117, inclusive, 168 and 169 are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I refer to amendment No. 34. An amendment was made on Committee Stage in the Seanad to remove subsections (12) and (13) of section 15 as these will be provided for in a new fitness and probity regime which will be rolled out for credit unions on a phased basis, as recommended by the Commission on Credit Unions. Further amendments were also made to amend the cross references caused by the deletion of subsections (12) and (13) by amendment No. 37.
Amendment No. 51 amended paragraph (f) in section 17(1). This section previously provided that a person performing management functions in a credit union must have particular knowledge, skills, experience, qualifications, competence and probity to carry out these duties effectively. This was deleted by an amendment in the Seanad as it would be covered separately under the fitness and probity regime which will be rolled out for credit unions over time. In effect, we are removing the fitness and probity references because they are surplus to requirements given that they will be rolled out over time. The application of fitness and probity requirements was agreed by the Commission on Credit Unions and will apply, depending on the nature of the scale and the complexity of the credit union concerned.
Amendment No. 52 deleted paragraph (p), as it referred to requirements set out in subsections (12) and (13) of section 53. As these subsections were being deleted, paragraph (p) is now invalid. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 also make the consequential cross references arising from the deletion of paragraph (p).
Amendment No. 73 deleted paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (5) of subsection 63A, as inserted by section 21 of the Bill.
When appointing a person as manager, it is necessary to ensure that the person appointed complies with all legal requirements. The list of requirements that a manager must fulfil has been deleted as these standards will also be set out under the fitness and probity requirements which will apply to credit unions in line with the recommendation of the Commission on Credit Unions. These measures will be rolled out to credit unions over time and they will take account of the size and scale of credit unions. This amendment ensures that the person appointed as manager will comply with all legal requirements, including those prescribed by the Central Bank. Further amendments were made on Committee Stage in the Seanad in order to correct the cross-references arising from the deletion of section 53(12) and (13), as inserted by section 15 of the Bill.
3:10 pm
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not at all happy with amendments Nos. 35 and 95 for two reasons. The first of these reasons relates to the general exclusion under which prevents voluntary assistants in credit unions from serving on the boards of those credit unions. We have been around the houses in respect of this matter on a number of occasions and I will not repeat the arguments put forward previously. This is the one major area within the legislation with which the Minister for Finance has not dealt generously.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I apologise for interrupting but I believe the Deputy is referring to amendments in the next group.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry for that.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This group of amendments relate to the fitness and probity requirements.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is fine.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendment No. 35 is grouped with Seanad amendments Nos. 36, 95 to 111, inclusive, 113 and 174.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This group contains the amendments about which Deputy Doherty is concerned. A number of amendments were made on Committee Stage in the Seanad which relate to eligibility for membership of boards of directors and which arose as a result of constructive debates with Deputies and Senators in both Houses in recent weeks. The effect of these amendments will be to reduce the exclusions that would apply to members of boards. There was a great deal of discussion in respect of this matter on Committee Stage and Report Stage in the Dáil and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, gave a guarantee to the effect that he would introduce amendments. These are the amendments before the House. I accept that not everyone will be satisfied with them but we have gone as far as possible.
Amendment No. 35 allows volunteers from a credit union, as well as a member of the board oversight committee of such a credit union, to serve on the board of another credit union. That is the first substantial change and it means that if a person is a volunteer with one credit union, he or she can serve on the board of another. That was the first exclusion we overturned.
Amendment No. 36 removes the prohibition under which family members of volunteers on credit unions may not becoming directors. This was the second exclusion, under which, if a person was a volunteer in a credit union, he or she was excluded from serving on the board. The Minister stated that he would introduce an amendment in this regard and he has done so. This amendment also removes the express exclusion of members who have been in arrears on their repayments for more than 90 days. Instead, it provides that credit union rules should deal with the eligibility of such members.
Amendment No. 174 follows on from amendment No. 36 and provides that the rules of a credit union must set out how it will deal with a member of the board of directors or board oversight committee who is in arrears of more than 90 days, up to and including suspension or removal of that member.
Amendments Nos. 95 to 111, inclusive, and 113 relate to exclusions from the board oversight committee. There was much constructive debate in the Dáil and Seanad in respect of the eligibility for membership of board oversight committees. A number of amendments were proposed in respect of section 53(10) in the context of changes to the exclusions from boards of directors. These amendments were proposed in order to ensure consistency between boards and board oversight committees. Their effect will be to reduce the number of exclusions that would have applied in respect of membership of board oversight committees.
Amendment No. 95 allows volunteers from other credit unions to be on the board oversight committee of a credit union. This matter arose on foot of Committee Stage proceedings in the Dáil. Amendment No. 106 removes the prohibition on family members of the credit union becoming members of the board oversight committee. Amendment No. 96 allows a director of another credit union to become a board oversight committee member. Amendment No. 108 clarifies that a member of the board oversight committee of the credit union cannot also sit on the board of directors of the same credit union. Amendment No. 104 makes a change to the exclusion of auditors from the board oversight committee. This exclusion will now include a person employed or engaged by that auditor and is designed to guard against any conflict of interest in the context of a person's having worked in other credit unions or possessing information about what is occurring in another credit union. Amendment No. 109 deletes section 76N(4)(q) in line with the changes for exclusion from board membership. Amendment No. 110 ensures that where a committee member falls under any exclusion provisions, he or she should resign from the committee.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fact that this section has been changed to a substantial degree. There is no doubt about that. Consequently, many of the concerns that were voiced have been met. However, there is an issue outstanding in respect of the voluntary aspect. I will not rehash the debates in which we have engaged on this matter. We will monitor what occurs and if difficulties arise, we will return to this matter either in the form of a Topical Issue Debate or on Private Members' business. I encourage the Minister of State and the Department to monitor this provision in order to gauge its effect. I understand what the Minister and Minister of State have been saying during the debates on the Bill in the context of ensuring that we have the best governance. However, we must also ensure that the latter does not impact in a negative way on the sector and, in particular, on smaller credit unions.
The second matter about which I am concerned relates to the exclusion of a staff member of a credit union from serving on the board of another credit union. There was a way to do this in the context of the conflict of interest provisions. Again, I will not revisit the debate on this matter. What I will say is that those who are voluntary assistants within credit unions or who serve on boards of directors may obtain employment in other credit unions as a result of the experience they have gained. The Bill will have the unintended consequence of forcing such people into making a choice between their job and their position on the board of directors. Such individuals or their parents may have been involved in the founding of the credit union in question and they will not be placed in a nice position. Cases of this nature may be few and far between but we should not put anyone in the position to which I refer. I accept, however, that it is too late to tweak the provision but perhaps we can revisit the matter in the future.
I strongly support the other amendments that have been put forward in this regard. I refer, in particular, to amendment No. 36, which relates to circumstances in which a person is in arrears and will be excluded from the board of directors as a result. As I pointed out on Committee Stage, such members should be forced to resign with immediate effect. It is very important that this will now be the case. I thank the Minister of State for bringing forward this amendment.
This is the only part of the Bill to which I am strongly opposed. Amendment No. 35 is actually better then the provision contained in the Bill, but it does not go far enough. That is why I wish to place on record the fact that I remain opposed to the relevant exclusions. I ask the Minister of State to monitor the position with regard to voluntary assistants and to give particular consideration to the provision under which a person will be asked to choose between his or her job and his or her membership of the board of directors.
My final point relates to amendment No. 124, which is in a later group. That amendment is relevant to the matter under discussion because it deals with the exemption clause I suggested on Committee Stage and in respect of which I tabled an amendment on Report Stage. The Minister for Finance signalled that he was open to such a clause.
Amendment No. 124 deals with that issue to a certain degree.
3:20 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The length of service.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It allows for the Central Bank asking the credit union to appoint an additional person and the term limits are waived.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, if they can find someone.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It deals with the term limits issue in one way. I will discuss this matter further when we come to that group of amendments. However, it does not deal with the issue of a voluntary worker or a person working for another credit union. The issue of term limits could also apply in this instance. I suggest a waiver if the Minister of State is not willing to remove it altogether. Amendment No. 124 could have been expanded to include dealing with the prohibition on serving as a director in the case of voluntary assistants and staff of another credit union. It would be solely at the discretion of and with the permission of the Central Bank. This might be another way by which we could have addressed the issue. I suggest we return to it at a later stage.
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the amendments which represent progress and improve the Bill. I welcome, in particular, the amendment dealing with directors who find themselves in arrears. An amendment was necessary in this case. The restrictions are unnecessarily onerous, particularly when it comes to volunteers. It is often the case that the members of a board of directors are mature in years with time on their hands. It could be argued that working voluntarily for the credit union every week enhances their role as board members and gives such individuals a greater understanding of the operation of the credit union. This restriction is unnecessary, but it remains to be seen how it will work in practice.
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree with others that the Bill has been improved substantially by meeting some of the concerns expressed. I echo the points made about the removal of the exclusion on persons in arrears. However, the democratic principle of credit unions may be somewhat undermined - the right of members to make these decisions and judgments about the people they wish to serve on the board. I welcome the improvements, but the Minister of State should keep an ear to concerns or problems that may arise as a result of the exclusions which continue to be provided for in the Bill.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree with colleagues that the amendments have improved the section substantially by doing away with the more ridiculous exclusions. However, there is a fundamental distinction between a volunteer and an employee or a director. The credit union is a unique organisation which has given so much to the country. We need to arrive at the correct balance. The next group of amendments deals with the term limit - 12 years out of 15. I made the point yesterday on Report Stage in the Seanad that it was only when the Bill was passed by both Houses and became law that all these sections would apply. For example, a person may have served for 30 years, but he or she will only be appointed as a director next year. The Bill will be another transition for the credit union movement and it is certain this issue will be considered again in the next few years. I understand the point made by Deputy Pearse Doherty. The next group of amendments provides that the Central Bank is empowered to put to one side the exclusion if a credit union cannot find people because of the term limit. The Deputy has argued dthat the same should apply to volunteer and employees. I understand the logic of his argument. When this new regime and the transition period begin, we may need to look at any problems with the exclusion of volunteers. Beginning with the report of the commission, there has been an argument that this distinction is needed to ensure potential conflicts of interest are minimised and that the best governance system will be in place for all credit unions.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 39, 41, 64, 66, 112 and 124 are related and may be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I tabled a number of amendments on Committee Stage in the Seanad to increase the term limits of members of the board of directors. This arose from discussion with colleagues opposite on Committee and Report Stages in this House. On Report Stage the Minister for Finance had stated he intended to bring forward an amendment, following consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, to change the term limits to 12 years in aggregate in a 15 year period. This commitment is now reflected by the amendments made in the Seanad which strike an appropriate balance between promoting board rotation and protecting the volunteer ethos of credit unions. Seanad amendment No. 66 is consequential on this amendment to increase the term limits from nine to 12 years. Seanad amendment No. 64 increases the maximum consecutive term for the chairman from three years to four. The term of office of the chairman is for a period of one year. Currently, a chairman is not permitted to serve more than three consecutive terms in that post. The Minister agreed on Committee Stage to increase the maximum consecutive term for the chairman from three years to four. This will ensure continuity in the board. However, it will also be one of the responsibilities of the nomination committee to ensure board continuity. Seanad amendment No. 124 permits the Central Bank to appoint a director, even where that person may have exceeded the limit. This is the point made by Deputy Pearse Doherty when speaking on the previous group of amendments. The bank can give a credit union the power to appoint someone, even if that person is beyond the term limit.
In the course of the debate on Committee Stage and again in the Seanad a discussion ensued on a waiving of the term limits in exceptional circumstances. The Minister undertook to examine this proposal. The issue to be addressed is whether the term limits could result in a credit union being unable to attract enough suitable directors. The Bill already provides that the Central Bank can require a credit union to nominate additional directors where the board is lacking in skills or expertise. The director so nominated must be approved by the Central Bank. The Bill has been amended in order that the time served as an additional director in these circumstances is not reckoned for the purposes of the term limit. This means a director who has already served his or her 12 years in a15 year period could still be appointed to the board, but only in these exceptional circumstances, if there is a deficiency in expertise and agreed to by the Central Bank. This addresses the concern raised without undermining the core principle of the Bill on term limits.
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is reasonable. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, made the point a number of times that he wanted to retain the principle of rotation. He has given some ground on the issue of the term limit moving from nine years to 12.
Who knows where any of us will be in January 2025? There will be a number of Governments between now and then and this issue can be kept under review. I am satisfied with the amendments and thank the Government therefor.
3:30 pm
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is a sobering thought. Where will we be in 2025?
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the board of a credit union.
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is a considerable improvement in recognition of the concern raised by the credit unions.
Given the Minister of State has provided for exceptional circumstances, I hope that, if everybody is being reasonable, the concerns expressed by the credit unions will be addressed adequately. However, I never really received a satisfactory answer to one question, bearing in mind the importance ascribed to the principle of rotation and the imposition of term limits. If term limits are considered so important for credit unions, why are they not imposed on banks, for example? Why does the Government attach so much importance to term lmits for credit union directors? Why do we not have a problem in this regard and with certain other conditions that applied to staff who served in our banks over the years? Will the Minister of State explain this?
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not support term limits. The credit union movement is a democratic movement. In the same way that this institution, a democratic one, does not have term limits, credit unions should not have any either. The issues is dealt with and we lost the debate but I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has extended the term limits. I welcome the exclusion, waiver or whatever the Minister of State wants to call it that I suggested on Committee Stage and furnished on Report Stage. It is basically encompassed in amendment No. 124, which deals with the term limits. The provision is not as strong as I would have liked. It refers to an additional director. I am not sure about this because I obviously have not been on the board of directors of a credit union.
Consider the circumstances if we add up the exclusions that exist in terms of voluntary assistance, employees of other credit unions and account for the real and necessary requirements we place on directors of credit unions to be fit for purpose and have knowledge and experience. In a small credit union, one could limit the pool; therefore, this is a question of additional directors and not about circumstnaces where a credit union cannot fill its complement. Scope is provided to allow that to happen. I hope the procedure will not be cumbersome. Under section 90, the review must be carried out by the Central Bank. One must go to the credit union nomination committee to suggest a director one feels would be fit for purpose. The bank must agree that and then the director is appointed for the period up to the next AGM. After an AGM, the procedure could take nine months, after which the director may only be in office for three months before leaving. The provision is really to ensure that the board does not lose experience and will have the necessary experience to carry out its functions properly. I am a little bit concerned but perhaps my concern is ill founded. The Central Bank will obviously have to work out the procedure. I want to ensure the process is not cumbersome.
The legislation does address my concerns in regard to the points on directors. We could have given full discretion to the Central Bank in respect of a voluntary member of staff or a member of staff from another credit union. I can understand the conflict that the Minister of State talked about in regard to a staff member of one credit union being a director of another, and the need for one to be fully aware of the books and all the various project. If the section encompassed this, it would be up to the Central Bank to determine whether the employee of a given credit union would have a conflict of interest if he or she were a director of another. The amendment would be very safe. We cannot do anything about this at this stage but we could and should have examined it. Perhaps we will do so.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We all share the common goal of ensuring that credit unions have the requisite number of staff with suitable qualifications and skills required to the job they are being asked to do. Deputy Doherty made a fair point in asking whether we are now accepting a pretty cumbersome set of circumstances whereby, if a credit union found it did not have the correct range of skills required on its board, it would make an application to the Central Bank, which would decide on the position, after which a name would come forward that the bank would have to sanction. If this applies, it is because the credit union makes the application to the Central Bank on the basis that it feels it does not have the requisite number of people to serve the purpose in question because of a lack of skills or expertise. This gives the credit union the power to make the first move. However, Deputy Doherty's point is important in that it is a question of what happens next. This issue is one that the Central Bank needs to be mindful of in circumstances where it is trying to expedite an application on behalf of the credit union. Certainly, any help that the Department of Finance can bring to bear on the bank to speed up the process and putting in place a code of practice in this regard would make sense.
On the remarks made by Deputy Boyd Barrett, there have been many investigations into banking but we have not had a commission yet. What we have attempted to do is put the legislative requirements in place to deal with the issues concerning credit unions. Without wishing to reopen cans of worms, I am pretty happy that the Government has addressed virtually all the issues concerning the directors who were in place in the various credit institutions, whether we own them or not, and that the institutions have a new governance system in place with new staff who will, I hope, recover the banks on behalf of us all.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 47 and 49 are related and are to be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 47: Section 15: In page 21, to delete lines 28 to 31 and substitute the following: "(17) Where all the directors of a credit union intend to resign on the same date, the secretary shall give written notice of the directors’ intention to the Bank and the board oversight committee.".".
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A further minor technical amendment was made on Committee Stage in the Seanad to clarify that the secretary must inform the Central Bank were all directors intend to resign on the same day. Amendment No. 49 was made on Committee Stage in the Seanad to remove unnecessary wording in section 16. The secretary is a board member and, as such, is entitled to attend board meetings.
Seanad amendment No. 48: Section 15: In page 21, subsection (2), lines 33 and 34, to delete all words from and including "to" where it secondly occurs in line 33 down to and including "subsection (1)" in line 34 and substitute the following:"to a reduction in the number of board of directors in compliance with that Act".
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 50, 56 to 60, inclusive, 62, 63, 67 to 72, inclusive, 84, 86, 88 and 89 are related and are to be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 50 was made to include the appointment of the risk management officer and compliance officer as one of the functions of the board.
The current wording provides for these appointments as functions of the manager. However, they are more appropriate to the board. The substantive change to the Bill before it was amended was that they related to the manager's functions, but we considered that they were more appropriate to the board. The deletion of subsections (4) and (5) is consequential on the acceptance of this amendment. These matters will be provided for in subsection (1)(e).
Amendment No. 51 was discussed with amendment No. 39 to section 15, while amendment No. 52 was discussed with amendment 34 to the same section. The amendment deletes the famous paragraph (p) as it refers to the requirements set out in subsections (12) and (13) of section 53. As these subsections are being deleted, the famous paragraph (p) is no longer required. A number of consequential amendments arising from the changes made to the functions of the board of directors in amendment No. 50 are also made.
Seanad amendment No. 55:Section 17: In page 25, to delete lines 23 and 24 and substitute the following:"(r) reporting to the members of the credit union at the annual general meeting, including nominating a member of the board to present the annual accounts at the annual general meeting; (s) reviewing and considering any update of financial statements provided to the board by the manager under section 63A(4)(c).".
3:40 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 55 allows the board to nominate a director to present the accounts to members at the AGM. This role was previously performed by the treasurer; however, as the position of treasurer is being removed, the amendment will merge the reporting roles, but it will do so in a different way. It also provides that it is the role of the board to consider any update on financial statements provided for it by the manager and mirrors the provisions in section 63A(4)(c). The other amendments are minor technical amendments required to correct cross-references consequential on the amendments proposed.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The amendment deletes the word "either" from the sentence concerned as its inclusion is a typographical error.
Seanad amendment No. 73:Section 21:In page 33, to delete lines 43 to 48 and in page 34, to delete lines 1 to 14 and substitute the following:"(5) In appointing a person as manager of a credit union, its board of directors shall ensure that the person complies with all legal requirements (including requirements which the Bank may prescribe) to be appointed.".".
Seanad amendment No. 74:Section 23:In page 35, to delete lines 8 to 46 and in page 36, to delete lines 1 to 8 and substitute the following:“ “66.—(1) If the board oversight committee of a credit union considers that a member of the board of directors has taken any action or decision which, in the opinion of the committee, given in writing to the director concerned, is not in accordance with the requirements of this Part, then, after consulting the Bank, the committee may either— (a) suspend, with immediate effect, the director by a unanimous vote of all the members of the committee taken at a meeting of the committee called for the purpose of considering the director’s suspension, or (b) convene a special general meeting of the credit union to consider whether to remove the director in the light of the action or decision taken by that director, but no steps shall be taken under this subsection without the director concerned being given an opportunity to be heard by the members of the board oversight committee.(2) Where a director of a credit union has been suspended by the board oversight committee in accordance with subsection (1), the board oversight committee shall, within 7 days of that suspension, convene a special general meeting—(a) for the purpose of reviewing the suspension, and (b) to consider whether to remove the director having regard to the action or decision taken by that director.(3) Where the board oversight committee convenes a special general meeting for the purposes of this section the credit union may, by resolution of a majority of the members present and voting at that special general meeting—(a) ratify the suspension of the director concerned and remove that director from office, (b) rescind the suspension of that director, or (c) remove that director from office,but no director shall be so removed from office without being given an opportunity to be heard by the members present at the meeting. (4) The secretary of the credit union shall, not less than 21 days before the date of the special general meeting at which it is proposed to move a resolution referred to in subsection (3), give written notice of that meeting to the director concerned. (5) Where notice is given of an intended resolution to remove a director under this section and the director concerned makes in relation to it representations (not exceeding a reasonable length) in writing to the credit union and requests their notification to the members of the credit union then, unless the representations are received by it too late for it to do so, the credit union shall, subject to subsection (7)—(a) in any notice of the resolution given to members of the credit union, state the fact of the representations having been made, and (b) send a copy of the representations to every member of the credit union to whom notice of the meeting is sent. (6) Subject to subsection (7), and whether or not copies of any representations made by it have been sent as mentioned in subsection (5), the director concerned may require that, without prejudice to his or her right to be heard orally, the representations made by him or her shall be read out at the special general meeting. (7) Subsections (5) and (6) shall not apply if, on the application either of the credit union or of any person who claims to be aggrieved, the Bank is satisfied that compliance with the subsections would diminish substantially public confidence in the credit union or that the rights conferred by those sections are being, or are likely to be, abused in order to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter. (8) Where a director of a credit union is removed from office at a special general meeting pursuant to this section, the vacancy caused by the removal shall be filled in such manner as may be determined by the meeting.".".
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The amendment sets out new provisions concerning the suspension and removal of directors of the board oversight committee. Issues arose during the debate in the Dáil about the procedure for the suspension and removal of directors, particularly in relation to the directors concerned being provided with written notification of the board oversight committee's reasons for taking action under this section. The Minister, on both Committee and Report Stages in this House, indicated his willingness to look again at these provisions and the amendment reflects the changes necessary in order to address the concerns raised by colleagues in the Dáil. The amendment brings the procedure for the removal of a director at a special general meeting convened under this section into line with that for the removal of a director from office by members of a credit union which is set out in section 56 of the 1997 Act, thereby ensuring greater procedural consistency from one Act to the next. Under this section, the board oversight committee can suspend a director where it considers that a member has taken an action or decision which is not in accordance with Part IV of the 1997 Act.
Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett proposed an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil which was accepted by the Minister and provides that the board oversight committee is required to give written notice to the director setting out the reasons for its decisions before suspending the director or convening a special general meeting of the credit union to consider whether to remove the director. Where a director is suspended by the board oversight committee under this section, the suspension takes effect immediately and if that director does not resign within seven days of being suspended, the committee shall convene a special general meeting to review the suspension and consider whether to remove the director. At a special general meeting convened in accordance with this section the members may ratify the suspension, rescind it or remove the director from office. The amendment provides, in a similar manner to section 56 of the 1997 Act, that a director is entitled to written notice of a special general meeting to be held under this section not less than 21 days in advance of the meeting. The amendment also sets out the procedure for the director in question to make written representations in advance of a special general meeting and that the director has the right to be heard orally at such a meeting. The Minister is confident that the amendment addresses the concerns raised by Deputies in this House.
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister of State for accepting the amendment. It is regrettable that the constituent who raised the issue with me is not in the Visitors' Gallery, as he has been here to follow some of the proceedings on the Bill. I will not say this has been a labour of love for him, but it has been an issue he has been pursuing for many years. Has specifically sought to have the word "written" inserted in the Bill. The amendment allows for a clear and transparent record to be given of the reasons provided by the board oversight committee for suspending a director of the board. It spells out the steps for proceeding with such a suspension and how the person proposed to be suspended can state his or her case. This is a good amendment and I commend the Government for taking it on board.
A person raised a related issue which probably does not come under the Bill. That person believes there is not an adequate procedure in place for individuals to make a case to the regulator where there is a dispute over the rights and wrongs of a suspension and that there is a need for the Central Bank to ensure there will be a fair procedure in place all the way up the line to allow individuals to appeal a decision in a case if they are unhappy at any stage of the process. That there is now a requirement for reasons to be given in writing will at least ensure a level of transparency about decisions that might be made in this regard.
I welcome the amendment. I am sorry the individual in question is not here to see a little bit of his idea being enshrined in law. I am sure he will be very pleased, however, and that it will have the desired effect.
3:50 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. Natural justice requires that people would receive this notification in writing. The point the Deputy highlighted comes from a genuine case where someone felt there had been some unfairness. The fact this is now incorporated in the law puts a standard there for all credit unions to follow. I congratulate the Deputy on doing that.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This amendment clarifies that the requirement which the bank may prescribe under section 66(C)(1) of the 1997 Act relate to the form and content of the compliant statement to be provided to credit unions.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 76 to 83, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendment No. 76 ensures the secretary acts at all times in a manner free from conflict. Where a potential conflict is identified between his or her own interests and the interests of the credit union, the secretary must declare the nature of his or her interest in writing to the board and service notice of that conflict on the chair.
The other amendments are minor technical amendments and are consequential to amendment No. 76.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 85 and 87 are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 85 and 87 delete references to the risk management officer or compliance officer having the necessary experience to manage the functions of their role. This does not need to be provided for here as these standards will be set out under the fitness and probity regime which was agreed with the Commission on Credit Unions. These measures will be rolled out in credit unions over time and will take account of the size and scale of the credit unions.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 90, 92, 94 and 114 are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
These are technical amendments.
Seanad amendment No. 114:Section 27: In page 54, to delete lines 35 to 41 and substitute the following:“(6) The board oversight committee may notify the Bank of any concern it has, that the board of directors has not complied with any of the requirements set out in this Part or Part IV, or regulations made thereunder, following a unanimous vote at a meeting of the committee called for the purpose of considering such a notification.”.
Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 121 to 123, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendment No. 121 provides a more specific definition of “liquid assets”. Seanad amendment No. 122 clarifies the definition of “maturity mismatch”. Seanad amendment No. 123 ensures the proportion of liquid assets to be kept by a credit union will take account of the nature, scale and complexity of a credit union, ensuring that a one-size-fits all approach is not taken and that the composition and maturity of a credit union’s assets and liabilities is also taken into consideration.
This is line with the commission's recommendations on a tiered regulatory approach. This was in the Bill as published but was mistakenly removed from the Bill as amended on Committee Stage in the Dáil. These amendments clarify the issue and, as I noted in the other House yesterday, make it clear that the tiered approach will not compromise small credit unions or those which have a different range of depositors. That is what these three amendments are for.
Seanad amendment No. 122: Section 30: In page 59, to delete lines 27 to 34 and substitute the following:“ ‘maturity mismatch’ means the ongoing or possible future divergence between a credit union’s assets and liabilities because non liquid assets of the credit union have not or, at the appropriate time, will not have matured;”.
Seanad amendment No. 124: Section 31: In page 61, line 35, to delete “section 53.”.” and substitute the following:“section 53. (5) Any period of appointment under this section shall not be reckoned for the purposes of calculating the number of years that a person has served in aggregate for the purpose of section 53(12) or section 76N(5).”.”.
4:00 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendment No. 125 clarifies that sections 27B, 27G and 27H of the Central Bank Act 1997 continue to apply to the credit union auditor. These sections relate to the duties of auditors to provide reports to the Central Bank. Section 27B already makes reference to section 122 of the Credit Union Act 1997. It relates to auditor management and statutory duty declarations. I emphasise that this amendment does not apply any new provisions to credit union auditors but simply reflects provisions which already applied.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
An amendment to section 39 was made on Committee Stage in the Seanad to provide for the inclusion of a definition of stabilisation support in section 39. It refers to the definition of stabilisation support which already appears in section 62 of the published Bill.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 127 and 128 are related and will be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 127: Section 44: In page 65, lines 25 to 36, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:“(2) Subject to this Part, ReBo may do anything which it considers necessary or expedient to enable it to perform its functions including making arrangements with any other person or body for the use by it of premises or equipment belonging to that person or other body or for the use by ReBo of the services of officers or servants of that person or other body.”.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 127 was made on Committee Stage in the Seanad. It consolidates the provisions relating to the power of the Credit Union Restructuring Board, ReBo, power to carry our certain functions. The power to appoint staff is provided for in section 54. The power to organise meetings is also set out in section 50. As a result unnecessary references to this section and to the powers were removed by the amendment.
Seanad amendment No. 128 deletes section 44(3), which is not required because section 44(2) already provides that ReBo may do anything it considers necessary or expedient to enable it to perform its functions. We are clearing up these tasks with the amendments.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 129, 146, 151 and 152 are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
These are technical amendments made on Committee Stage in the Seanad to provide for consistency in the references to what we refer to as "financial support" to be provided from the credit union fund under Part 3 and Part 4 of the Bill. The definition of "financial support" may take the form of a payment, loan, guarantee, an exchange of assets or any other type of financial accommodation or assistance. This is consistent with the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 and the Central Bank and Credit Institutions (Resolution) Act 2009. The amendments were made for the purposes of consistency.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I brought forward an amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad to provide that the ReBo levy to be paid by credit unions will be paid into the credit union fund rather than paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer. The expenses incurred by ReBo will be paid out of the credit union fund and, therefore, it is appropriate that the levy received to recoup those expenses should be paid into the credit union fund.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I brought forward an amendment on Report Stage in the Seanad to delete section 49 because the expenses of ReBo are to be paid out of the credit union fund. Section 49 is no longer required as a consequence and, therefore, I do not propose to include this section in the Bill.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 132 and 134 are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
These are straightforward. Amendments Nos. 132 and 134 were made on Committee Stage in the Seanad to correct typographical errors.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendment No. 133 provides that employees of auditors engaged by ReBo are subject to the non-disclosure of information provisions in this section. The amendment ensures consistency in the application of the non-disclosure provisions which the Bill currently applies to employees of agents, consultants and advisers appointed by ReBo.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 135 and 136 are related and will be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendment No. 135 made on Committee Stage in the Seanad removes the requirement for the Minister for Finance to obtain the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform before approving the appointment of staff by ReBo. The staff of ReBo will be paid out of the credit union fund and, as a result, the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to their appointment is no longer required. ReBo can, therefore, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, appoint such staff and at such grades as it may determine.
Amendment No. 136 made in the Seanad makes the provisions relating to the appointment of the staff of ReBo consistent with those of the appointment of the chief executive of ReBo. Section 54 now mirrors the provisions concerning the appointment of the chief executive set out in section 53. Section 54(2)(a) restates section 54(2) as published following Committee Stage in the Dáil and provides that the terms of appointment of the staff of ReBo may be determined by the Minister for Finance with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform subject to the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004. Section 54(2)(b) as provided for in the amendment made in the Seanad sets out an alternative means of determining the terms of appointment of ReBo staff. These terms may be determined by the board of ReBo subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance with consent from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
Seanad amendment No. 136: Section 54: In page 71, lines 38 to 43, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:“(2) An appointment under this section shall either—(a) be on such terms (including terms as to remuneration, duration of term and allowances for expenses) as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, determine and be subject to the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004, or (b) be on such other terms (including terms as to remuneration, duration of term and allowances for expenses) as may be determined by the Board of ReBo and approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.”.
4:10 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This amendment provides that the board of ReBo may direct the chief executive to undertake certain functions relating to the accounts of ReBo. This amendment reflects that the board of ReBo and not the chief executive is responsible for keeping the accounts of ReBo and submitting those accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, it is appropriate for the chief executive to act under the direction of the board of ReBo rather than with the agreement of the board.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 138 and 170 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Seanad amendment No. 138:Section 57: In page 73, lines 6 to 9, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:"(1) Disclosure by a credit union to ReBo of information or records does not contravene any duty of confidentiality to which the credit union is subject. (2) A credit union may disclose to ReBo personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003.".
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This amendment splits section 57(1) into two subsections to provide clarity on the effect of disclosure of information by ReBo on any duty of confidentiality or on any obligation under the Data Protection Acts. Section 57(1), as amended in the Seanad, provides that a credit union which discloses information to ReBo does not breach any applicable duty of confidentiality. The new section 57(2), created by that amendment, sets out that a credit union may disclose to ReBo personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Acts. This amendment ensures that there is a legal gateway between credit unions and ReBo for the disclosure of information.
Amendment No. 170 inserts a new paragraph (h)into section 71(2) of the 1997 Act, which will allow officers of a credit union to disclose confidential information to ReBo and facilitates the sharing of information between the credit unions and ReBo. ReBo will protect the confidentiality of the information shared under section 51 of this Bill.
Seanad amendment No. 139:Section 58: In page 73, subsection (2), lines 19 to 21, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:"(a) to provide a source of financial support for the restructuring of credit unions under this Part, (b) to provide stabilisation support in accordance with Part 4, (c) to meet the expenses of ReBo in discharging its functions under this Act, (d) to provide for the costs referred to in section 61(2), and (e) to provide for the expenses referred to in section 69.”.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 139 adds a number of purposes of the credit union fund to those already listed in section 50(2). This amendment sets out that discharging the expenses of ReBo, the cost of collecting levies due under the Act and the expenses of the bank in exercising its functions are purposes of the credit union fund.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 140, 141 and 143 to 145, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 140 is a technical amendment which improves the consistency of terminology in this Part of the Bill by removing the references to "restructuring purposes" and replacing them with "the purposes of restructuring under this Part". Amendment No. 141 removes the obligation on the Minister to obtain the bank's approval of an amalgamation or transfer of engagement under section 131(6)(a) of the 1997 Act before providing financial support for the purposes of restructuring. This amendment sets out that the provision of such support may be conditional on the bank giving its approval under this section rather than requiring that approval before the support is provided. This will permit the bank to consider the conditions proposed to be attached by the Minister to the provision of support and the bank can decide accordingly whether to grant approval.
Amendment No. 143 is a technical amendment which updates the cross references to other sections of the Bill dealing with the provisions of restructuring and stabilisation support. Amendment No. 144 clarifies that the support referred to in section 58(7) is stabilisation support. Amendment No. 145 clarifies that the conditions referred to in section 58(4) are those attached by the Minister under section 58(6) to the provision of stabilisation support.
Seanad amendment No. 141:Section 58: In page 73, subsection (5), lines 34 to 36, to delete all words from and including "The" in line 34 down to and including "Act." in line 36 and substitute the following:"The provision of financial support by the Minister may be conditional on the Bank confirming the amalgamation or transfer under section 131(6)(a) of the Principal Act.".
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 142 and 161 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Seanad amendment No. 142:Section 58: In page 73, lines 37 to 40, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:“(6) Where requested by the Bank under section 66(4), the Minister may provide stabilisation support from the Credit Union Fund on such terms and conditions as the Minister considers appropriate. The provision of stabilisation support by the Minister shall be conditional on the Bank approving the provision of stabilisation support under section 66(5).”.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This amendment provides that the Minister may provide stabilisation support to a credit union from the credit union fund where requested to do so by the bank. The provision for the Minister to attach terms and conditions to any support provided is retained in this amendment. Those conditions are primarily intended to relate to the recoupment of funds provided as financial support under this Act. Amendment No. 161 clarifies that the bank may request the Minister to provide stabilisation support in accordance with section 58(6).
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On Committee Stage in the Seanad I brought forward an amendment to delete section 58(10). I also brought forward an amendment to section 60 of the Bill which provides the Minister with the power to make regulations prescribing the rate of contribution by credit unions to the credit union fund for the purposes of the provision of stabilisation support under section 58(6). Stabilisation support will be made available out of funds raised through this levy. Therefore, section 58(10) is no longer required and was deleted by this amendment.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 148 makes a minor amendment to the terminology used in section 59(1)(a) and provides for the keeping of "accounts of receipts and payments of the credit union fund" rather than "all proper and usual accounts".
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 149 and 153 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 149 corrects a typographical error. Amendment No. 153 deletes unnecessary wording relating to section 61. Section 61 is a discretionary provision and, therefore, it is not appropriate to provide for an obligation to comply with that provision.
Seanad amendment No. 150:Section 60: In page 74, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:"(3) The Minister shall make regulations prescribing the rate of contribution, or a method of calculating the rate of contribution, to the Credit Union Fund by a credit union under this section for the purpose of providing funding for the provision of stabilisation support under section 58(6).".
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 150 sets out the Minister's powers to make regulations prescribing the rate of contributions or method of calculating the rate of contribution to the credit union fund by credit unions in order to provide the credit union fund with sufficient funds for the provision of stabilisation support. Section 60(2) already provided that the Minister may make regulations prescribing the contribution to be made by credit unions to the credit union fund in order to recoup the cost of financial support provided for the purposes of restructuring. This amendment provides a similar power in relation to stabilisation support to be provided from the credit union fund. This gives effect to recommendation 8.5.8 of the commission report, which recommended that the necessary financing of the credit union fund for the purposes of stabilisation should be sourced from the credit union sector.
Seanad amendment No. 154:Section 62: In page 76, to delete lines 2 to 9 and substitute the following:“ “stabilisation support” means financial support provided under this Act by the Minister from the Credit Union Fund to a credit union for the purpose of restoring and facilitating the maintenance of that credit union’s reserve requirement, and such support by the Minister may include the provision of technical and financial advice and the provision of financial support to the credit union concerned.”.
4:20 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 154, which is in the definitions section of the Bill, was moved on Committee Stage in the Seanad. It changes the definition of "stabilisation support" to clarify that such support may include funding unrelated to the reserve requirements. Such funding may be used to update the systems and controls of the credit union and may also include the provision of financial and technical advice to the credit union. This was a recommendation of the Commission on Credit Unions as set out in paragraph 8.5.6 of the report.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 155 and 156 are related and may be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 155:Section 66: In page 76, lines 37 to 46, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:“(2) Until the commencement of an order under section 43(1), stabilisation support shall not be approved by the Bank for a credit union under subsection (1) unless the Credit Union Restructuring Board has recommended that the credit union be considered by the Bank for stabilisation support.”.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 were also made on Committee Stage in the Seanad. Amendment No. 155 amends subsection (2) by deleting the existing paragraph (b) which states that the Bank may only approve stabilisation support caused by a short-term, non-recurring event. Instead, amendment No. 156 sets out when ReBo may recommend to the Bank that a credit union should be stabilised. During the period of restructuring, a credit union may not be assessed for stabilisation support unless ReBo makes a recommendation to the Bank that the credit union should be stabilised. A credit union must not be part of the restructuring proposal or must have reserves greater than 7.5% before ReBo can make that recommendation. This will ensure that the restructuring process and the stabilisation process are aligned.
Seanad amendment agreed to. Seanad amendment No. 156:Section 66: In page 76, after line 46, to insert the following subsection:“(3) The Credit Union Restructuring Board may only make a recommendation to the Bank in relation to an individual credit union for the purposes of subsection (1) if:(a) the credit union is not party to a restructuring proposal approved or being considered for approval as part of a restructuring plan under section 45 (5)(a), and (b) the credit union satisfies the requirements of subsection (1)(a)(i).”. Seanad amendment agreed to.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 157 updates the citation of the Central Bank Acts, which are amended by Part 5 of this Bill.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 are related and may be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
These are two minor technical amendments that were made to this section in the Seanad. Amendment No. 158 clarifies that the support referred to in paragraph (c) is stabilisation support as opposed to restructuring support, while amendment No. 159 changes the reference from "this Part" to "this Act" as stabilisation support is to be provided by the Minister under Part 3 rather than Part 4.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 160 clarifies that the bank must have regard to the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate to attach to the decision to provide stabilisation support when making a decision on the approval of stabilisation support to a credit union. A previous amendment gave the Minister the right and the power to attach terms and conditions and this is simply ensuring that the Bank will make sure these terms and conditions will apply. These terms and conditions will deal with issues such as recoupment, which may affect the Central Bank's assessment of viability.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I brought forward an amendment in the Seanad to delete Section 67, which provided that the cost of stabilisation support and any other support, financial or otherwise, required as a condition of stabilisation support shall be met from the credit union fund. Any moneys recouped from a credit union in respect of support provided would be paid into the fund. This section was removed, as subsection (2) is covered by Section 58(6) and 58(2) and is covered also by Section 58(9).
Seanad amendment agreed to. Seanad amendment No. 163:New Section: In page 80, before the Schedule, to insert the following new section:“PART 5* MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS RELATING TO CENTRAL BANK ACTS 1942 TO 201170.—(1) Section 33AK of the Central Bank Act 1942 is amended—(a) by substituting “subsection (1A)” for “subsection (1)(b)” in each place, and (b) in subsection (3) by substituting the following for paragraph (b):“(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply—(i) where the Bank is satisfied that the supervised entity has already reported the information concerned to the relevant body, or (ii) where the information concerned has come into the possession of, or to the knowledge of the Bank, from an authority, in a jurisdiction other than that of the State, duly authorised to exercise functions similar to any one or more of the statutory functions of the Bank.”.(2) Schedule 2 to the Central Bank Act 1942 is amended in Part 1 by substituting the following for item 38:
Seanad amendment No. 164:New Section: In page 80, before the Schedule, to insert the following new section:71.—The Central Bank Reform Act 2010 is amended— (a) in section 3 by inserting the following definitions:" ‘authorised officer’ means a person appointed by the Bank under Part 5 to be an authorised officer; ‘financial services legislation’ means—(a) the designated enactments, (b) the designated statutory instruments, and (c) the Central Bank Acts 1942 to 2012 and statutory instruments made under those Acts;”,and (b) by inserting the following after section 53:"PART 4 OVERSEAS REGULATORS54.—(1) In this section ‘overseas regulator’ means an authority in a jurisdiction other than that of the State duly authorised to perform functions similar to any one or more of the statutory functions of the Bank.(2) At the request of an overseas regulator to do so in relation to any matter, the Bank may – (a) require information on the matter about which the Bank has required or could require the provision of information or the production of documents under any provision of financial services legislation, or (b) authorise one or more than one authorised officer to exercise any of his or her powers for the purposes of investigating the matter. (3) In deciding whether or not to exercise any of its powers under subsection (2), the Bank may take into account in particular:(a) whether in the country or territory of the overseas regulator, corresponding assistance would be given to an authority duly authorised in the State to perform functions corresponding to functions exercised by the overseas regulator; (b) whether the case concerns the breach of a law, or other requirement, which has no close parallel in the State or involves the assertion of a jurisdiction not recognised by the State;(c) the seriousness of the case and its importance to persons in the State; (d) whether it is otherwise appropriate in the public interest to give the assistance sought.(4) The Bank may decide that it will not exercise any of its powers under subsection (2) unless the overseas regulator undertakes to make such contribution towards the cost of such exercise as the Bank considers appropriate.(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply if the Bank considers that the exercise of its power is necessary to comply with any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties governing the European Union. (6) If the Bank authorises an authorised officer for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), the Bank may direct the authorised officer to permit a representative of the overseas regulator to attend, and take part in, any interview conducted for the purposes of the investigation of the matter concerned.(7) A direction under subsection (6) is not to be given unless the Bank is satisfied that any information obtained by an overseas regulator as a result of the interview will be subject to obligations of non-disclosure of information similar to those imposed on the Bank in section 33AK of the Act of 1942. (8) A person shall not be required for the purposes of the exercise of any power under this section to answer any question tending to incriminate the person. PART 5 Authorised Officers55.—(1) In this Part – ‘agent’, in relation to a person to whom this Part applies, includes a past as well as a present agent and includes the person’s banker, accountant, solicitor, auditor and financial or other adviser, whether or not a person to whom this Part applies; ‘authorisation’ means an authorisation, licence or any other permission required to carry on business as a regulated financial service provider granted by the Bank pursuant to any provision of financial services legislation, and includes registration; ‘customer’, in relation to a regulated financial service provider, means–(a) any person to whom the regulated financial service provider provides or offers financial services, or (b) any person who requests the provision of financial services from the regulated financial service provider,and includes a potential customer and a former customer; ‘person to whom this Part applies’ shall be read in accordance with section 56; ‘prescribed contravention’ has the same meaning as in section 33AN of the Act of 1942; ‘premises’ includes vessel, aircraft, vehicle and any other means of transport, as well as land and a building and any other fixed or moveable structure; ‘regulated market’ has the same meaning as in Regulation 3 of the European Communities (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No 60 of 2007); ‘related undertaking’, in relation to a person (‘the first-mentioned person’), means—(a) if the first-mentioned person is a company, another company that is related within the meaning of section 140(5) of the Companies Act 1990, (b) a partnership of which the first-mentioned person is a member, (c) if the businesses of the first-mentioned person and another person have been so carried on that the separate business of each of them, or a substantial part thereof, is not readily identifiable, that other person, (d) if the decision as to how and by whom the businesses of the first-mentioned person and another person shall be managed can be made either by the same person or by the same group of persons acting in concert, that other person, (e) a person who performs a specific and limited purpose by or in connection with the business of the first-mentioned person, or (f) if provision is required to be made for the first-mentioned person and another person in any consolidated accounts compiled in accordance with Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 OJ L 193, 18.7.1983, p.1, that other person.(2) References in this Part to a regulated financial service provider, or a related undertaking, shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be read as including a person who was a regulated financial service provider, or a related undertaking, at the relevant time. 56.—(1) The following are persons to whom this Part applies (including persons outside the State):(a) a regulated financial service provider; (b) a person who has applied for an authorisation but whose application has not been determined; (c) a person whom the Bank reasonably believes is or was a regulated financial service provider, or is or was acting as or claiming or holding himself or herself out to be a regulated financial service provider; (d) a person who is or was, or whom the Bank reasonably believes, is or was, without an authorisation, providing a financial service in respect of which an authorisation is required; (e) a related undertaking of any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d); (f) any other person whom the Bank reasonably believes may possess information about a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e); (g) any person whom the Bank reasonably believes may possess information about a financial product or investment admitted to trading or which is to be admitted to trading under the rules and systems of a regulated market.(2) The duty imposed by this Part to produce or provide any information, extends to- (a) a person who is in relation to a person to whom this Part applies – (i) an administrator within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Insurance (No. 2) Act 1983, (ii) an administrator within the meaning of section 2 of the Investor Compensation Act 1998, (iii) a person appointed as an administrator of a credit union by virtue of section 137 of the Credit Union Act 1997 or appointed to act as a provisional administrator of a credit union by virtue of section 138 of that Act, (iv) a special manager appointed pursuant to the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010, (v) an examiner, liquidator, receiver, official assignee, or (vii) in respect of a person outside the State, a person corresponding to any of the persons who come within subparagraphs (i) to (v),and(b) a person who – (i) is or has been an officer or employee or agent of any person to whom this Part applies, or (ii) appears to the Bank or the authorised officer to have the information in his or her possession or under his or her control.57.—(1) For the purposes of obtaining any information necessary for the performance by the Bank of its functions under financial services legislation relating to the proper and effective regulation of financial service providers, the Bank may appoint any of its officers or employees or other suitably qualified persons to be authorised officers and to exercise any of the powers conferred by this Part. (2) The Bank may revoke any appointment made by it under subsection (1). (3) An appointment or revocation under this section shall be in writing. (4) A person's appointment by the Bank as an authorised officer ceases on the earlier of – (a) the revocation by the Bank of the appointment, (b) in a case where the appointment is for a specified period, the expiration of the period, (c) on the person's resignation from the appointment, and (d) in the case where the person is an officer or employee of the Bank – (i) on the resignation of the person as an officer or employee of the Bank, or (ii) on the termination of the person's employment with the Bank, or when the person's term of office ceases, for any reason. (5) In this section ‘suitably qualified person’ means any person (other than an officer or employee of the Bank) who, in the opinion of the Bank, has the qualifications and experience necessary to exercise the powers conferred on an authorised officer by this Part. 58.—Every authorised officer appointed by the Bank shall be furnished with a warrant of his or her appointment, and when exercising a power conferred by this Part shall produce such warrant or a copy of it, together with a form of personal identification, for inspection if requested to do so by a person affected by the exercise of the power. 59.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), an authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter any premises–(a)which the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to believe are or have been used for, or in relation to, the business of a person to whom this Part applies, or (b)at, on or in which the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to believe that records relating to the business of a person to whom this Part applies are kept.(2) An authorised officer shall not enter a dwelling, otherwise than – (a)with the consent of the occupier, or (b)pursuant to a warrant under section 61.60—(1) An authorised officer may do any one or more of the following: (a)search and inspect premises entered under section 59 or pursuant to a warrant under section 61; (b)require any person to whom this Part applies who apparently has control of, or access to, records, to produce the records; (c)inspect records so produced or found in the course of searching and inspecting premises; (d)take copies of or extracts from records so produced or found; (e)subject to subsection (3), take and retain records so produced or found for the period reasonably required for further examination; (f)secure, for later inspection, any records produced or found and any data equipment, including any computer, in which those records may be held; (g)secure, for later inspection, premises entered under section 59 or pursuant to a warrant under section 61, or any part of such premises, for such period as may reasonably be necessary for the purposes of the exercise of his or her powers under this Part, but only if the authorised officer considers it necessary to do so in order to preserve for inspection records that he or she reasonably believes may be kept there; (h)require any person to whom this Part applies to answer questions and to make a declaration of the truth of the answers to those questions; (i)require any person to whom this Part applies to provide an explanation of a decision, course of action, system or practice or the nature or content of any records; (j)require a person to whom this Part applies to provide a report on any matter about which the authorised officer reasonably believes the person has relevant information; (k)require that any information given to an authorised officer under this Part is to be certified as accurate and complete by such person or persons and in such manner as the Bank or the authorised officer may require. (2) Where records are not in legible form, an authorised officer, in the exercise of any of his or her powers under this Part, may— (a) operate any data equipment, including any computer, at the premises which is being searched or cause any such data equipment or computer to be operated by a person accompanying the authorised officer, and (b) require any person who appears to the authorised officer to be in a position to facilitate access to the records stored in any data equipment or computer or which can be accessed by the use of that data equipment or computer to give the authorised officer all reasonable assistance in relation to the operation of the data equipment or computer or access to the records stored in it including—(i)producing the records to the authorised officer in a form in which they can be taken and in which they are, or can be made, legible and comprehensible, (ii)giving to the authorised officer any password necessary to make the records concerned legible and comprehensible, or (iii) otherwise enabling the authorised officer to examine the records in a form in which they are legible and comprehensible.(3) Where the Bank or an authorised officer proposes to retain, pursuant to this section, any records taken by the authorised officer under subsection (1) for a period longer than 14 days after the date on which the records are taken, the Bank or the authorised officer shall, before the end of that period of 14 days, or such longer period with the consent of the person hereafter mentioned, furnish, on request, a copy of the records to the person who it appears to the Bank or the authorised officer, but for the exercise of the powers under this section, is entitled to possession of it. (4) A person to whom this Part applies shall give to an authorised officer such assistance as the authorised officer may reasonably require and make available to the authorised officer such reasonable facilities as are necessary for the authorised officer to exercise his or her powers under this Part including such facilities for inspecting and taking copies of any records as the authorised officer reasonably requires. (5) Subject to any warrant issued section 61, an authorised officer may be accompanied, and assisted in the exercise of the officer’s powers under this Part, by such other authorised officers, members of the Garda Síochána or other persons as the authorised officer reasonably considers appropriate. 61.—(1) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on an authorised officer by or under any other provision of this Part, if a judge of the District Court is satisfied on the sworn information of the authorised officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that records are to be found on, at or in any premises, the judge may issue a warrant authorising an authorised officer accompanied by such other authorised officers or members or the Garda Síochána as may be necessary, at any time or times, within the period of validity of the warrant, on production, if so requested, of the warrant—(a) to enter the premises specified in the warrant, if need be by reasonable force, and (b) to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by this Part or such of those powers as are specified in the warrant.(2) The period of validity of a warrant shall be 28 days from its date of issue. (3) An application for a warrant under this section shall be made to a judge of the District Court in the district court district in which the premises concerned are situate.
62.—(1) An authorised officer may attend any meeting relating to the business of a regulated financial service provider if the authorised officer considers that it is necessary to attend in order to assist the Bank in the performance of any of its functions under financial services legislation. (2) The attendance of an authorised officer pursuant to subsection (1) at a meeting referred to in that subsection does not in any circumstances limit the powers of the authorised officer or of the Bank. 63.—Nothing in this Part shall operate to confer any right to production of, or access to, any record subject to legal professional privilege. 64.—(1) The disclosure or production of any record or other information by a person under this Part shall not be treated, for any purpose, as a breach of any restriction under any enactment or rule of law on disclosure or production by the person or any other person on whose behalf the record or other information is disclosed or produced. (2) Where a person from whom production of a record is required under this Part claims a lien on the record, the production of it shall be without prejudice to the lien. 65.— (1) If any person to whom this Part applies fails or refuses to comply with a requirement under this Part the authorised officer may certify the failure or refusal under his or her hand to the High Court. (2)When an authorised officer certifies a failure or refusal referred to in subsection (1) to the High Court, the High Court may inquire into the case and may make such order (including interim or interlocutory orders) or direction as the High Court thinks fit, after hearing -(a)any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person concerned, and (b)any statement which may be offered in defence.66.—(1) A person commits an offence if he or she —(a) obstructs or impedes an authorised officer in the exercise of any of his or her powers under this Part, whether or not by virtue of a warrant issued under section 61.(b)without reasonable excuse, does not comply with a requirement of an authorised officer in the exercise of any of those powers, (c) in purported compliance with such a requirement, gives information to the authorised officer that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material respect, or (d) falsely represents himself or herself to be an authorised officer.`(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable – (a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.(3)A person does not commit an offence of failing to comply with a requirement referred to in subsection (1)(b) unless, when the requirement was made, the person was warned that a failure to comply is an offence. (4) If a person refuses to answer a question asked of him or her or to comply with any other requirement made, under this Part, on the grounds that the answer or compliance with the requirement might tend to incriminate the person and the person is informed of his or her obligation to answer the question or to comply with the requirement, the person shall not refuse to answer the question or to comply with the requirement but the answer given or information provided on that occasion shall not be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings against the person other than proceedings against him or her under this section.”.”.
Seanad amendment No. 165:New Section: In page 80, before the Schedule, to insert the following new section:72.—(1) The Acts specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2** are amended to the extent specified in that Part. (2) The statutory instruments specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2** are amended to the extent specified in that Part. (3) The Central Bank Acts 1942 to 2011 specified in Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule 3*** are amended to the extent specified in each such Part. (4) The Acts specified in Parts 1 to 8 of Schedule 4**** are amended to the extent specified in each such Part. (5) The statutory instruments specified in Parts 1 to 7 of Schedule 5***** are amended to the extent specified in each such Part. (6) A person who was an authorised officer, by whatever name called, appointed under the provisions of any enactment repealed or revoked by this Act immediately before the coming into operation of the repeal or revocation concerned is taken to have been appointed under Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010. (7) Anything done by a person who was an authorised officer, by whatever name called, appointed under the provisions of any enactment repealed or revoked by this Act immediately before the coming into operation of the repeal or revocation concerned shall be treated after the coming into operation of the repeal or revocation as done under Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010 by an authorised officer appointed under Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010. (8) Any information gathered, or any other thing done, under the provisions of any enactment repealed or revoked by this Act is to be treated after the coming into operation of the repeal or revocation as if done under any provision of Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010 under which it could have been done had the provision been in force at the time in question.”. Seanad amendment agreed to.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Seanad amendments Nos. 166 and 172 are related and may be discussed together.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment No. 166 is a minor amendment made on Committee Stage in the Seanad which inserts a reference to section 37D of the Credit Union Act of 1997, which sets out the information to be included in the credit agreement notice to the credit union members. This item in the Schedule is required to ensure that there is consistency between the 1997 Act and the European Communities (Consumer Credit Agreements) Regulations 2010, which apply to credit unions. Amendment No. 172 clarifies that the supervisory authority referred to in item 100 is the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Under the previous wording of item 37, the Central Bank could exempt certain additional services which involved "no undue risk" to the credit union. Amendment No. 167 removes the reference to "undue risk" in respect of additional services that the Bank may exempt from the application requirements under Section 47 of the Credit Union Act, 1997. It was felt that this wording was too restrictive and could have limited the instances where the Bank could exempt certain services from additional requirements provided in that section. Following the amendment made in the Seanad, the Bank may exempt such services which would be for the mutual benefit of its members.
Seanad amendment No. 170:
Schedule: In page 86, between lines 53 and 54 to insert the following:
"
59 Section 71(2) Substitute for paragraph (g): “(g) which is made to the Bank for the purposes of its functions in relation to credit unions; or (h) which is made to the Credit Union Restructuring Board for the purposes of its functions under the Credit Union Act 2012.”.
".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 171:
Schedule: In page 88, between lines 37 and 38 to insert the following:
"
80 Section 87(2)(c) Substitute: “(c) that, since the registration of the credit union, the factors taken into account in granting registration have so changed that, if the society were now applying for registration, it would be refused; or (d) that the credit union has failed to comply with any terms and conditions imposed by the Bank under section 66(5) of the Credit Union Act 2012 relating to the provision of stabilisation support under this Act.”.
".
4:30 pm
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Amendment 171 made in the Seanad inserts a new paragraph (d) into section 87(2) of the 1997 Act which allows the Central Bank to impose a regulatory direction on a credit union under section 87 where that credit union fails to comply with the terms and conditions of any stabilisation support given to the credit union under this Bill. This is necessary to ensure that conditions imposed in return for financial support to keep the credit union afloat are enforceable. These could be called the troika conditions. This direction will be appealable to the Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal under section 52 of the 1997 Act.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This amendment removes the ministerial regulation-making powers that existed under section 182 of the 1997 Act, as these powers conflict with the bank's regulation-making powers under the Bill and are more appropriate for the Central Bank. These relate to the registration procedures and operations of credit unions.
Seanad amendment No. 174:
Schedule: In page 93, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following:
"
140First ScheduleInsert after paragraph 13: "14. Provision for dealing with directors and members of the board oversight committee who are more than 90 consecutive days in arrears under a debt obligation to the credit union up to and including the suspension or removal from the board of such directors.".
".
Seanad amendment No. 175:
New Schedules: In page 93, after line 49, to insert the following new Schedule:
"SCHEDULE 2
AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN ACTS AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
PART 1
AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN ACTS
Item (1)Number and year (2)Short title (3)Extent of repeal (4) 1 No. 24 of 1971 Central Bank Act 1971 Section 17A 2 No. 3 of 1989 Insurance Act 1989 Sections 59 and 60 3 No. 17 of 1989 Building Societies Act 1989 Section 41 4 No. 21 of 1989 Trustee Savings Banks Act 1989 Section 24A 5 No. 24 of 1994 Investment Limited Partnerships Act 1994 Section 25(2) 6 No. 11 of 1995 Investment Intermediaries Act 1995 Sections 9(3), 64 and 65 7 No. 8 of 1997 Central Bank Act 1997 Sections 36G, 36H, 36I, 75 and 76 8 No. 47 of 2001 Asset Covered Securities Act 2001 Section 70
PART 2
AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Item (1)Number and year (2)Citation (3)Extent of revocation (4) 1 S.I. No. 13 of 2005 European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005 Regulations 28, 29, 30 and 31 2 S.I. No. 380 of 2006 European Communities (Reinsurance) Regulations 2006 Regulations 72, 73, 74 and 75 3 S.I. No. 60 of 2007 European Communities (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2007 Regulations 163, 164 and 165 4 S.I. No. 383 of 2009 European Communities (Payment Services) Regulations 2009 Regulations 99, 100, 101, 102 and 110 5 S.I. No. 183 of 2010 European Communities (Cross Border Payments) Regulations 2010 Regulations 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 6 S.I. No. 183 of 2011 European Communities (Electronic Money) Regulations 2011 Regulations 62, 63, 64, 65 and 72
".
Seanad amendment No. 176:
New Schedules: In page 93, after line 49, to insert the following new Schedule:
“SCHEDULE 3
AMENDMENTS OF CENTRAL BANK ACTS
PART 1
AMENDMENTS OF CENTRAL BANK ACT 1971
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 2(1) In paragraph (d) of the definition of “related body” delete “section 17A” and substitute “Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010”. 2 Section 58(1) Delete “17A,”.
PART 2
AMENDMENTS OF CENTRAL BANK ACT 1997
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 28 (a) Substitute the following for the definition of “authorisation”: “ ‘authorisation’ means an authorisation under this Part authorising a person to carry on a regulated business;”. (b) Delete the definition of “inspector”. (c) In the definition of “retail credit firm”— (i) substitute “paragraph (e)” for “paragraph (g)”, and (ii) substitute “section 2(1)” for “section 3”. 2 Section 32A(5)(b) After “officer” insert “appointed under “Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010”.
".
Seanad amendment No. 177:
New Schedules: In page 93, after line 49, to insert the following new Schedule:
“SCHEDULE 4
AMENDMENTS OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTS
PART 1
AMENDMENTS OF BUILDING SOCIETIES ACT 1989
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 119(1)(a) (a) In subparagraph (v) substitute “section 41A” for “sections 41 or 41A”.(b) Delete subparagraph (vii).
PART 2
AMENDMENT OF TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS ACT 1989
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 62(1) Delete “24A,”.
PART 3
AMENDMENT OF INVESTMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT 1994
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 25(4) In paragraph (a) delete the definition of “appropriate person”.
PART 4
AMENDMENTS OF CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1995
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 8G(1) (a) In the definition of “authorised officer” substitute “8M” for “8L”. (b) Delete the definition of “responsible authority”. 2 Section 8M (a) In subsection (1) substitute “The Minister” for “A responsible authority”. (b) In subsection (3) substitute “The Minister” for “A responsible authority”. (c) In subsection (5)— (i) in paragraph (a) substitute “the Minister” for “the responsible authority concerned”, and (ii) in paragraph (c) substitute “the Minister” for “the responsible authority”.
PART 5
AMENDMENTS OF INVESTMENT INTERMEDIARIES ACT 1995
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 2(1) Substitute the following for the definition of “authorised officer”: “ ‘authorised officer’ means a person appointed to be an authorised officer under Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010;”. 2 Section 20(6) Substitute “section 19 of this Act and Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010” for “sections 19 and 65 of this Act”. 3 Section 79(1) Substitute “21(10)” for “21(9)”.
PART 6
AMENDMENTS OF CREDIT UNION ACT 1997
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 90 Substitute the following for section 90: “90.—(1) In this section and section 91 ‘authorised officer’ means an authorised officer appointed under Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010. (2) The Bank may appoint an authorised officer to carry out an inspection and to provide a report of the inspection to the Bank. (3) An authorised officer may, for the purposes of carrying out an inspection, exercise any of the powers conferred on an authorised officer under Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010.”. 2 Section 91 (a) Substitute the following for subsections (1) and (2): “(1) If required to do so by notice in writing served by the Bank at any time— (a) a credit union, (b) any person who is or has been an officer, member, agent or liquidator of a credit union, and (c) any other person who has in his or her possession or power any books or documents relating to a credit union, shall furnish to the Bank such books or documents which relate to the credit union and are in his possession or power and such information relating to the business of the credit union as may be specified in the notice and as may be reasonably required by the Bank in the exercise of its powers under this Act. (2) If required to do so by a notice in writing served on it by the Bank, a credit union shall furnish to the Bank a financial statement or periodic financial statements in such form and containing such information as may be specified in the notice and as may be reasonably required by the Bank in the exercise of the powers of the Bank under this Act.”. (b) Substitute the following for subsection (4): “(4) The Bank may take copies of or extracts from any item produced in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) or (2) and, if so required by the Bank, the person on whom a notice under subsection (1) was served or, in the case of a statement produced in compliance with a notice under subsection (2), a person who is or has been an officer, member, agent or liquidator of the credit union shall provide any explanation which may reasonably be required of an item so produced.”.
PART 7
AMENDMENTS OF INVESTOR COMPENSATION ACT 1998
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 9 Substitute the following for section 9: “(1) In this section ‘Act of 2010’ means the Central Bank Reform Act 2010. (2) Where the supervisory authority forms the view that an insurance intermediary may be unable to repay money belonging to a client of the insurance intermediary, the supervisory authority may appoint an authorised officer under Part 5 of the Act of 2010 to investigate whether the insurance intermediary is unable to repay money or otherwise discharge its obligations towards clients of the insurance intermediary and to make a report to the supervisory authority in respect of the insurance intermediary. (3) In relation to investment firms, an inspector appointed under the European Communities (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No 60 of 2007) shall, for the purposes of this section, have the powers conferred on an authorised officer appointed under Part 5 of the Act of 2010. (4) In relation to investment firms which are credit institutions, an inspector appointed under section 45 of the Building Societies Act 1989 shall, for the purposes of this section, have the powers conferred on an authorised officer appointed under Part 5 of the Act of 2010. (5) In relation to investment firms which are investment business firms, an inspector appointed under section 66 or 73 of the Investment Intermediaries Act 1995 shall, for the purposes of this section, have the powers conferred on an authorised officer appointed under Part 5 of the Act of 2010.”. 2 Section 33(2) (a) Substitute “Part 5 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010” for “the Act of 1995 and the European Communities (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2007”. (b) Substitute “Part of that Act” for “Act and those Regulations”.
PART 8
AMENDMENT OF ASSET COVERED SECURITIES ACT 2001
Item (1)Provision affected (2)Amendment (3) 1 Section 98 In paragraph (a) delete “or any person authorised by it to perform the relevant function on its behalf,”.
".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 179: Title: In page 5, lines 21 to 24, to delete all words from and including "TO" in line 21 down to and including "MATTERS" in line 24 and substitute the following:"TO PROVIDE FOR MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS RELATING TO CREDIT UNIONS; TO AMEND THE CENTRAL BANK ACTS 1942 TO 2011, TO PROVIDE FOR CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND AND OVERSEAS REGULATORS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND; AND TO PROVIDE FOR MATTERS RELATED TO THE FOREGOING".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): Agreement to Seanad amendments will be reported to the House and a message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.
Deputy Brian Hayes: I thank the Deputies opposite for the constructive role they played at all Stages of this legislation. I hope the Bill, which passes this House today and will now go to the President, ensures the great Irish credit union movement, which is a standard-bearer of volunteerism and financial support, will continue to flourish in the years ahead. The Bill is consistent with the report of the commission in setting out new standards and a roadmap for the development of the movement. I also thank the officials of the Department of Finance who have worked day and night to ensure this Bill could be passed by the end of the year.
Seanad amendments reported.
Sitting suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 27A and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Mick Wallace - the decision-making process behind the allocation of national lottery funding to sports clubs; (2) Deputy Thomas P. Broughan - the need to address the growing housing waiting lists on Dublin's north side and particularly in the Dublin City Council administrative area; (3) Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh - the impact of the changes to the PLC pupil-teacher ratio; (4) Deputy Jonathan O'Brien - the effects of the Health Services Executive’s plans to reconfigure therapy resources such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physiotherapy into geographically-based teams; (5) Deputy Shane Ross - the proposed closure of Stepaside Garda station, County Dublin; (6) Deputy Ann Phelan - the need to lower the rate of VAT on nicotine replacement patches; (7) Deputy Michael McNamara - the need to give courts discretion not to allow banks that have refused offers of restructuring to repossess family homes; (8) Deputy Joan Collins - the demand in the most recent troika review for legislation to enable banks to more easily repossess properties through the courts; (9) Deputy Clare Daly - the privatisation of 10% of Dublin Bus routes; (10) Deputy Mattie McGrath - the need to debate the McCrystal judgment recently handed down by the Supreme Court; (11) Deputy Seamus Kirk - the need to reverse the cuts to home help services that have been implemented during 2012; (12) Deputy Charlie McConalogue - the impact of the increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in PLC schools and the number of posts that will be lost in 2013; and (13) Deputy Robert Troy - the provision of broadband in rural areas.
The matters raised by Deputies Jonathan O'Brien, Seamus Kirk, Ann Phelan and Thomas P. Broughan have been selected for discussion.
Bill entitled an Act to amend the Equal Status Act 2000; and to provide for related matters.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I move: "That Second Stage be taken now."
Question put and agreed to.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am pleased to present this Bill, which will give effect in Ireland to the mandatory introduction within the European Union of unisex premiums and benefits in private insurance to which Council Directive 2004/113/EC applies. This directive, known informally as the gender goods and services directive, implements the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. In its decision of 1 March 2011, in case C-236/09 taken by a Belgian consumer rights organisation, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that Article 5(2) of this directive was invalid, with effect from 21 December 2012. This decision, known as the Test-Achats ruling, is binding on all member states of the European Union. The provision thus struck down had allowed an exception from the principle of equal treatment enunciated in the regulation so that insurance companies could price life and motor insurance products differently for men and women, where this difference is reasonable and supported by actuarial or statistical data.
Ireland availed of this exemption in the Equal Status Act 2000, permitting gender differentiation to continue in the areas of motor insurance, life assurance, critical illness cover, income protection cover, and private annuities and pensions. The effect of the ruling is that Ireland is obliged to prohibit by law the selling of private insurance products which differentiate by gender on price or benefits and to have such provisions in force on or before 21 December 2012. The unisex rule will apply to all contracts concluded for the first time as and from that date. It also applies to agreements between parties, as and from 21 December 2012, to extend contracts concluded before that date which would otherwise have expired.
The European Commission has issued guidelines on the application of this judgment on national legislation transposing directive 2004/113 and on insurance industry practice. I have taken due regard to this guidance and to the intention stated in the directive to avoid sudden readjustment of the insurance market in determining the amendments to the Equal Status Acts necessary to comply with this ruling. As I will explain shortly, these amendments are largely technical in nature. For me and for my colleagues in Government, this ruling highlights the crucial importance of achieving legal clarity in the drafting of legislation at European level to ensure that such instruments are interpreted and have the intended impact.
The Government is conscious of the potential for confusion and misinformation among consumers and insurance providers alike resulting from these changes to the private insurance market. For this reason, in October the Department published an information note for consumers on the new rules on the permitted use of gender by insurance providers and sources of further information and advice. The information note is widely available through public information channels such as the Citizens Information Board. I would like to express thanks to the industry bodies - the Irish Insurance Federation, the Irish Brokers Association, the Professional Insurance Brokers Association and the Society of Actuaries in Ireland - who contributed to the preparation of this advice for consumers. I also thank the Department of Finance, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the Department of Social Protection, the Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency, the Citizens' Information Board, the Pensions Board, the Equality Authority and the Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau.
I would now like to highlight some of the main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 provides for amendment of section 5 of the Equal Status Act 2000. It limits the existing derogation from the prohibition on gender discrimination in specified insurance products, provided in section 5 of the Equal Status Act, to contracts concluded before 21 December 2012. This is to ensure the prohibition on gender-differentiated insurance, with effect from 21 December 2012, does not affect existing contracts lawfully entered into before that date. The scope of the prohibition is then expanded by providing in a new subsection (4A) that all contracts within the categories of motor or life insurance concluded for the first time as and from 21 December 2012 must comply with the unisex rule. For the avoidance of doubt and because to determine otherwise would result in a sudden readjustment of the motor insurance market, contrary to the intention of the directive, the second paragraph of the new subsection provides that mid-term adjustments to motor insurance contracts concluded before 21 December 2012 are not considered to be new contracts for this purpose.
Finally, this section provides that the obligation imposed on the Central Bank of Ireland to compile, maintain and publish data to support the existing derogation ceases to have effect from 21 December 2012, while not affecting its obligation to maintain and publish data compiled before that date. Consequential to the cessation of this obligation, section 5 provides for the amendment of section 41 of the principal Act. It has the effect of terminating the Minister's power, which is no longer required, to make regulations with regard to the data to be compiled, published and maintained by the Central Bank.
Section 3 provides for amendment of section 14 of the principal Act to clarify that insurance providers may continue to collect, store and use gender status or gender-related information which is genuinely intended for the purposes of reserving and internal pricing, reinsurance pricing, and life and health underwriting. For example, it is envisaged that insurance providers may continue to gather and use gender data in connection with offering gender-specific insurance products and options within contracts to cover conditions which exclusively or primarily concern males or females, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer.
I have also taken the opportunity afforded in this Bill to address a minor procedural issue regarding equal status complaints referred to the Equality Tribunal for mediation. Section 4 provides for amendment of section 24 of the Equal Status Acts to extend the time available to persons who have referred such complaints to apply for resumption of the hearing in instances where mediation has not resolved the dispute between the parties. The amendment will extend the period, after the issue of a notice of non-resolution, within which a complainant is allowed to make an application in writing for a resumption of the hearing, from 28 days to 42 days. This amendment applies the same conditions to complaints under the Equal Status Acts on failure of mediation as are already applicable to resumption of complaints under the Employment Equality Acts. The remaining provisions are of a standard or technical nature.
Before concluding, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the technical nature of these amendments, while reiterating that the State has no option but to ensure national law complies with the European Court of Justice interpretation of the gender goods and services directive in this instance. I thank the Members of the House for their attention and I look forward to a detailed discussion on the Bill. I commend this Bill to the House.
Deputy Niall Collins: Fianna Fáil supports this Bill.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Sorry to interrupt, but I wish to apologise for not having a copy of what was a very technical speech available for the Deputies.
Deputy Niall Collins: That is fine. I thank the Minister of State. We accept that we have to amend our legislation because the derogation period is coming to an end. On that basis, we understand where the Minister of State is coming from. We are supporting the Bill. We do not have any particular issue with it.
When the Equal Status Act 2000 was introduced, it was a ground-breaking measure. Its effects on people's participation in civil society were felt throughout the country. It was right that so many sections of society, including religious and political organisations, had to ensure they offered a level playing field to both genders. It was important that many clubs and associations in this country experienced a mini-revolution when they had to rewrite their constitutions and go about their business differently. It went a long way towards promoting a greater mix and a greater balance with regard to the participation of women in organisations. Unfortunately, there were one or two high-profile instances of organisations in Dublin not abiding by the new law. One particularly high-profile golf club refused to amend its rules to allow women to become full members. It was regrettable that they did not comply with the spirit of the legislation. Neither I nor my party would subscribe to the notion of having exclusive men-only organisations in a modern society.
Perhaps we should review the complete effectiveness of the Equal Status Act 2000 by carrying out an audit, in so far as possible, of how it is being complied with by organisations throughout the country. That could be done in many ways. Our local authorities, for example, have a substantial active database of all community and voluntary organisations, including sports clubs and non-sporting organisations. If we could audit and monitor the level of compliance with the 2000 Act and the impact it has had, it would be a worthwhile exercise as it would be something we could refer to in time. If that is done, I am sure it will find that the legislation in question has had a very positive effect on the promotion of gender balance and a greater mix of participation by both genders.
One of the major concerns associated with the Bill before is that it will lead to an increase in the premiums to be paid across a number of insurance policies. I suppose the week after the budget is probably a bad week to discuss another increased bill that households will have to face. Given that the derogation will cease on 21 December next and will not apply to new insurance policies written after that date, it is unfortunate that so many insurance premiums are renewed in early January. The timing of this measure is particularly cruel because it means that many people will face increased insurance premiums late this year and early in the new year. In that context, I would like to know whether any regulatory impact assessment was carried out by the Department. Was that possible? If so, was it published? It might serve to inform the public.
The final issue I would like to raise with regard to this Bill relates to the financial services industry. Many of the organisations that underwrite this business are banks. As we know, some banks are involved in insurance as well as banking. Insurance is one of the many aspects of their financial services activity. We will have to keep an eye on how they treat the application of this change in the legislation. We must ensure they do not use it as an excuse to hike up premiums further than the actuarial people tell them they need to do. In other words, they must not use it as an opportunity to try to grow their capital bases further, or engage in another capital-gathering exercise. People are being squeezed by the banks on many fronts. This should not be viewed by the banks as an opportunity to squeeze the consumer a bit more. Consumers are being absolutely squeezed dry. The Financial Regulator and the Central Bank should have a role in ensuring the banks do not engage in opportunism. Unfortunately, we have learned to our detriment from our experience that the banks will take every opportunity possible to add a greater margin to the margins they are already squeezing out of people with the other products they are selling. Did we get the observations of the Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau of Ireland as part of the regulatory impact assessment? Did that office make any input during the drafting of the legislation? Has the Department had any particular interaction with the ombudsman in that regard?
Deputy Sandra McLellan: As this is a very technical Bill, I will not take up too much time. This Bill has had to be introduced on foot of the ruling by the European Court of Justice that the derogation in the EU gender directive that allows gender to be used as a risk factor in determining insurance costs is illegal. While we are on the matter of European courts, I would like to mention briefly that it is a shame the Government does not seem to hold the European Court of Human Rights in the same regard. I assume that is why it has not legislated for the X case as required by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A, B and C v. Ireland. There is a point to be made here about the role of statistical evidence about risk factors when the price of insurance is being determined. Insurance premiums are based on risk factors. In general, women receive lower premiums as there is a lower risk attached to them. Geographical location is a further risk assessment factor. Insurance costs are much higher in some parts of the country than in others because a higher proportion of road traffic accidents takes place in such locations. My concern about this Bill is that it will not result in lower insurance premiums for male drivers, but higher premiums for female drivers. While it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, I am aware of some insurance companies in Britain that have introduced interesting initiatives to ensure women are not unfairly penalised in their insurance claims. Some insurance companies in Britain are offering discounts for young driver schemes, as well as safe driver schemes in which premiums are reduced for both genders where there is a demonstrable record of safety over a period of time. I hope insurance companies here will do the same.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I thank both Deputies. I assure Deputy Niall Collins that there was extensive consultation with the entire insurance industry, as well as with the Departments of Finance, Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and Social Protection, the Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency, the Citizens Information Board, the Pensions Board, the Equality Authority and the Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau of Ireland. The level of consultation was quite significant. People will always say there could have been additional consultation, but in this case I do not think that would have been possible. Anyone who was seen to be a stakeholder in this sector, including the consumer, was consulted.
As we all know, this measure has resulted from a case that was successfully taken at the European courts by a consumer group in Belgium. I know people are very conscious of what others pay for their insurance. We tend to know what is being paid. I appreciate what Deputy Collins said about the mortgage protection, income protection and life assurance products offered by banks. This Bill will not affect life assurance unless it is to be taken out after 21 December next and is therefore considered to be an ongoing contract rather than a new contract.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Kathleen Lynch: ] Where the major impact will be felt is in regard to new car insurance after 21 December.
Equality is a funny thing. As a woman, I see how it will affect women but, on the other hand, as Deputy McLellan rightly said, if we take out the gender issue, insurance companies will surely be able to take account of the fact that someone is a safer driver, as they have done in the past. No matter what gender they were, in the past unsafe drivers would see their insurance costs rise if they were involved in crashes. It is this type of detail that will be necessary.
Equality is a funny thing. As a woman, I see how it will affect women but, on the other hand, as Deputy McLellan rightly said, if we take out the gender issue out, insurance companies will surely be able to take account of the fact someone is a safer driver, as they have done in the past. No matter what the gender was, in the past an unsafe driver would see their insurance cost rise if they had a crash. It is this type of detail that will be necessary.
While I hate to say the following, it is a fact. People taking out insurance products, whether from a bank, a broker or directly from an insurance company would be wise to get at least three quotes. Just because a person is getting a mortgage from a particular lender does not mean the person must take insurance from that lender. Sometimes people do not realise this or forget it, and while there can be a degree of pressure, customers should resist it.
Comprehensive and detailed information leaflets are available both on the Department's website and on the website of the Citizens' Information Bureau. These have been available on the Internet for some time because we knew this was coming, and all the information the average citizen will need is available.
This is a brief but significant Bill that will have an impact on people's lives in the future. I hope those in the insurance industry will be sensible and take into account that someone is a safe driver, whether male or female.
I thank the two Deputies. It is late on a Thursday evening and I know what it is like to have to stay when the Dáil sits late.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: I raise this issue in the context of the various cutbacks and adjustments that have been made to home support in the caring sector. For elderly people, the disabled, the immobile and the disadvantaged, the home help scheme, along with the other care schemes, is invaluable. The benefit of the health budget to the economy as a whole is obvious. Supporting and maintaining people in a home setting for as long as is practical and possible is very desirable.
There has been a whole sequence of adjustments and cutbacks to the home help scheme, particularly the number of hours available to particular families. While I will not cite the individual cases that have cropped up in the Louth-Meath East constituency, I am sure they mirror the position across the country. I exhort the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to take a serious and urgent look at the scheme. It is so valuable to people living in a home setting that this bears reiteration time and again. Even at a time when resources are scarce, there is a need to prioritise, and there is certainly a need to prioritise the home help scheme. I encourage and exhort the Minister of State to urgently re-examine the situation to see whether additional resources can be made available to support this scheme.
Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue, which is one that needs to be discussed on an ongoing basis. The aim of Government policy remains to support older people in living in dignity and independence in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. This objective is realised through various community-based supports such as mainstream home help, enhanced home care packages, meals-on-wheels and day or respite provision. Our aim is to develop and improve community-based supports where possible, taking account of wider reforms of the health service, the overall resources available and the need for the HSE to meet its statutory budgetary obligations.
The HSE has been developing various operational initiatives to improve its approach nationally to all relevant aspects of its home support services. These include various new guidelines for home care and agreeing a new procurement framework for approved agencies providing such services on a partnership basis on behalf of the executive.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Kathleen Lynch: ] While ongoing developments have been designed to standardise and maximise the use of limited resources in the face of increasing demand, they are also intended to enhance quality, safety and other key aspects of planning and delivering services, for both providers and care recipients alike. The HSE service plan for 2012 originally envisaged some 50,000 recipients of mainstream home help and approximately 11,000 recipients of enhanced home care packages at any one time. Notwithstanding the recently announced reduction in HSE home care towards the end of this year, investment in these services remains significant, with expected outturn expenditure of approximately €320 million for home help and home care packages in the course of 2012.
The recent measures adopted by the executive were designed to secure a reduction of approximately €8 million in expenditure on home help hours to the end of December, equating to some 400,000 hours, and a reduction of approximately €1.2 million on home care packages. Every effort has been made to ensure the impact of these reductions will be minimised for individual recipients so that services are provided, in the first instance, for direct patient care. Decisions in regard to the provision of home help hours continue to be based on a review of individual need and no current recipient of the service who has an assessed need will be without a provision. The latest information available from the HSE indicates that in balancing overall projected financial savings for the home help budget nationally against maintaining adequate service in individual cases, it will probably not meet the savings target envisaged. The Department continues to work closely with the executive to monitor the position between now and year end.
I emphasise again that in addressing very difficult financial realities overall, protecting community-based services for vulnerable older people continues to be a priority for the Government. However, the challenge facing the HSE in drawing up its 2013 service plan should not be underestimated. I am pleased, therefore, to reiterate our commitment to restore to 2012 levels of service the core community services of home help, home care packages and personal assistant hours.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I am somewhat disappointed, however, that the underlying message seems to be that the position is as it is and the prospect of enhanced provision for those who are down to three quarters of an hour of care under the home help scheme are poor. I ask the Minister of State again to examine those cases where the curtailment of hours is such that it is unrealistic to expect that the type of care and support required by individuals and families can be met within the assigned allocation.
I have no reason to question or doubt the provision contained in the Estimate for this scheme. Moreover, I accept the financial constraints with which the Minister of State is dealing. However, this is an absolutely invaluable scheme. If we get to a position where a person of 82 or 83 years of age can be maintained in a home setting for another 12 months rather than being taken into institutional care, there are benefits not only for the individual but also for the State. The arithmetic dictates that providing more resources in this area is in line with best public policy. I urge the Minister of State to endeavour to secure greater resources for the scheme.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I do not doubt for one minute the Deputy's sincerity on this issue. I am not certain, however, that he heard the last part of my reply, which indicates that we have indeed revisited the matter. I stated:I emphasise again that in addressing very difficult financial realities overall, protecting community-based services for vulnerable older people continues to be a priority for the Government. However, the challenge facing the HSE in drawing up its 2013 service plan should not be underestimated. I am pleased, therefore, to reiterate our commitment to restore to 2012 levels of service the core community services of home help, home care packages and personal assistant hours.In other words, we have done exactly what the Deputy is asking.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: The challenge here is the inadequacy of the 2012 provision.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: We are all agreed that the difficulties which arose midway through 2012 caused undue hardship. However, that budget has been restored.
Deputy Jonathan O'Brien: The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is well aware of the challenges facing the parents of children with special needs in Cork and their concerns in regard to the process of reconfiguration of service delivery that is now under way. I attended the meeting at which she outlined in great detail what is proposed in this regard and attempted to allay some of the fears that were raised from the floor. The difficulty, however, is that the communication breakdown between the HSE and parents' groups remains a problem. Several of the parents who attended the public meeting and whose children are attending special needs schools had received virtually no information on the proposed reconfiguration before the Minister of State provided some of the details. From speaking to parents in recent days, it seems this communication deficit has not yet been addressed. There are parents who are still not aware of the plans that are being implemented. This is something that needs to be taken on board by the Department.
I am sure the Minister of State is aware of the meeting that took place last Monday in the HSE offices in Cork at which parents of children with special needs had an opportunity to voice their concerns about the changes that are taking place. I assume she received the minutes of the meeting, as did I, which clearly point to the concerns that remain outstanding and which must be addressed as soon as possible. One of the main concerns relates to the issue of parent representation on the implementation groups. The answer attendees received to queries as to whether there might be increased representation was that the proposed complement of four is larger than that in other geographical areas. In other words, the message was that four parent representatives is more than enough. That position must be clarified. At the same time, there is a genuine concern among parents that the requirements of the parent representative role go above and beyond what they should be asked to do. The Minister of State will recall from the public meeting she attended that many people are concerned that anybody who accepts the role of parent representative on the implementation group will be held responsible for all of the decisions made. I accept that the Minister of State sought to clarify this matter at the meeting, but that fear persists.
The other main concern among parents is how the changes can be implemented on a cost neutral basis. In fact, there is a genuine view among parents that it is simply not possible. Nobody has yet been able to provide them with details or a plan for how to improve the services and implement the proposed reconfiguration on a cost neutral basis without impacting on front-line services. If the Minister of State could outline how that is proposed to be achieved, it might ease parents' fears. There was a debate at the public meeting around the need for a mapping of services. An argument is being put forward that such mapping should be in place before the implementation groups are established. To do it the other way around would seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Will the Minister of State comment on that?
There is a danger that parents will be pitted against parents. The minutes of last Monday's meeting show there are already differences of opinion, with parents of children attending mainstream schools or units attached to mainstream schools indicating a wish to proceed with nominating representatives to the implementation group as quickly as possible.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Jonathan O'Brien: ] On the other hand there are parents of children attending special schools who are very wary about nominating representatives and proceeding with the implementation group. We are already seeing a kind of breakdown within the implementation groups, with parents not being able to agree on the best way forward.
The other concern that came out of the meeting, which I hope will be addressed, was that parents were being asked to partake in the groups but they did not have all the documentation and did not know what the overall plan was. No policy documents were provided to them for studying before they were asked to join the implementation groups.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Every parent wants the very best for their child. If one has a child with particular needs, or needs that are different from those of other children, there is always a fear the needs of the child will not be met into the future. That is a normal feeling, something one must accept and realise happens.
On the mapping, the implementation groups and whether the mapping should be in place, I reiterate what I said at that meeting, namely, both can run in tandem. There is no need to hold one up while waiting on the other. Mapping is vitally important, as I have always maintained.
I refer to the Progressing Disability document, which is part of a suite of measures we are taking in the area of disability. It is a very good document that outlines delivery of a service in the community. I understand that people in specialist schools have a difficulty with that taking place. I realise they are happy with the service they have and do not want to lose it so this reaction is very understandable. The difficulties I heard about on that day were in terms of where children must go in order to receive the service, and the type of environment they will face. It should be possible to sort out all these things - they are not impossible tasks but entirely solvable issues.
However, there are swathes of children in the community going to mainstream schools who do not have access to any services. I am not one who says we should run madly ahead with the project or that it is cost-neutral. Nothing is cost-neutral. Even moving something to a new location is not so because one has to look at the location and see what is needed. We must try to ensure that every child has access to a service. The mapping should tell us where the gaps are, which is key to the whole issue. If we find there are gaps in the area of speech therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychology and all those things, it will then be my job, or that of whoever stands in this position next time around, to ensure the resources are put in place to fill those gaps. That is what we did in mental health and what we are about to do in the area of older people and old age psychiatry. It is what we need to do.
Above all else, we must ensure every child has access to a service. This is not an overnight project; it will take at least three years. I heard the parents talking about their fears that day and these are genuine fears. Nobody wants other than the very best for their children. I would say to those people they need to be part of the process, if they want to have any influence. That is not to say everything will be agreed. This will not happen, it never does. However, mapping and finding the gaps in the service is vitally important. That is what we did in the area of mental health and we need to do it here too. We cannot continue to allow the resource that is in place to go unused. It is not enough, but the resource I mean is the allied professionals I just named. I do not say this in a negative or disingenuous way. We cannot allow all those people to remain within institutions and only delivering service in those institutions. We must have a more holistic approach and must ensure that children who have a difficulty about going into particular areas are accommodated. I very clearly heard the woman the Deputy mentioned.
This is a solvable problem, however, and we need to look at solutions. This is about delivering a better service to more children, and also to those many young adults who are still receiving the service. That would be the aim but it is not an overnight project and will take time. I urge people to become engaged with the process.
Deputy Jonathan O'Brien: I do not, for one moment, doubt the Minister of State's sincerity about trying to improve the service. I genuinely mean that, because I know her track record in this area. It is very welcome that she has acknowledged today in the Chamber that this project cannot be done on a cost-neutral basis. That is a big fear people have, as the Minister of State will know from the meeting.
I completely agree we must map out the services we need in order to identify the gaps that must be filled. The Minister of State rightly stated there cannot be a situation where people who need services do not receive them. Everybody is entitled to them and should receive them. The mapping process will identify the individuals in question and resources will have to be put in place.
The big fear, however, was about doing the work on a cost-neutral basis. If gaps are being identified which will then have to be plugged with resources, and this is being attempted on a cost-neutral basis, it is easy to understand the fear on the part of parents whose children are attending specialist schools. Their big fear is that in moving to the geographical model services will be taken from some individuals in order to plug the gaps in other areas. The Minister of State's acknowledgment today that perhaps this cannot be done on a cost-neutral basis is a positive step and I am sure if parents heard it they would feel there is an understanding of their fears. If we can achieve this, which is not easy in the circumstances we face with the public finances, perhaps we can have a situation where we do not take from one area that is working well in order to try to compensate another area where there are gaps.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I will be brief. I approach everything on the basis that people come to the table with the very best intentions. I have always done that and that is how I will continue. Equally, when I am dealing with any situation I ask myself what I would do in that circumstance. I know if I had a child who was receiving a very good service and there was a possibility that service might move to a different location, I would be very nervous about all of that. I understand this, I really do. What we need to look at is how to improve the service. It is not about taking from Peter to pay Paul, which never works: neither Peter nor Paul is happy. We really need to start improving the service.
We have used a model which I am reluctant to mention because I know it could be misinterpreted and I do not mean it in that way. The model we used in the area of mental health, whereby we mapped what was necessary for delivering the service in the community, is a good one and we must consider it. The deeds will be different in the area of disability and we understand that. Nevertheless that type of mapping process works. It looks at where gaps exist and what is necessary to ensure they are filled, not by robbing Peter to pay Paul but by taking a look at the kind of enhanced budget we need. This may be a separate budget. In mental health, we used developmental money rather than a centralised budget. That is the direction we need to take and we must look at it.
That answer will not satisfy the parents we met in Ballincollig - at this time. However, if we have a view of where we want to get to and if there is an incremental plan of how to get there, we could go on this journey together.
Deputy Ann Phelan: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important matter. According to ASH Ireland, the prevalence of smoking in this country stands somewhere between 26% and 29%. While the position in this regard is better than it was a generation ago, when nearly half of the population smoked, the figure remains high, particularly in comparison to that in places such as California where only 11% of the population smoke, or Norway where the figure is 17%. Smoking must be one of the greatest causes of health problems, with most smokers admitting that they wish they had never begun in the first instance. Smoking is an extremely difficult addiction to overcome and a very expensive habit.
We have made great strides in reducing the level of smoking, having banned it in so many public places. It is well known, however, that the cost of nicotine replacement therapies such as gum, patches and the newer artificial cigarettes is a factor in ensuring some people continue to smoke. They are very expensive, particularly in comparison to the prices paid by our friends north of the Border and throughout the United Kingdom. A major factor in the difference in price is that the British Government has introduced a special VAT of just 5% for these therapies. In Ireland, however, we charge a rate of 23%. This is what gives rise to the significant price differential between Ireland and the United Kingdom. If we could follow the example of the United Kingdom and introduce a similar rate here, the knock-on effects for smokers and the Exchequer would be tremendous. Over 5,500 people die each year as a result of smoking-related illnesses. It is estimated that we spend close to €1.5 billion in treating these illnesses. While a reduction in VAT might result in a small shortfall for Revenue, we should consider the savings to be made in the long term if the beleaguered Department of Health were obliged to deal with fewer smoking-related illnesses. We must do everything possible to reduce the startling statistics for smoking. We can only bring about such a reduction if we help people to give up smoking, while also deterring young people from taking up the habit. Having nicotine replacement therapies available at a reasonable price would definitely assist those trying to beat the addiction.
Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy John Perry): I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue, to which I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. I welcome the opportunity to outline the position on the question of the VAT treatment of nicotine replacement patches posed by the Deputy.
I wish to explain that, when considering the VAT system and the VAT treatment of any product or service, the VAT rating of goods and services is governed by the requirements of the EU VAT directive with which Irish VAT law must comply. In this regard, it may be useful to remind the House of the structure of Ireland's VAT regime. As the Deputy will be aware, Ireland operates a number of VAT rates. The standard VAT rate of 23% applies to the majority of goods and services, including cars, petrol, diesel, alcohol, tobacco, electrical equipment, CDs and DVDs. There is also a reduced rate of 13.5% which applies mainly to fuel used for heat or light, construction, housing, labour intensive services and general repairs and maintenance. A second reduced rate of 9%, introduced as part of the jobs initiative, applies mainly to tourism-related services, including hotel and holiday accommodation, restaurant services and some entertainment services. The zero rate of VAT generally applies to most food, children's clothes and shoes and oral medicines.
As the Deputy correctly pointed out, nicotine replacement patches are subject to VAT at the standard rate of 23%. Unlike other nicotine products such as inhalers, tablets and chewing gum which are categorised as oral medicines and which thereby qualify for the zero-rate of VAT, nicotine replacement patches are not considered to be oral medicines and are, therefore, correctly subject to the standard rate of VAT of 23%. However, I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that member states have the option, under Annex lll of the EU VAT directive, of applying a reduced rate of VAT to pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health care, for the prevention of illnesses and medical treatment purposes. In this regard, since nicotine replacement patches could be considered to meet such criteria, Ireland would have the option of applying a reduced rate to such products. However, constraints imposed by the VAT directive on the number of reduced VAT rates which a member state may operate at any one time would not allow for the possibility of a special reduced VAT rate of 5% to match, as suggested by the Deputy, that which applies in the United Kingdom. Article 98 of the directive provides that member states may apply either one or two reduced rates to the goods and services listed in Annex lll. The introduction of a third reduced VAT rate would, therefore, not be possible under EU VAT rules. Accordingly, any reduction in the VAT rate on nicotine replacement patches would have to be considered in the context of the existing 9% and 13.5% reduced rates.
A proposal to reduce the VAT rate applying to any good or service raises a number of issues. The Deputy will not be surprised if I emphasise the need to maintain VAT revenues and also the need to ensure losses to the Exchequer in these difficult economic times are avoided. Notwithstanding the potential health benefits which may accrue from the use of nicotine replacement patches, losses in one area must be balanced by savings or increased taxes in others. The issue of the degree to which the consumer might benefit from a reduction in VAT on nicotine replacement patches also arises. In this regard, there is, unfortunately, no guarantee that moving standard-rated products to a reduced rate of VAT would necessarily be reflected in full in the retail prices charged to consumers. Any dilution of the potential benefit to the consumer would obviously be a major concern and effectively negate the promotion of the use of nicotine patch technology.
In the context of the imbalance of price between Ireland and the United Kingdom to which the Deputy refers, cross-Border shopping studies indicate that fluctuations in the exchange rate between sterling and the euro represent the most significant influence on price. In this respect, the current exchange rate between sterling and the euro should provide less incentive for people to shop outside the State. The report of the implications of cross-Border shopping which was undertaken on behalf of the Minister for Finance by the Revenue Commissioners and the Central Statistics Office notes that the main causes of price differentials between goods in Northern Ireland and the Republic are operating costs, profit margin or mark-up, taxes and the exchange rate between sterling and the euro. While variations in VAT rates widened some price differentials, their impact remained small compared to the significance of the change in the exchange rate.
I again thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I hope I have clarified the position on the VAT treatment of nicotine replacement patches and the situation regarding the possibilities available under the EU VAT directive.
Deputy Ann Phelan: I thank the Minister of State for his reply and highlighting the various rules which apply. I remain of the view that this is an area in which we should do a great deal more work, particularly as the benefits for Ireland and other member states would be very significant. It is stated one's health is one's wealth. If we can help people to stop smoking, we will have done a great deed. Nicotine replacement therapies are sold from behind the counter in Ireland, whereas in the United Kingdom and most other countries they are sold off the shelf. They are also sold exclusively by chemist shops in this country, but elsewhere one can purchase them from a wide variety of outlets, which makes matters much easier for those who want to quit. I am determined to pursue this significant issue which has major implications for people's health and the Exchequer. We must do everything in our power to help people stop smoking, particularly as the habit is so closely associated with the lower socioeconomic classes. In the case of a person in receipt of a benefit payment of €188 per week and who smokes 20 cigarettes a day - most people smoke more at weekends - one can calculate that he or she spends €60 to €70 a week on tobacco, which is a significant amount of money. If we put in place a task force to assist people on benefits to quit the habit, this would go a long way towards helping such individuals rebalance their budgets rather than watching their money go up in smoke.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy John Perry: ] I appreciate fully the point made by Deputy Phelan. She correctly described the impact on public health of the sale of tobacco. I suggest the promotion of nicotine patches is an issue she could discuss with the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly. It may be possible to have nicotine patches on open display to make them more available to the consumer. The cost of 20 cigarettes is the best part of €70 a week. This is a major expenditure for people on low incomes. More than 5,500 people die in this country every year from smoking related diseases. The consumption of cigarettes is detrimental to people's health.
I refer to the issue of the illegal importation of tobacco products. Cigarettes are being sold door to door. This is illicit tobacco and the quality is dubious. Any tobacco is bad but this illicit tobacco is substandard and the quality is even worse.
The Minister for Finance referred to the possibility of a VAT rate of 9% or 13.5% on nicotine replacement patches. I suggest the Deputy could pursue this issue with him. I am certain a self-financing mechanism would benefit the State and the health of the population. I agree with the Deputy that these products should be more available.
Deputy Ann Phelan: I thank the Minister of State for his very positive response to this issue. I take the point about the 9% VAT rate and the 13.5% VAT rate. Anything that could be done to lower the rate to encourage people to quit the smoking habit would be welcome. I will pursue the issue with the Minister for Health.
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The social housing programme has collapsed in most constituencies, including mine. Dublin City Council figures show that last year, 16,600 families and individuals were on its housing waiting list, with 7,538 on the transfer list. A total of 32% of applicants were waiting more than five years, with 2,544 waiting more than seven years. I describe these figures as deeply damaging to the credibility of Dublin City Council and the Government. In addition, Fingal County Council confirmed to me that 9,082 families and individuals were waiting for housing on its council housing list.
When Members of this House are able to retire to our comfortable homes or lodgings after long days in the Dáil, 80 to 90 people will be sleeping on the streets of this city. They will sleep outside on this very night as they have done over recent bitter November nights. It is unacceptable and disgraceful.
Like other Members I receive many phone calls and e-mails from constituents. I meet many of them at my weekly information clinics who are in dire straits with regard to housing. They describe very difficult home circumstances. They may be on a housing waiting list for anything from five to 13 years. A typical example is a young woman with three children who has been living for the past five or six years in very cramped conditions with her adult siblings and her parents in a modest two-bedroom house.
A few weeks ago I asked the Taoiseach whether a social housing investment programme would be implemented in 2012. I have studied budget 2013 as best I can but I have not found any evidence of any serious intent on the part of this Government to address this issue. I estimate that perhaps only a few dozen individuals and households were rehoused in the past year in my constituency out of the 4,000 on the Dublin North-Central housing list.
The Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, is committed to tackling the issue but it is impossible for any progress to be made unless proper funding is allocated to kick-start the social housing programme. This would also have a beneficial effect on the construction industry.
I have spoken about the appalling treatment of citizens who have been left on the waiting list, in some cases for up to 15 years. I have long urged Dublin City Council to move away from its historic points-based, priority-based housing list system to a system based on time on the list, as used in Fingal County Council. I am a former Dublin City Council councillor. The council last week decided to move to the system of time on the list, which is a fair and transparent system. It is a case of first come, first served. It now awaits the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to sign the regulation. When will he sign that regulation?
Under the Fianna Fáil regime led by Ahern and Cowen, the failure of local authorities to provide social housing meant a massive growth in the private rental sector. In the past five years since 2007, almost €3 billion has been expended on rent supplement allowances. This money has gone into the pockets of private landlords. Ordinary constituents wonder why that money was not used to fund a housing programme.
When will the promised housing Bill come before the House? I refer in particular to provisions in respect of the administration of voluntary housing bodies. My constituency has organisations such as NABCO, Iveagh Trust, Respond and Clúid. There is no legislation governing estate management and tenancy and it is urgently needed.
The Minister, Deputy Hogan, gave two deadlines - the first Sunday in September and then a further ten days - to the developers, builders, auctioneers, insurance companies in respect of the pyrite disaster. He keeps issuing deadlines but when will he take action? When will he decide to levy the industry which did those terrible things to households? People are upset that they are expected to pay a housing tax - which the House will discuss tomorrow - on houses which are worthless because they need to be remediated. I ask the Minister of State to bring these points to the attention of the Minister.
On a final point, I ask the Minister of State to ask if the Minister will join us next Monday at 7.30 p.m. at Priory Hall for a candlelight vigil. Those families - a total of 250 people - are facing a second Christmas out of their homes at Priory Hall. I am sure they would be delighted to see him at the vigil next Monday night at Priory Hall.
Deputy John Perry: I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this issue. I may not have the comprehensive reply he wants but I will bring his concerns to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Hogan. The current economic crisis is severely testing the capacity of the State to meet social housing need. Financial considerations mean local authorities are effectively no longer engaged in large-scale housing stock construction programmes at the very time when demand for housing services is at its greatest. The Government's housing policy statement, published in June 2011, sets out a new approach for housing provision that recognises these key unfortunate realities. It is specifically predicated on a tenure-neutral approach that focuses on enabling households to access the housing solution that best suited to their needs at a point in time. While home ownership is still a very valid aspiration for a majority of households, it is no longer the acme of all tenure options.
The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, in conjunction with the housing authorities and with not-for-profit approved housing bodies, is engaging in a range of innovative and flexible housing solutions to meet housing need in general, and homelessness in particular. I acknowledge the Deputy's campaigning work on behalf of the homeless I sympathise with the fact that up to 80 people are sleeping on the streets of Dublin tonight. I cannot even imagine what it must be like on such a cold evening. I appreciate the Deputy's point about homelessness.
The Department's approach to homelessness is to focus on providing people with a home where they can live as full and valued members of society.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy John Perry: ] That is why Government policy in this area is moving to a housing-led approach rather than the traditional model that places hostel or shelter-type accommodation at the centre of accommodation provision. This change will take time to implement, but the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, is committed to seeing it through. People deserve the dignity of a home. We must obviously bear in mind the financial constraints.
Early in the new year, the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, will be issuing a policy statement on homelessness. This will indicate what we expect from housing authorities and other stakeholders in accelerating progress towards realising the ambition of eliminating involuntary long-term homelessness. The Minister of State has sought to put in place real solutions for people who find themselves without a home. Investment of nearly €50 million has been provided by central and local government in the provision of homelessness services in 2012.
With regard to wider demand for social housing, the Government's focus is on optimising the delivery of social housing for the resources invested. To achieve this, it is essential that we tailor the use of available Exchequer supports to prevailing conditions and explore the full range of solutions to address housing needs.
The social housing capital budget has had to be reduced from €1.535 billion in 2008 to just over €333.7 million this year - this is a considerable reduction - and the financial parameters within which we will be operating for the coming years rule out a return to large capital-funded construction programmes. Nevertheless, the Minister of State is committed to responding more quickly and on a larger scale to social housing support needs across the country through a variety of mechanisms, including through increased provision of social housing. Delivery is being significantly facilitated through more flexible funding models such as the rental accommodation scheme and leasing, but the Minister of State is also developing other funding mechanisms that will increase the supply of permanent new social housing. In spite of these challenging circumstances, a tentative projection of 4,000 housing units is anticipated for 2012.
The Minister of State will continue to target available resources to ensure the critical housing needs of the most vulnerable sectors of our society are addressed. Precise data are critical in this regard, which is why the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government will in 2013 carry out a full housing-needs assessment, the first such assessment to be carried out under the 2009 housing Act. This will give a comprehensive picture of real need and help to direct scarce resources to best effect.
I will pass on Deputy Broughan's concerns on Priory Hall to the Minister, Deputy Hogan.
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I warmly welcome that because the householders of Priory Hall are anxiously awaiting the recommendation of Mr. Justice Finnegan. Those with pyrite damaged homes are waiting to know whether the Government will put in place a facility regarding the new house tax, which is having an impact on them, and whether the deadline has been reached.
The current social housing capital budget is €333.7 million, a very disappointing sum. The Government is supposed to be getting €400 million plus for the 4G communications auction. Could at least part of this not be hypothecated to address the awful housing problem? Might this be considered? I understand we are not going to make the promissory note payment at the end of March. We slotted into the Estimates for the medium term approximately €5 billion between interest and capital repayments. Are there not more areas in the kitty that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be examining to kick-start the sector and get all the unemployed construction workers back onto the sites?
It is shocking that 80 to 90 people might be sleeping out tonight. There was a recent tragic death involving a homeless person in Bray. This urgent issue needs to be addressed in the coming days. When will the housing Bill be introduced?
With regard to the rent-to-buy and rental accommodation schemes, the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, mentioned various initiatives. Do the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, intend to do something more dramatic regarding plans for long-term rental?
Has the Minister of State given any consideration to allowing local authorities themselves to engage in housing construction like the voluntary bodies by establishing their own construction and housing-management companies? It would involve emulating what Clúid, NABCO and other bodies have done. Thus, local authorities, such as Sligo county and city councils, could take the initiative rather than wait for individuals in the community to do so.
Deputy John Perry: The Minister, Deputy Hogan, is very far-reaching in his thinking. The biggest shake-up in local government in 100 years has taken place under his watch. This involves a considerable change of mindset. Bearing in mind the limited budget and very scarce resources, I am quite certain value for money will be achieved in respect of the buy-to-let and rental accommodation schemes.
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: We need more money.
Deputy John Perry: Given the amount of rental accommodation available throughout the country, not only in Dublin, I have no doubt the Minister and Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, will do their very best to obtain the best value for money despite the very limited resources made available through the voted Estimate.
It is obviously a matter for the Minister for Finance to deal with the money allocated for the 4G communications auction. I will raise the timeline for the legislation with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. I note what the Deputy said and the Minister will revert to him.
With regard to homelessness and people sleeping out, we are very fortunate that there are some fantastic services providing short-term solutions. Members of the voluntary sector are bringing people into shelters in the city every night. I hope sincerely that the homeless will be facilitated in every way possible. Members of the Garda Síochána are identifying people. It is very important that, in the short term, the homeless must be facilitated, especially in this very difficult climate. This is only a short-term solution, not a long-term one.
1.Deputy Seamus Kirkasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinethe advantage to milk producers of the milk quality assurance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[55818/12]
Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Simon Coveney): The development of a dairy sustainability and quality programme comes against the background of ambitious plans under the Food Harvest 2020 report to increase dairy production by 50% in the period to 2020, and the need to find a home on international markets for this additional production.
We are taking a series of steps on a number of levels to prepare for this. State agencies, the Department and companies are working together to restore new markets in areas such as Asia, the Middle East, Russia and Africa. We are also developing a common brand, Origin Green, across the food industry generally. This is about differentiating Irish food from food produced in competitor countries. Essentially, it is a sustainability claim backed up by data that are internationally accredited in respect of how food is produced in Ireland. Part of building that brand requires a sustainability and quality programme for primary producers of dairy projects. This is why, in last year's budget, I announced that I wanted to see the rolling out of a quality or sustainability programme among the 18,000 dairy farmers in the country to ensure we could stand over our collective dairy industry and say we produce milk to a certain standard. This will not be some kind of inspection-based witch-hunt of farmers; it will be quite the opposite. We will roll out the programme in the same way that the carbon-footprinting programme has been rolled out for the beef sector. By the end of this year, 32,000 beef farms across Ireland will be carbon-footprinted. When we sell a steak, not only will we be able to put on the label the traceability claim indicating the farmyard from where it came, we will also be able to tell buyers the carbon footprint of the animal that produced it.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Simon Coveney: ] We want to provide similar sustainability claims for dairy production in Ireland. Bord Bia is working with all the interested parties and farming organisations to ensure we get buy in from farmers and that we insulate the Irish dairy industry from price volatility in the future on the basis of quality and the data we collect which can prove sustainability.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. In his preamble to the points he made about the proposed scheme, he said the background to this is Food Harvest 2020 and the projected increase in diary production in Ireland. I understand Teagasc has prepared expansion plans for the dairy industry and the plans indicate it will be expensive to expand. This industry, by its nature, is capital intensive and there is a low margin return on the money invested in it. When the inevitable price volatility that will arise for the dairy sector is injected into the mix, any proposal that will increase costs for the farmer, or a combination of farmers in partnership arrangements, is dangerous territory to approach.
Is the model of the proposed scheme a template taken from somewhere else? Has it been modelled on a template in some other jurisdiction across the Community? For instance, will the authorities north of the Border have a parallel scheme running alongside our proposed scheme? The core question is the additional cost that will be imposed on farmers who will be stretched financially to meet the expansion objectives set out in Food Harvest 2020.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The best way farmers can insulate themselves from the price volatility that will happen in the future is to ensure Irish product get differentiated from other product. Let us not forget that more than 85% of all the milk we produce is exported in various forms, be it infant formula, skimmed and semi-skimmed milk, cheese, yoghurts and all the other products in which milk is an ingredient. If we are to be able to demand a higher price for our product in the future, which we will need to do, and move away from being a commodity producer of volume to being a quality producer of volume, targeting the top 10% price area in the new markets we are exploring, we have to be able to stand over the way in which our food is produced. The sustainability and quality programme will not cost farmers a great deal of money, in fact it will help them to run their businesses more efficiently. If a farmer is using less water, has more feed conversion efficiency and more efficient grazing management, his business will be more efficient and sustainable. The combination of those two factors will improve the standard of dairy farming in Ireland, which will be beneficial for everybody. In the context of the capital investment farmers have to make, we will make more than €10 million available to dairy farmers next year in the form of the TAM scheme, which is half of the overall scheme as such, to help them with the costs of expansion, growth and upgrading their equipment. Additional information not given on the floor of the House Environmental sustainability is an increasingly important issue in the marketplace for many multinational dairy and food operators, many of which now have sustainability as a core part of their corporate strategies. During my trade missions to China and the US in 2012 it was clear that the sustainability and quality messages have a strong resonance both with potential customers for Irish food products and with potential investors in the Irish agri food sector. Developing a unique selling point for Irish food products is a critically important element of the national strategy for the development of the sector. It is particularly relevant in the dairy sector where we will need to maximise market returns for significantly increased production in competitive markets worldwide. Ireland is well placed to develop a national brand image based on a reputation for high quality dairy products, and on its mild maritime climate, plentiful supplies of water, grass based production and an already positive green image. In that context, earlier this year, Bord Bia launched its “Origin Green” programme, which establishes a framework within which Irish food companies can have their green credentials independently measured. This will be a critically important element in the development of the Irish food sector in the coming years and its promotion on international markets. The key is to build independently verifiable metrics, which can be used in the marketplace, around Ireland’s already positive green image. It is equally important to develop an independently accredited sustainability and quality programme at farm level for the dairy sector as part of that overall strategy to enable the sector point to verifiable attributes in maintaining and expanding its market share. There is also a strong correlation between the measures needed to improve environmental sustainability and to improve hygiene and other quality practices on farm, and those needed to reduce the costs of production at farm level and improve profitability. In that context, and following extensive consultations with stakeholders in the first half of 2012, I announced in June that Bord Bia would begin detailed work on the development of a national sustainability and quality programme for the dairy sector to be used as a key element in marketing and promotional efforts on international markets. The programme will provide an independently accredited framework for operating best practice quality and sustainability principles on Irish dairy farms, and an objective and uniform mechanism for measuring compliance with these principles. It will also provide a vehicle for encouraging continuous improvement in production standards on Irish farms, underpin the marketing of Irish dairy products internationally and provide additional assurance for potential investors in Ireland. Stakeholders are currently engaged in detailed technical discussions on the development of the programme, under the aegis of a technical advisory group convened by Bord Bia to progress the issue, and I hope it can be finalised in the near future.
2.Deputy Martin Ferrisasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinehis views on the impact of budgetary cuts on farm programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[56052/12]
Deputy Simon Coveney: As this is a fairly broad question, I will address the issues that might be most pertinent. There has been some criticism since the announcement of the budget that we have targeted certain schemes unfairly and I want to give the Deputy the rationale for why we did what we did. I will deal with the beef sector first.
For the past five years we have had a suckler cow welfare scheme which has been a popular and extremely good scheme. It has significantly improved the welfare standards within the suckler herd and it has provided very valuable data around breeding programmes and fertility within herds to Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, which is very useful for planning for the future, breeding programmes and so on. That was a five year scheme and this is the fifth year of it. It has come to an end. I had signalled that I would not be able to continue the suckler cow welfare scheme indefinitely into the future because we do not have the money to do it and it has come to the end of its five year term. I would have had to have put a new scheme in place and get approval from Brussels for that. Instead we decided to put in place a smaller, more targeted scheme to replace the suckler scheme for the moment, which will cost us approximately €10 million a year and which will pay farmers €20 rather than €40 an animal. We are asking them to continue to supply the kind of data on breeding and fertility they previously would have been providing to the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF. We are asking new entrants also to provide that data for that money.
It is important to say in terms of the beef sector, because it is misunderstood, that next year we will spend almost as much on the beef sector as we spent this year. This year we will spend €25 million on the suckler cow welfare scheme in addition to approximately €2 million connected to beef discussion groups which started half way through the year. Next year we will spend €10 million on this new scheme. We will spend €10 million on the existing suckler cow welfare scheme where the payments will be paid next year in respect of calves that were born in the second half of the year, and we will spend €5 million on beef discussion groups on this sector next year. That is €25 million that will be spent on suckler beef next year which is not a significant difference from what was spent on that sector this year, although I accept the make-up and design of those payments are different. I will address one or two of the other sectors related to the sheep sector and DAS payments when I get an opportunity to do so later.
Deputy Martin Ferris: I thank the Minister for his reply. He is aware that farm incomes have fallen by 22% up to November of this year. That is an average payment of approximately €18,000 which is well below the industrial wage. I am sure he is also aware of the plight of the weaker farmer, which includes farmers in the suckler welfare scheme, those on previous REP schemes and so forth, and the fact that such schemes were instrumental to the viability of that type of farming. Notwithstanding the tremendous work regarding the provision of data and so forth, the suckler scheme has had a huge impact on the quality of calves being born and in terms of the finished product, and everybody benefited as a result.
It is not the remit of the Minister's Department, but the farm assist scheme has been cut by approximately €8 million. The farmers in that scheme are the most marginal and they are struggling to survive and care for their families. These cuts will have a detrimental effect on that type of farming in particular because one will find that the farmers in the suckler welfare scheme and some people involved in sheep farming are also dependent on farm assist. While the Minister might try to make up that loss another way, perhaps by compensating for the situation in regard the suckler welfare scheme, the farm assist being cut as well will make it almost impossible for these type of farmers to survive.
Deputy Simon Coveney: There is a genuine concern about ensuring that farmers on relatively small farms in very disadvantaged areas are provided with enough support to keep them on the land. That is the reason, in terms of the savings we must make in the disadvantage areas scheme, we have excluded mountainous farmers from any of those savings to ensure nobody farming in a mountainous area - that is 32,000 out of the 100,000 - will face any reduction in their incomes. Regarding the low land disadvantaged area farmers, instead of reducing the rate for everybody, we have reduced the eligible hectarage for people to again protect smaller farmers. In other words, instead of claiming the payment on 34 hectares as a maximum it will be claimed on 30 hectares as a maximum. I have tried to prioritise the most disadvantaged farmers, that is, the people on the mountains and the smaller farmers within the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, in lowland areas. A total of 73% of people in disadvantaged areas will be unaffected by the reductions and the remainder will see a reduction of an average of about 11% but those decisions were made to protect those with holdings and the most disadvantaged people within DAS areas. The same applies to the suckler scheme. Those who apply for the new suckler scheme in terms of the data transfer scheme will automatically get €20 per cow for the first 20 cows.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Simon Coveney: ] The average size of a suckler herd is 16 cows while the average size of a suckler herd in the suckler cow welfare scheme is 18 cows. We are trying to prioritise smaller farmers. If we have moneys left over after that, then we will give it to the farmers who have more than 20 cows. I believe there will be some money left over to give top-up payments to farmers with 30 to 40 suckler cows.
This was the third year of the three-year sheep grasslands scheme. We have decided to continue with the scheme, which will be paid for by unspent moneys under pillar 1. While we have reduced the cost of it from €18 million to €14 million, we have made up for that by introducing a discussion group, similar to the ones that have worked so well for the dairy sector, which will bring farmers together to discuss how they can improve their businesses and make more money in the marketplace. We will spend €3 million on these discussion groups next year. The total spend on the sheep sector next year will be more or less the same as this year's. I have worked hard to achieve this, as I see the sheep sector as a vulnerable area.
3.Deputy John Halliganasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinefurther to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 521 and 522 of 4 December 2012, when a decision will be made in relation the potential inclusion of Dunmore East Harbour, County Waterford, under the 2013 Fishery Harbour and Coastal Infrastructure Capital Development Programme; if he will confirm where Dunmore East Harbour sits in relation to other competing priorities; if his attention has been drawn to factors (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter.[56183/12]
Deputy Simon Coveney: My Department administers the fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure capital development programme every year. Dunmore East fishery harbour centre is one of the six designated fishery harbour centres which are owned, managed and maintained by my Department and, as such, it receives funding annually on foot of the programme. My Department continues to support the harbour's development with funding provided for maintenance, development and upgrading works each year. Indeed, expenditure under the programme for Dunmore East since 2007 has been in the order of €4 million. This is in recognition of the valuable contribution the harbour makes to the fishing industry as well as the local community in terms of the support the harbour infrastructure provides to the development of the tourism industry and the local economy generally. Dunmore East fishery harbour centre provides a dedicated and essential service to our fishing fleet. Both local and visiting fishing vessels, including vessels of significant dimensions, avail of the harbour facilities at Dunmore East. I am happy to report the investment in Dunmore East fishery harbour centre in recent years is bearing fruit. Indeed, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority's records indicate a year-on-year increase in fish landings in recent years. My Department's officials host a harbour users' forum regularly and meet with local stakeholders and harbour users. This forum provides a platform for harbour users to air their views and gives my officials an opportunity to hear at first hand the concerns and suggestions of the people using the harbour facilities. As recently as July of this year, the Dunmore East tourism group, which plays an active part in the harbour users' group, formally complimented both the appearance of the harbour and the good work being done there by my Department. The need for dredging works at the harbour has been recognised by my Department. Reports commissioned have indicated that 80% of the harbour sediment contains tributyltin, TBT. Unfortunately, the cost associated with the disposal of dredge is approximately €5 million. This is a figure we cannot afford immediately but I am conscious of the need to dredge the harbour. We are examining the best way of dealing with this as safely as we can given our budgetary constraints. The total harbours budget this year was €7 million and the cost of cleaning Dunmore East is €5 million. The Deputy can understand the difficulties I have. Additional information not given on the floor of the House This represents a significant expenditure in the current economic environment and I can confirm that my Department's engineering division has engaged consultants to examine and report on a number of alternative options in terms of the structuring of the works and the outlay involved. I expect to have the report in early 2013 and will assess at that stage how best to proceed. Future investment at Dunmore East and the five other fishery harbour centres will of course be considered each year in the context of available Exchequer funding and overall national priorities. In early 2013, I expect to be in a position to identify projects for inclusion under the 2013 fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure capital development programme at each of the six fishery harbour centres.
Deputy John Halligan: Twenty-five years ago, up to 50 fishing boats worked out of Dunmore East employing hundreds of fishermen, with hundreds more employed in fish-processing plants around the harbour. Over the past decade, however, this long-established fishing industry has been under threat from restrictions designed to protect stocks. The local fishermen's co-operative is struggling enormously with EU fish quota restrictions, an aging fishing fleet and poor fish prices caused by low demand due to the recession. As fishing vessels become more technologically demanding, additional pressure has been put on resources and infrastructure. Reduced catches put pressure on employment in the processing sector. Several fish factories have already closed in Dunmore East over the past four years.
Dunmore East Harbour is suffering from inadequate infrastructure to address its potential needs. No dredging of the harbour has taken place for 17 years. Consequently, larger vessels cannot access the harbour. Silting has reduced the depth of the approach under the synchrolift. Despite the fact that it has a lifting capacity of 200 tonnes, it is only suitable for vessels with a maximum draft of about nine feet. Hence, many vessels have to divert to Cork or Howth for docking. This poor access has had a devastating impact on the local fishing fleet.
Since the recession hit, several hotels and restaurants in Dunmore East have closed. There is a significant scarcity of work and little or no investment in local industry. It is well recognised that the average income in the fishing village is below the national average. The local community has suffered significantly in the past several years, with a 12% decline in population. Without a properly functioning harbour, we may as well close down Dunmore East.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): There is only one minute left.
Deputy John Halligan: Will the Minister reconsider dredging the harbour there? Although he has acknowledged in the past that dredging works in Dunmore East are a priority, it is not possible to wait another five years for this to happen.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): This will have to be just a headline answer as there is only half a minute left.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The reality is that nothing can be done if one does not have the money. We have taken on consultants to examine the options-----
Deputy John Halligan: The harbour has a turnover of €10 million and we are asking for a €4 million investment which could increase that turnover and, in turn, bring more money into the Exchequer.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy is asking for more than half of my total harbours fund. I simply do not have it. If I had the money, I would be spending it on this. This is one of the harbours that has priority when it comes to dredging investment.
Fish landings at Dunmore East are actually increasing every year. Quotas are significantly up this year and it is my job to negotiate another good deal on the quotas next week. The stocks of cod, haddock, whiting and herring in the Celtic Sea are all up. It is not as bad as some people make out.
I agree there is a significant problem in the harbour and it needs to be dredged. I will do it when I can afford to. In the meantime, we will have to put a plan in place to do what we can do.
4.Deputy John Browneasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinethe position regarding the common fisheries policy review; the possible implications for Irish fishermen; when he expects this to be concluded; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[56051/12]
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): Before we continue, I must let Members know I had a tasty piece of sole before I came into the Chamber. I hope it came from Dungarvan.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: Did the Acting Chairman have a bit of sole or a bit of soul?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Sole is one of the species whose stock is under pressure in the Irish Sea.
Deputy John Browne: The Acting Chairman should not have eaten it then.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): I am glad I did something good.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am hoping to get the best deal I can for fishermen next week in a whole series of areas, particularly with regard to prawns in the Irish Sea and area VII generally. As part of that, fantastic work has been done by the Marine Institute. One of the stocks under pressure is sole. I hope the Acting Chairman feels guilty now.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): I am sorry to have added to the pressure.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I hope he enjoyed it because it might be the last one he gets.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): It was lovely and I recommend it.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Deputy Browne has been in this ministry before and will know the preparation required for the negotiations on total allowable catches, TACs, and fishing quotas. These preparations have been completed this year in an impressive manner.
There has been much talk about getting the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy done during the Irish EU Presidency. I am equally focused on the Common Fisheries Policy. We want to get a deal for all countries but one that will also shape policy to ensure the Irish industry can survive and grow. One of the key issues under discussion is how we deal with discards.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Simon Coveney: ] At the moment in many of our fisheries up to 40% or 50% of the fish caught are being dumped over the side, dead. They are either juvenile fish or in some cases adult fish. We need and we will find solutions to that and I hope the industry will work with me in the change process.
We are moving towards what is termed maximum sustainable yield in how we determine quotas each year. The idea is that there is a set formula now based on data collection and linked to total allowable catch which can measure what a fish species can take in terms of the amount of fish caught each year to ensure that the stocks can survive and grow. We are trying to apply maximum sustainable yield, MSY, calculations to as many of the stocks as we can and to have enough data to do that by 2015. We are trying to apply it to all the stocks with sufficient data by 2020. That is part of the programme.
The other issue relates to regionalisation of decision making. This is something we are supportive of because we are keen to see countries fishing in Irish waters making decisions on the management of stocks in Irish waters rather than others, but we also want the protection of the Commission to ensure that Ireland does not get outvoted or outnumbered in a regionalisation structure on decision making. For example, we want to avoid a scenario whereby the French and Spanish could gang up on Ireland and make decisions on fish stocks in Irish waters. That would be unacceptable. Only when there is a unanimous decision on a regionalised decision-making process will we support it. Otherwise we want to be able to go back to the Commission, which is essentially there to support small nations.
The challenge is to find common ground with the European Parliament. I will spend a good deal of time in Brussels talking to people in the European Parliament about how to ensure that the Council, which is represented by Ministers, and the European Parliament can come together in a co-decision process to find a compromise position on the future of the fishing industry and to try to get that job done by the end of June next year. I believe it will be possible to do it but it will be demanding.
Deputy John Browne: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and I wish him well at the negotiations in Brussels next week. I imagine he will have the fishermen and the fishery organisations in tow. It is important to the 11,000 people employed in the fishing industry around the country that the Common Fisheries Policy review leans towards Irish fishermen. They believe that in the past they have not got the best possible deals. Does the Minister believe he will be in a position to conclude the review during the term of the Irish EU Council Presidency?
The Minister has been pursuing the issue of discards, among other issues, since he came to the Ministry. Does he have any other countries on board supporting him on the issue of discards?
In the area of regionalisation one size does not fit all for Irish fishermen but it is an important issue on the agenda.
Deputy Simon Coveney: We worked hard during the Danish EU Council Presidency, which was before the current Cypriot Presidency, to get a Common Position on discards by the end of the Presidency, which was the end of June this year. There is a basic agreement in principle on how to address discards. However, dealing with the pelagic sector is different from dealing with the whitefish sector and there is a recognition of this, in particular in the whitefish sector, in which there are mixed fisheries. For example, off the south coast of Ireland at Dunmore East if one is catching cod, one is also likely to catch haddock and whiting in the same net. When adult fish species are the same size and a fisherman has a quota to catch two types but not the third, what does he do when he catches all three in the one net? These are complex problems that we must try to solve through more technical measures and more targeted fishing gear. It is one thing to deal with the juvenile fish issue. One can deal with it through measures such as mesh size to allow smaller fish to escape, but in mixed fisheries where one is likely to catch multiple species in the one net because the fish are roughly the same size there are complex problems relating to the management of discards. We are trying to find flexible ways of doing that, minimising discards and ultimately eliminating them altogether. I believe we will be able to do that.
It will be possible to do this before June but it will be challenging because there are deep divisions on some of these issues between member states, some of which are driven by the sustainability arguments while others are driven by the fishing industry. I maintain that they have a common interest and it will be our job during the Irish Presidency to try to bring the two sides together and to agree compromise positions.
5.Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanaganasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinehis plans for Castlerea Town Trust, Cow Park Trust, County Roscommon; his position regarding appointing new trustees to such a trust; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[56184/12]
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am pleased that the Deputy has asked this question because we discussed it some weeks ago. I am pleased that I have managed to bring the issue forward since that discussion. I wish to make clear at the outset that my reply relates to the public trust set up in 1919 under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts. To avoid confusion, my Department refers to it as the Castlerea Public Trust because there is another private trust bordering the trust in Castlerea. The Castlerea Public Trust land is registered on folio No. 13684 County Roscommon in the names of the trustees.
Public trusts vest the trust land in the trustees and provide that day-to-day operational matters relating to the public trust are dealt with by the trustees, appointed from time to time. As Minister, I retain certain residual powers, mainly set out in section 30 of the Land Act 1950. These powers are to appoint the trustees; to alter or amend the terms of the trust; to agree to proposals from the trustees regarding disposal in whole or in part of the trust; and revocation of the trust if it is not being used for its intended purposes.
Castlerea Public Trust was originally created as a cow park trust, where local landless people could graze a cow. With the passage of time as Castlerea town has developed, part of the trust lands close to Market Square have been used by local people for recreational purposes and there are several paths and walkways traversing the trust lands.
As Minister, I am solely empowered to appoint trustees to these Land Act trusts. The existing trustees notify my Department when any appointments are necessary and they also nominate names of persons suitable and willing to act as trustees.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): Minister, the remainder of the reply can be read into the record because there is quite a bit to go.
Deputy Simon Coveney: If the Deputy prefers I will get to the meat of it.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: Yes, please. If the Minster could do so I would be keen to hear what he has to say.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I have only half a page left.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): Okay, but it lessens your time for supplementary questions.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: I will chat to the Minister afterwards.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The minimum number of trustees in this trust is five and the maximum number is 12. It is important that the replacement trustees are nominated by and acceptable to existing trustees to ensure the harmonious work of the trust. This is especially important in Castlerea because at present the people who are the trustees of the Castlerea Public Trust lands are also trustees of the contiguous private trust lands.
In the case of Castlerea Public Trust, new trustee nominations were recently submitted to me. I have not as yet appointed these nominated parties because I believe it is necessary for the existing trustees to carry out a comprehensive review of the operation of the trust and address in particular the need to modernise the use of the trust from mainly pasturage to accommodate general recreational use. When this review has been completed, I will consider the nomination and replacement of trustees, who may bring additional community value and reflect any new direction established for the use of the trust lands. This will entail the trustees liaising with community leaders for the ongoing development, preservation and increased community use of the important local amenity.
It is my policy generally with Land Act trusts that where agreement can be reached locally, ownership of the trust lands should be transferred to a community company or a co-operative representative of local communities. I endeavour to seek consensus not confrontation in carrying through such a transfer. I am mindful of the fact that the trustees in Castlerea and their predecessors in title have preserved and developed this trust since 1919 as a significant amenity for the area and I hope to be able to move this process forward in a positive way.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): There are only two minutes remaining for this question.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: I do not often come into the House and praise the previous Government. I hope I can do likewise for this Government. The former Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, stated in this House: "The ... trust does not appear to be answerable to anybody, is not elected, refuses to discuss the business of the town demesne with any local representative group". That was possibly the first time that the former Minister of State chimed with the people of Castlerea.
In 2005, 1,300 people wrote to the then Minister with responsibility for agriculture asking her to revoke the trust. While she did not do so, she did not appoint any new trustees. This has led to the situation whereby there are now only five trustees remaining. If that number falls below five, it will not be possible to obtain a quorum for a meeting, at which point action will have to be taken. When I heard that an attempt had been made to appoint new trustees, I contacted the Minister whom I thank for taking the time to speak to me on what I know was a busy day for him.
More people have now written to the Minister. I understand some 1,300 people have done so and that there are a further 280 letters on the way to the Minister asking him not to appoint new members to the trust, to let it fall and, if needs be, to use his powers to revoke the trust. When the Minister's officials last visited the trust, they outlined the future of the cow park trust in view of the fact that the main objective of the original trust had now ceased. They also informed it of the 1,300 letters received by the Minister, which had been organised by then Councillor Flanagan, and said that as a public official the Minister could not ignore them.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): Time for this question has elapsed.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: The purpose of the trust has ceased. As such, an opportunity to revoke it exists. It is hoped the Minister will do this. People in my town are united on their right to have a say in their own future and destiny. I hope the Minister will facilitate that.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): We must move on.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: I thank the Minister for what he has done thus far.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am not sure everybody will get what they want but we are moving towards resolving the matter.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: All we want is openness and accountability.
Deputy Simon Coveney: That is what is happening. I turned around a situation about which the Deputy was very unhappy.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: Yes.
Deputy Simon Coveney: We have created time and space to try to find a solution.
Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan: Thank you.
6.Deputy Michael P. Kittasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marineif he would favour a limit on the amount of money being paid to any one farmer under the single farm payment of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020; the ceiling he thinks would be appropriate; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[55990/12]
Deputy Simon Coveney: This question is in the name of Deputy Kitt, although I suspect it comes from Deputy Ó Cuív. It relates to whether we should be setting ceilings on future single farm payments. Before considering whether we should be setting caps on single farm payments, we first need to know that we have the capacity to do so. I have been supportive of the Commissioner's proposals to cap single farm payments. This would result in a reduction in payment on amounts in excess of €150,000. I would like to see the cap set lower than €150,000. I have stated that I would have no difficulty with a cap on payments of approximately €100,000. I recognise that we must find a common solution across the European Union which all countries can accept and live with. In my view, a number of the larger powerful countries, such as, for example, Germany and Britain, will not accept a cap on single farm payments because they have large landowners who are big commercial food producers who are receiving large payments and they want to see that continue.
Ireland is in a different situation. I need to ensure the flexibility countries are given in relation to the capping issue suits Ireland. Once a final deal is done and, if we have the capacity on a voluntary basis, country by country, to be able to set caps on single farm payments, we can then have this discussion and try to get this right. I do not have a problem with that in principle but we need to be careful not to push the cap too low because we have large commercial farmers we need to support. We will have an opportunity at a later stage, when we know the options, to be able to debate and discuss this issue and then make the most informed decision.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Perhaps the Minister will indicate the overall budgetary position for CAP funding. There appears to be some doubt about what that figure will be. Will we be dealing with a reduced provision in 2013 or is it likely the budgetary situation will deteriorate with the passage of time? The envelope available for distribution to primary producers in Ireland will be determined by the budgetary position. There are various proposals floating around concerning the multi-annual financial framework for 2014 to 2020 - the long-term budget plan. The danger in this context is that provision for CAP funding may well be reduced and that the Irish envelope will suffer as a result. Perhaps the Minister would appraise the House of the up-to-date position.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Two sets of negotiations are ongoing. The first concerns negotiations on the overall budget, the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, as referred to by the Deputy. We failed collectively last month as a European Union to get agreement on the MFF. This budget is for seven years and is worth more than €1 trillion. There was a wide variation in what countries wanted in terms of the levels of reduction or increases to that budget. For example, Britain wanted cuts of up to €200 billion. President Van Rompuy proposed cuts of approximately €80 billion. As the negotiations proceeded, the different budget lines within the budget were being debated in terms of which might take cuts and which might not. There are three big budget lines. CAP represents approximately 38 to 40% of the budget. Cohesion Funds represent one third of the budget and innovation and research and development also account for a large chunk of it.
Ireland has been trying to prevent a significant reduction in the overall MFF funding. If there are to be cuts, we will seek to protect the CAP budget within that. Some 85% of all EU money coming into Ireland comes through CAP. This amounts to approximately €1.6 billion per annum. We had some success in the negotiations. At one stage, it looked like there was going to be a cut to CAP of approximately 6% or 7% in terms of pillar 1 and about 11% in pillar 2. By the end of the discussions, this had been reduced to a 3% cut in pillar 1, which was progress. The difference was about €8 billion across the Union.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): There is only one minute remaining for this question.
Deputy Simon Coveney: We hope to conclude the MFF discussions during the Irish Presidency of the European Council at a Heads of State meeting to be held on 7 February. It is likely to be the next big summit meeting on the MFF. If we can get the budget agreed in February, it may be possible to get the CAP reform finalised before the end of the Irish Presidency. If we cannot get the MFF agreed in February, it will be difficult, in terms of the timescale, to do this.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: In terms of the eventual template or formula to be put in place for Ireland, a serious difficulty is arising in terms of the age profile of people involved in the agriculture industry in Ireland. As regards incentives and support under CAP to encourage young people to get involved and become participants in the future of the agriculture industry, how does the Minister see this unfolding?
Deputy Simon Coveney: This issue is the subject of Question No. 9, at which point I will respond to those questions.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): We now move on to Question No. 7.
7.Deputy Éamon Ó Cuívasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinethe progress made to date with discussions in relation to the re-establishment of a sugar industry here including the growing of sugar beet for sugar production; the steps he has taken to promote this industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[55991/12]
Deputy Tom Barry: I have a problem with this question. It is an absolute disgrace that this question has been tabled. The question asks the Minister what steps he is taking to promote the sugar industry. I have news for the Deputies opposite: we do not have a sugar industry. It is an insult to people like me and others who grew beet and worked in the factories that Members opposite would table a question like this.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Tom Barry: ] It is absolutely unbelievable. Why do we not have an industry? We do not have an industry because a Fianna Fáil Minister in a Government of which Deputy Ó Cuív was a member shut it down and absolutely ruined our countryside.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): I must ask the Deputy-----
Deputy Tom Barry: I understand that but it is insulting to those of us who tried to maintain the industry. I could spend ten minutes talking about why we do not have a sugar industry and I am upset that Deputy Ó Cuív is not here to respond to me.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): This is out of order, Deputy. I ask Deputy Barry to resume his seat.
Deputy Tom Barry: I will resume my seat but it is an absolute disgrace that Deputy Ó Cuív tabled this question and his colleagues know that.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): Deputy Barry, you cannot-----
Deputy Tom Barry: It is insulting for those of us who have suffered. I am not going to allow this sort of behaviour. The Deputy tabled a question but he knew damn well-----
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Deputy Barry is totally out of order.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): The conduct of the Chamber is my responsibility.
Deputy Tom Barry: I understand that.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. The Ceann Comhairle has listed the questions for oral answer and I am obliged to deal with the questions and invite the answers.
Deputy Tom Barry: I understand that but the Deputies on the other side know that their party was responsible for closing down the sugar industry. It is a disgrace-----
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): That is a discussion for outside this House.
Deputy Tom Barry: The Fianna Fáil Deputies brought it inside the House.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): Deputy, please. I call on the Minister.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I can understand my colleague's frustration, as somebody who comes from a town where the sugar industry provided huge employment and significant opportunities for arable farmers in particular, that the industry is now no longer in existence because of policy decisions and mistakes that were made a number of years ago. That being said, I think it is possible for us to revive the sugar industry, but only if a number of things happen.
First of all, I have made it clear that the Government is not going to subsidise the setting up of a new sugar industry because we need to ensure that any new industry that begins in Ireland again can stand on its own two feet. However, I believe there is a fighting chance that the sugar industry will be set up again in Ireland on a commercial basis. Last summer we had two very professionally put together viability studies for the setting up of a sugar industry in Ireland again, from a processing point of view, which would involve building a large sugar processing plant and ethanol production facility. There are a number of people who are extremely committed to making this happen and they are very credible people. Michael Hoey, in particular, who heads up Beet Ireland, has put a huge amount of his own resources and time into putting together a very realistic business plan for rebuilding a sugar processing sector in Ireland. It is his job to put the business case together and he will do that, in terms of attracting investors and so forth. It is my job to ensure that if that business case is to proceed that there is either a sugar quota for Ireland in the future or there is no sugar quota in the European Union.
The current sugar regime in the EU will end in 2015 and Ireland has already been compensated to get out of that regime to the tune of €353 million. That means that we are not going to be able to produce sugar before 2015. The Commission is proposing that the sugar quota regime would end in 2015, which is something that Ireland supports. However, I do not think it is realistic because the countries that currently have sugar quota will insist on the quota regime extending beyond 2015, in my view, possibly until 2018 or 2020. In that context, we will be seeking an opportunity for Ireland to be allocated quota for domestic use, given the fact that we have been compensated to be out of the sugar industry until 2015 but not beyond that. Given the size of our food industry here and the volume of sugar use in that industry, we should be allowed a sugar quota to be able to support it. We have made a very strong case for this, both publicly and privately, to the Commission.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: If there is potential to rebuild and regenerate the sugar industry in Ireland then clearly steps should be taken to do so. As the Minister has said, at least one feasibility study has been carried out-----
Deputy Simon Coveney: Two studies have been carried out.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Have those feasibility studies been made available to the Minister?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Yes.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Have the studies been assessed by those who are dealing with the possibility of regenerating the sugar industry and if so, what does the assessment indicate? Is there a potential for the industry, provided certain things happen and if they do not happen, what is the position? What is our competitive position vis-à-vis other sugar producing countries across the EU?
Deputy Simon Coveney: The feasibility studies were very professionally done. Both of them were presented to me and both of them involved detailed meetings around the presentation of those feasibility studies. We then asked officials in the economics section of my Department to assess the feasibility of the business plans. It is important to say, though, that in order for those business plans to be viable, the price of processed sugar must remain at a level that can pay for all of this because we are talking about a €200 million investment to build the plant before any sugar beet can be processed to produce either ethanol or sugar. It is probably fair to say, as a rule of thumb, that these feasibility studies stack up if the price of sugar remains at over €500 per tonne. It is well over that level at the moment and actually, in the last 12 months, it was close to €800 per tonne because there were real shortages of sugar in the European Union. A lot of food industries in Ireland, some from my own part of the country, were finding it hard to get sugar at any price, which suggests that there is an argument around sugar security for both the pharmaceutical and food industries. Having said that, a judgment has to be made by the investors and those putting the business plan together as to what the likely sugar price will be in three, five or ten years time and what the price will be if sugar quotas are abolished in the European Union. When we were producing sugar in Ireland we were not particularly competitive vis-à-vis other parts of Europe in terms of the tonnage of beet per hectare we were growing and the sugar content. However, I believe we can be much more competitive now and the proof of that can be seen in the United Kingdom at the moment. The varieties of sugar beet being grown there are highly competitive with other parts of Europe and there is no reason Ireland could not benefit from that. We can be competitive in this area but whether this happens will be contingent on where world sugar prices go. In my view, they are not likely to collapse any time soon. Sugar is in strong demand because consumption will continue to grow, both in the European Union and, more important, further afield.
8.Deputy Charlie McConalogueasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinethe position regarding the proposed sale of the Coillte forest crop; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[55980/12]
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy's question concerns the current position with regard to Coillte. Deputies will know that the Government made a decision in principle to move ahead with preparing for and investigating the possibility of a sale of Coillte forests. Essentially this involves selling the harvesting rights to commercial Coillte forests and the investigative and preparatory process is under way. Work is ongoing between Coillte, NewEra - which is managing this process - and my Department. Consultants have also been brought in to do specific work around valuations and managing how the sales process may proceed, with the aim of maximising the value to the State, if value is to be found, as well as taking account of the other sectors that may be impacted by such a sale, such as the sawmill sector and timber supply generally, which is totally dominated by Coillte at the moment. This is a very complex process which we are in the middle of at the moment but I assure Deputies that the Government will act with caution. We will not do anything that will undermine or significantly damage the timber or sawmill sectors in Ireland. Effectively, we have a monopoly in Coillte at the moment. Most sawmills take more than 80% of their timber from Coillte forests. If we proceed with this, we will do so with caution to try to protect other sectors that will be affected by any sale, while at the same time trying to maximise value for the State.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Are we to deduce from what the Minister has said that no decision has been taken yet as to what will happen with Coillte?
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Seamus Kirk: ] I assume that the decision on selling it has not been taken and that the process of assessment is continuing. I ask the Minister to clarify that issue.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Government decision was straightforward. We are not selling the company or the land. The principal decision was to investigate and, if it makes sense to do so, proceed with the sale of harvesting rights for Coillte forests. This would involve selling crops early, just like farmers might sell 30% of their barley crops before they are mature. This is one option for realising the value of State assets, that is, the standing timber on State-owned land managed by Coillte, at a time when we need cashflow. In the context of that sale, a range of complex issues arise which need to be addressed if we are to proceed with our plans. The only decision that the Government has taken is that we will prepare for the sales process with a view to making a decision in the new year on whether it makes sense to continue the process in terms of realising value for the State without compromising strategic assets.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: The sale of immature timber will have profound implications for the saw milling sector, which employs a significant number despite the recession. I understand the downturn in the economy has had a minimal effect on the numbers employed in the sector thanks to the flexibility of both employers and employees. I ask the Minister for his assurance that the employment prospects and long-term viability of the saw milling sector will be borne in mind in any decision taken.
Deputy John Browne: I get the impression that the Minister is not jumping over the moon about selling Coillte. The timber industry is very important for the saw milling sector but I am sure he will accept that the 18 million people who visit Coillte forests every year are also important in terms of recreation and environmental matters. Does he agree that the proposal to sell the forest assets owned by Coillte presents a serious threat to the use of forests by the people? It is an issue about which we are all concerned and I have received a considerable number of e-mails from groups which use Coillte forests for recreation and environmental matters.
Deputy Simon Coveney: As I noted earlier, if we proceed with the sales process, we intend to protect the State assets, in other words, the common good element of State-owned forests in terms of the land on which they sit. That includes public access. Most of the forests to which there is public access are not commercial crops. At least 25% of Coillte's estate comprises mature broadleaf forest primarily used for recreation. That will remain the case. These forests will remain in the ownership of the State and under the management of Coillte. The sale will involve standing commercial timber and we will proceed with caution and in a way that is consistent with the Government's decision.
9.Deputy Dara Callearyasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinethe steps he has taken to address the age profile imbalance in the farming industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[55959/12]
Deputy Simon Coveney: Many people find it extraordinary that more farmers are over the age of 80 than under the age of 35. That is no basis for the kind of ambition we share for growth and innovation in the sector. This is not to imply there are no good farmers who are older than 80. Many of them are wise people who can teach the new generation.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: They have accumulated experience.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Large numbers of young people are enrolled in agricultural colleges. Over the past six years, the number has increased from 600 to 1,450 per year. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of young men and women who want to get into farming and we need to offer them a future. That is why an Irish proposal was taken on by the Commission as part of the Common Agricultural Policy reform to ask countries to set aside 2% of pillar 1 single farm payment money over the next five years for top-up payments for young farmers under the age of 40. In other words, single farm payments for young farmers under the age of 40 will be topped up by 25%, up to a maximum of five years. It is like an installation aid scheme except that it is sponsored by European money. Ireland's proposal was supported by Hungary and the Commission has taken it on. Irrespective of whether it is mandatory or voluntary, it will be implemented if I am still Minister. We need to support young farmers in terms of giving them a financial advantage to allow them to invest in expanding their businesses. That will boost the realisation of the targets in Food Harvest 2020. Pillar 2 also provides opportunities to support young farmers through a series of programmes supported by rural development funds.
In terms of national policy, despite all the difficult decisions taken in the budget, we acted strategically to support young farmers by encouraging the consolidation of farms, and maintaining the preferential treatment they get in terms of stock relief, exemption from stamp duty and partnerships where sons and daughters work with their parents to manage the farm. A number of positive initiatives are being taken in the interests of young farmers to address the generational problem.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Does the Minister agree that we need to develop a public policy position which would also involve Revenue and other Departments? The prospects for young farmers having access to land other than by leasing arrangements are limited and unless they win the lotto or inherit large sums of money, they are often unable to buy the sort of acreage that would rapidly create a viable holding. Does the Minister see a need for a co-ordinated approach to stock relief, leasing arrangements and special tax breaks for those who own the land to ensure young people who graduate from agricultural colleges can seamlessly enter the industry and provide the energy it clearly needs?
Deputy James Bannon: I listened with interest to the Minister's comments on educational facilities for young farmers. Quality education is key to developing Irish agriculture and giving it a competitive edge in Europe. The Minister may be aware, however, that at least six agricultural colleges closed across the midlands during my lifetime. There is a significant deficit in terms of educational facilities. I have raised this issue in the House in respect of the midlands and Deputy Kirk's area.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): The Deputy's point has been well made. Will he, please, allow the Minister to respond?
Deputy James Bannon: There is a huge deficit in the north of the country. Does the Minister have plans to provide a new agricultural facility in the midlands or further north?
Deputy Simon Coveney: I agree with the Deputy that agricultural colleges, universities and institutes of technology that offer strong food and agricultural courses are hugely important. We do not have plans to build new agricultural colleges. What happened was that there was a dramatic fall-off in the numbers of young men, in particular, going to agricultural colleges. As a result, some of the colleges closed and there was huge pressure to close others. I remember sitting in a committee room trying to persuade policymakers that we should not be shutting colleges such as Rockwell, Gurteen, Clonakilty and others. Fortunately, that did not happen and now these colleges are operating at full capacity. Buildings are not the problem. The problem is the availability of adequate staffing and expertise.
Deputy James Bannon: Multyfarnham and Warrenstown which were fine colleges were closed. As a result, there is no agricultural facility in the midlands and no place in which to educate its young farmers. I plead with the Minister to look at this issue.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): That would be an excellent subject for a Topical Issue debate.
Deputy Simon Coveney: All of the agricultural colleges have dorm facilities. Therefore, having to attend an agricultural college in another part of the country is not a disaster. I went to Gurteen agricultural college, which is a long way from where I live in Cork, and had a really good year there. I probably learned more in that year about farming than I did during my three year degree programme in agricultural science. It works well when people from different parts of the country move to other parts where they can meet different types of farmers with whom they can live and learn while in agricultural college.
10.Deputy Michael Moynihanasked theMinister for Agriculture, Food and the Marinethe number of farmers who successfully applied for the sheep grassland scheme in 2012, broken down by county; the total anticipated savings in the Budget 2013 changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[55970/12]
Deputy Simon Coveney: I mentioned this issue earlier in connection with a matter raised by Deputy Martin Ferris. I would like to explain the decisions taken in last week's budget on the sheep grassland scheme. We had a three year grassland scheme which was costing the country approximately €18 million a year, using unspent funds under Pillar 1. The aim of the scheme and the idea behind it was to increase the number of sheep being farmed in Ireland because for ten years in a row the flock decreased in size year after year. We had to try to reverse that trend. I am delighted to be able to say the scheme has contributed significantly to reversing it and for the first time in a decade, the flock is bigger this year. Therefore, the scheme has worked well.
I now want to try what I know has worked in other sectors, particularly in the dairy sector, in which we have seen the benefit of discussion groups. In the dairy sector dairy farmers meet on a monthly basis in what they might call "dairy discussion groups" to discuss how their business works and how their animals are performing and everything else. The issues discussed include fertility, grazing, feed conversion efficiency, stock management and so on. The evidence we have from the groups is that, on average, farmers who attend them have increased their profit margins by somewhere between 4% and 5%. I want to see the same benefits in the sheep sector. The sheep grassland scheme was due to end this year, but we have chosen to extend it into next year. We will spend €14 million on it next year and use €3 million from the budget to initiate a sheep discussion group model to encourage sheep farmers to enter the type of discussion group setting that has worked so well for the dairy and beef sectors in order that we can help sheep farmers to make more in the market place rather than rely on schemes for an income. This is a progressive measure. It is about using money in the most progressive way we can, given the problems we face.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Despite the Minister's protestations, the reality is that the budgetary provision for the scheme is going downhill. Once he starts to reduce the funds available-----
Deputy Simon Coveney: It is not.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: The fund is being reduced from €18 million to €14 million.
Deputy Simon Coveney: It is going from €18 million to €17 million, when we include the €3 million being transferred for the sheep discussion groups
Deputy Seamus Kirk: I take it there has been an assessment of expenditure under the scheme by the Department. What has been the result of that assessment? Has the expenditure been justified? Obviously, the Minister has decided to change direction. Should there be a continuation of the financial support provided under the original scheme?
Deputy Simon Coveney: The scheme has been a success on a number of levels. We had seen sheep numbers reduce year on year and were getting to a stage where the perception was developing that a farmer could not make money from sheep farming. We had to put a scheme in place to help farmers to make more money from responsible sheep production and that was the origin of the sheep grassland scheme which was a three year scheme. This was to be the last year of the scheme. We believe it makes sense to continue it but to divert some of the money towards a discussion group model that we know has worked well for other sectors in order that, as well as supporting the income of sheep farmers and the quality of production, we can help upskill them to ensure they are maximising the potential of their holdings and the returns they obtain. That is what discussion groups do.
Although farmers have seen this move as a cut to the sheep grassland scheme, they should instead look at it in the round and realise that while there is a slight reduction in financial support for the scheme, there is a new opportunity for them to sign up to participate in a sheep discussion group through which they will be paid €1,000 a year to attend meetings and participate in discussions that will help them to run a more effective lamb and sheep production business. That is a good use of the money.
Deputy Mick Wallace: On the issue of schemes, I notice the suckler cow welfare scheme has been done away with.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Is the Deputy trying to get in early?
Deputy Mick Wallace: I realise this is a slightly different issue, but small farmers have contacted me about it. Producing suckler cows has been a way of life for them and even if they do not make money one year, they stay in the business because it is their way of life. The ending of the scheme is a huge blow for many small farmers who have depended on this money. The allowance used to be €80 which was cut to €40 and now it is €20, payable on a maximum of 20 animals. There is significant work involved for the farmers concerned. Last week I spoke to a farmer who had gone through all his records for his animals, including date of birth, date of tagging of cow and calf, the rate of calving, the date of dehorning, the date of castration, date of meal introduction and so on. He needs three bags of meal for just one calf.
Deputy Simon Coveney: None of that comes under the scheme we are discussing.
Deputy Mick Wallace: The farmer also mentioned he had to feed a calf meal for six weeks before he could part with it. The scheme was a very good one for the industry and made sense. Sadly, its demise will hit small farmers more than big farmers. It is a pity it is going. I, therefore, suggest the Minister should reconsider the matter.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): To use a golf analogy, the Deputy is out of bounds on this question. However, the Minister seems to be willing to respond.
Deputy Mick Wallace: We need a flexible Acting Chairman.
Deputy Simon Coveney: If the Acting Chairman allows, I will be happy to answer the question. There are only the four of us in the Chamber. The media have probably long since gone to bed.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): I feel I am in Gurteen to gain an education.
Deputy Simon Coveney: This is a serious issue. I hope I have answered the questions on sheep farming. I answered questions on the beef sector for Deputy Martin Ferris, but I will respond to Deputy Mick Wallace. I am not targeting the small guys. The new scheme we are putting in place - a €10 million scheme - will ensure farmers with 20 or fewer suckler cows will receive payments on all of them. We made this provision deliberately to ensure smaller farmers would receive their payments first. The bigger farmers, with more than 20 animals, may receive payment on more than 20 animals, if there is money left over as I suspect there will be at the end of the process.
(Speaker Continuing)
[ Deputy Simon Coveney: ] The other aspect is that the new scheme does not requires farmers to do anything other than transfer data relating to the breeding and fertility of their animals to the ICBF. We are not asking them to do all the other things they would have been paid for before. In other words, they are being asked to do a fraction of what they were asked to do before and they are being paid €20 per cow rather than €40 per cow. It is important for the Deputy to understand that the total amount of money going into the beef sector next year will not be very different from what went into the beef sector this year. That is because under the existing suckler cow welfare scheme, at least €10 million is to be paid next year in respect of calves that were born in the second half of this year. When that €10 million is taken with the €10 million we will spend on the new data transfer scheme and the €5 million we will spend on beef discussion groups - farmers will be given €1,000 to attend meetings and learn about how they can run their businesses more effectively - it means we will be spending €25 million on the beef sector next year. Most of that will be spent in the suckler beef sector. We spent approximately €27 million in the beef sector this year. It is important for farmers to get this into context. Since the budget, there has been a blunt focus on arguing that the abolition of the suckler cow welfare scheme is a disaster. I suggest there should be a concentration on what we are putting in place to replace it. The State will be putting almost as much money into the suckler sector next year as it has put into it this year. We are prioritising small farmers in that mix.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: Can the Minister tell us the number of suckler cows in the national herd? What is the position at the moment? What was it in each of the last three years? What is the trend?
Deputy Mick Wallace: I take the Minister's point. I have been listening to a couple of farmers who will be seriously affected by this change. They were getting €80. I know the Minister is saying they will have less work to do now in terms of documentation and registration, etc., but they did not mind doing the work. That is what these small farmers were used to doing. It was a good idea for them to keep records like this. I do not know if they will have to do as much feeding under the new scheme. The level of feeding they had to do under the old scheme made sense. It is pretty draconian for a small farmer to have the payment he gets for each calf reduced from €80 to €20.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The point is that they are being asked to do a fraction of what they were previously asked to do. I agree that this was a great scheme. It improved the quality of suckler beef in Ireland and brought about significant changes in areas like animal husbandry, data collection and the general performance of those animals. While I would have put a new scheme in place anyway, I would have liked to have had more money to spend on building up the suckler cow welfare scheme. I hope we will be able to spend more money in this area in the future. When the new Common Agricultural Policy is in place, I hope we will be able to fund a larger scheme than the one to be implemented next year. It is important to understand that all of the €25 million being spent in this sector will go to farmers. It may go to different farmers next year. It is important to recognise that contrary to what some farmers have claimed, there will be no dramatic reduction in the money going into this sector, all of which will go to farmers as I have said.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): We must finish on that note.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I will conclude by responding to the point made by Deputy Kirk. Half of the beef in Ireland comes from the suckler herd and the other half comes from the dairy herd. As I have said on many occasions, if we do not support the suckler herd, beef will simply become a by-product of the dairy industry as it expands and grows in the context of the elimination of quotas in 2015. I do not want that to happen because all of the real quality Irish beef comes from the suckler herd. It is delivered by the bloodlines and the breeding. That is why this sector needs additional support. I hope we will be able to provide it in the context of the new Common Agricultural Policy.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: I would like to make a brief point about the scheduling of Question Time, particularly on Thursdays.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): We have gone over time.
Deputy Seamus Kirk: I will be brief. The questions we have been discussing this evening relate to what is probably the most important industry in the country. I do not have a problem with being here after 8 p.m. If some of the earlier business had not finished ahead of schedule, however, Question Time would not have started yet. It was not due to start until 8.45 p.m. I assure the Minister that I am not carping when I say that the Whips need to examine the arrangements for the scheduling of the business of the House, particularly on Thursday evenings. I am saying this in the context of agriculture questions, but it applies to other areas as well. We should be able to revert to the traditional afternoon slot for Question Time.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I assure the Deputy that would have been my preference as well.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews): It would have been mine too. As I said earlier, at least I got the benefit of a lovely plate of sole. I thank those who posed the questions and the Minister who replied to them. I thank the Clerk and the staff for their attendance.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 14 December 2012.
Seanad amendment No. 179: Title: In page 5, lines 21 to 24, to delete all words from and including "TO" in line 21 down to and including "MATTERS" in line 24 and substitute the following:"TO PROVIDE FOR MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS RELATING TO CREDIT UNIONS; TO AMEND THE CENTRAL BANK ACTS 1942 TO 2011, TO PROVIDE FOR CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND AND OVERSEAS REGULATORS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND; AND TO PROVIDE FOR MATTERS RELATED TO THE FOREGOING".
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Agreement to Seanad amendments will be reported to the House and a message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Deputies opposite for the constructive role they played at all Stages of this legislation. I hope the Bill, which passes this House today and will now go to the President, ensures the great Irish credit union movement, which is a standard-bearer of volunteerism and financial support, will continue to flourish in the years ahead. The Bill is consistent with the report of the commission in setting out new standards and a roadmap for the development of the movement. I also thank the officials of the Department of Finance who have worked day and night to ensure this Bill could be passed by the end of the year.