Written Answers Nos. 66-85
66. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the number of State boards under the remit of her Department or its agencies in tabular form; the total number of members of each board; the number of women on each board; and the percentage of each board that is made up of women. [39349/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy will be aware, the achievement of gender balance of 40% on State boards is a target in the Programme for a Partnership Government and will be pursued as part of the forthcoming National Women's Strategy.
There are 22 state boards under the remit of my Department. The information requested by the Deputy in relation to these boards is set out in the table.
|
Name of Board |
Total number of Board Members |
Number of Women on Board |
Percentage of Board made up of Women |
|
Charities Regulatory Authority |
15 |
7 |
47% |
|
Charity Appeals Tribunal |
5 |
3 |
60% |
|
Classification of Films Appeal Board |
9 |
5 |
56% |
|
Courts Service Board |
18 |
3 |
17% |
|
Garda Síochána Arbitration Board |
3 |
0 |
0% |
|
Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission |
3 |
2 |
67% |
|
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission |
15 |
8 |
53% |
|
Judicial Appointments Advisory Board |
11 |
5 |
45% |
|
Legal Aid Board |
12 |
6 |
50% |
|
Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board |
4 |
2 |
50% |
|
National Disability Authority |
12 |
6 |
50% |
|
Ordnance Survey Ireland |
10 |
2 |
20% |
|
Parole Board |
11 |
2 |
18% |
|
Policing Authority |
8 |
5 |
63% |
|
Private Security Authority |
11 |
6 |
55% |
|
Property Registration Authority |
11 |
5 |
45% |
|
Property Services Appeal Board |
1 |
0 |
0% |
|
Property Services Regulatory Authority |
11 |
6 |
55% |
|
Valuation Tribunal |
24 |
9 |
38% |
In addition the Private Security Appeal Board, the Censorship of Publications Appeal Board and the Censorship of Publications Board currently have no members appointed.
67. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the number of staff employed by her and each Minister of State, including parliamentary assistants, secretarial assistants, special advisers, press secretaries and other positions, in tabular form; the pay rate for each assistant and the total cost; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39557/16]
Amharc ar fhreagra68. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if any staff employed in the public service and Civil Service are seconded to work with her or any Minister of State in their constituencies; and the number of same and cost to her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39572/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 67 and 68 together.
Under the arrangements for Ministerial Appointments for the 32nd Dáil, the employment of Parliamentary, Personal and Secretarial Assistants falls under the responsibility of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I employ one Personal Secretary, one Parliamentary Assistant and one Secretarial Assistant.
I have three Special Advisors to support me in my role as Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality. Information in relation to all
of my of my Special Advisors is set out in the table.
Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality
|
Post |
Name |
Salary Scale |
|
Special Advisor |
Marion Mannion |
Principal Officer Higher Scale €93,297 |
|
Special Advisor |
Stephen O'Shea |
Principal Officer Scale €79,401 |
|
Special Advisor |
Matthew Lynch |
Principal Officer Scale €79,401 |
In terms of Ministers of State within the Department of Justice and Equality, David Stanton T.D. is Minister of State for Equality, Immigration and Integration. Minister Stanton has two civilian drivers who are paid a weekly wage of €665. In addition, and in line with the arrangements for Ministerial Appointments, one Parliamentary Assistant, one Secretarial Assistant and two part time Temporary Vouched employees work in his Constituency Office.
Dara Murphy T.D. is the Minister of State for Data Protection at the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of the Taoiseach. He is also Minister of State for European Affairs and the EU Digital Single Market at the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for the appointment of staff in respect of Minister of State Murphy.
Finian McGrath T.D. is Minister of State attending Government and Minister of State at the Departments of Social Protection, Justice & Equality and Health with special responsibility for Disabilities. The Department of Health is responsible for the appointment of staff in respect of Minister of State McGrath.
69. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Finance the total amount expended on mediation services by the Financial Ombudsman annually in the 2014 to 2016 period in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39228/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraFirstly, I must point out that the Financial Services Ombudsman is independent in the performance of his statutory functions. I have no role in the day to day workings of the office.
However, the Financial Services Ombudsman has informed me that the Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau does not have a system of recording the cost of mediation separately. This is because the resolution of any complaint can involve different processes; including mediation, investigation and adjudication.
The Ombudsman has informed me that 2016 marked the start of a significant three year change programme by the Bureau. The key element of this change programme is the introduction of a dedicated Dispute Resolution Service to mediate and resolve disputes at an early stage as quickly and as informally as possible. This service was initiated in February 2016. Prior to 2016, the primary means of closing complaints was through formal adjudication.
The table provides total expenditure involved in managing all complaints, the total number of complaints closed and number of complaints recorded as involving mediation:
|
Year |
Total expenditure in the period |
Total number of complaints closed |
Of which recorded as mediated |
|
2014 |
€4,632,074 |
5878 |
8 |
|
2015 |
€4,184,897 |
4915 |
83 |
|
2016 (to end October)* |
€3,494,014* |
3595* |
2114* |
* The figures for 2016 are to the end of October and initial estimates.
70. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the status of discussions with the Brazilian authorities in relation to their decision to designate Ireland as a tax haven; his views on the implications of the decision for Irish businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39236/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI was surprised and disappointed to learn in September that the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service had, without warning, added Ireland to Brazil's tax black list. Being included on the list has a number of negative tax consequences including greater Brazilian taxation on flows of income from Brazil to Ireland.
A formal request for Ireland to be removed from the Brazilian list was submitted by Ireland to the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service on 27 September. This request also sought for the listing to be suspended to allow technical discussions to take place between officials. This request remained under consideration by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service until we received a response on 17 November.
While the request was still under consideration, the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service made some changes to the operation of the listing. These changes were designed to remove the aviation sector from the scope of taxes imposed as a result of the listing. This change means that withholding taxes are not included on the payment of aircraft lease rentals from Brazilian airlines to Irish aircraft leasing companies.
Unfortunately, the reply from the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service on 17 November rejected our request for the listing to be suspended. Following further follow up discussions, the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service have agreed to meet a technical delegation from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners to discuss this issue. Our Ambassador in Brazil is now working on scheduling this meeting as soon as possible.
The response received from the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service makes clear that Ireland has been included on the list because our statutory rate of corporation tax is below 17% which is the benchmark set under Brazilian law. In our formal submission to Brazil we highlighted that Ireland also has a 25% corporation tax rate on passive income and a 33% rate on chargeable gains. We also stressed that the 12.5% rate has been settled policy in Ireland since 2003. Ireland's corporation tax take has also typically been very close to the EU and OECD averages both in terms of corporate tax as a percentage of GDP and in terms corporate tax as a percentage of total tax revenue. We believe it is inappropriate to include Ireland on a black list simply because we apply a low tax rate to a wide tax base which is fully in line with recommended OECD best practice. We remain hopeful that discussions between Brazilian Federal Revenue Service and Irish officials will enable us to fully explain our corporate tax system and hopefully see Ireland removed from the Brazilian list.
I should also add that the response received from Brazil on 17 November makes clear that Brazil does not consider Ireland to be a tax haven. I strongly reject any allegations that we are a tax haven. Ireland does not meet any of the international standards for being considered a tax haven. Ireland is fully compliant with all international best practices in the areas of tax transparency and exchange of information. Ireland's corporate tax policies are designed to attract real and substantive operations to Ireland. Ireland has not been and will never will be a brass-plate location. We only have and want real substantive FDI, the kind that brings real jobs and investment into Ireland.
Ireland is an active participant in global work to reform the international corporate tax system. We have implemented Country by Country Reporting, agreed the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and are working towards the implementation of the remaining OECD BEPS recommendations both domestically and internationally. On Budget Day, I published an Update on Ireland's International Tax Strategy which highlights our continuing efforts in this regard.
71. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the number of tax opinions provided each year up to 2012; the number of companies involved; and the protocol and approval system for the issuing of these opinions. [39245/16]
Amharc ar fhreagra72. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Finance further to a media report (details supplied), the circumstances whereby the Revenue Commissioners notified the European Commission in respect of tax opinions; and the number that have been notified to date broken down by year of issuance. [39246/16]
Amharc ar fhreagra73. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the new policy in respect of the issuing of tax opinions to multinational companies and the estimated tax forgone as a result of these opinions being issued up to 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39247/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 71 to 73, inclusive, together.
I am advised by Revenue that, in discharging their statutory role in relation to the administration and collection of taxes, Revenue provides a range of information, including tax opinions, to taxpayers to assist them in understanding and complying with their obligations under tax law.
Revenue has published detailed guidelines on the provision of tax opinions, which are available on the Revenue website. Guidelines relating to opinions for cases dealt with by Revenue's Large Cases Division (LCD) are available on www.revenue.ie under "[37.0.40] Large Cases Division: Opinions/Confirmations on Tax/Duty Consequences of a Proposed Course of Action". Guidelines relating to requests for opinions submitted for non-LCD cases through the Revenue Technical Service (RTS) are available on www.revenue.ie under "Guidelines on Revenue's Service to Practitioners and Business Taxpayers". The guidelines set out the procedures to be followed in relation to seeking an opinion from Revenue on a tax matter and also provide details of the areas within Revenue with responsibility for issuing opinions. While it is open to any taxpayer to seek an opinion from Revenue on the tax treatment of a particular transaction or activity, the circumstances in which a taxpayer should require an opinion from Revenue are relatively limited. This is because Revenue already publishes extensive detailed information, on the application of tax legislation, in various tax briefings and guidelines which are available on the Revenue website.
An opinion will be provided by Revenue where the issues are complex, information is not readily available or there is genuine uncertainty in relation to the application of the tax rules as set down in the legislation. An opinion will provide Revenue's view of the correct application of tax law to a particular transaction or situation and will assist the taxpayer in filing a correct tax return as required under the legislation. Accordingly, the issue of an opinion by Revenue in respect of a complex tax matter is not about forgoing any tax.
On 7 September 2016 I confirmed in the Dáil that Revenue would be amending its guidance and instructions to provide that tax opinions will not remain valid beyond five years without a full review.
I am informed by Revenue that it has updated its guidance to confirm that opinions issued to taxpayers, whether multinational companies or other taxpayers, will remain valid for a maximum period of five years. Previously the maximum period was seven years. However, depending on the particular circumstances, a shorter period than five years may be specified. After the maximum validity period, whether five years or less, an application for a renewal or extension must be made if the taxpayer wishes for the opinion to continue. An opinion will only remain valid for so long as the facts and circumstances on which it is based continue to exist and the relevant legislation and practice remains in place.
Revenue has also confirmed that it has begun reviewing a number of opinions that were provided more than five years ago.
While statistics have not been compiled on the number of tax opinions issued by Revenue each year, in responding to the European Commission enquiries in relation to tax ruling practice in the various Member States, Revenue identified that in the period 2010-2012 the total number of advance opinions issued to companies on various matters relating to corporation tax was as follows:
|
Year |
Total |
|
2010 |
99 |
|
2011 |
128 |
|
2012 |
108 |
To facilitate accountability Revenue has committed to publishing in its future Annual Reports the number of opinions it issues each year.
In the context of its State Aid enquiries into ruling practices in different Member States, the European Commission requested that Ireland provide it with certain information in respect of Revenue's administrative practice in relation to advance opinions. The information provided to the Commission included an overview of Revenue's administrative practice with regard to the provision of advance opinions, the type of issues on which opinions are provided, and details of opinions provided to over 300 companies, including all opinions issued in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 on a range of issues.
74. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the details of the Revenue Commissioners' current programme reviewing various share issues from reserves of co-ops; the estimated number of farmers under review; the likely additional tax yield; the extent of look-back involved and the details of the awareness campaign which he is undertaking; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39273/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI would first note that, since the establishment of the Revenue Commissioners in 1923, successive Governments and the Oireachtas have reaffirmed the principle of the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in their dealings with the tax affairs of any individual under tax and customs legislation. This independence is seen as critical to maintaining the integrity of the taxation system and forms a key pillar of Revenue's Governance framework.
I am advised by Revenue that their current compliance intervention activity is focused on patronage shares received by suppliers of milk as a consequence of and in proportion to the quantity of milk supplied and the extent to which those share allocations are at values other than market value. Where a cooperative does not receive the market price for the shares issued, then the profit accruing i.e. the difference between the market value of the shares issued and the price paid for these shares, forms part of the value received from the sale of milk and is accordingly assessable to income tax.
This programme of compliance activity by Revenue is in its initial phase and accordingly I am advised by Revenue that it is not possible to say at this stage the numbers of farmers that might be encompassed by this compliance programme or the additional tax yield that might arise. I am informed by Revenue that the initial phase involves a letter of enquiry to certain farmers as to whether the value of the shares received was included in the accounts for the years in question. Farmers who disclosed the share value received should not have any additional income tax liability in relation to the specific matter raised in these enquiries. Where the share value received was not included in the accounts for the years in question, then the matter of an additional tax liability may arise.
I am assured by Revenue that there has been no change in policy in relation to this issue. It is well established, under general taxation principles that a person is taxable by reference to the value received for services rendered or product sold. Predominantly this value is generally received in the form of cash payments. However, where value is provided in the form of non-monetary benefits, such as shares, the same principle applies. Revenue has issued guidance very recently reiterating its view on this matter. In the context of the engagement between Revenue and individual taxpayers or their agents, Revenue will be happy to provide any further clarification of its position in this matter that may be necessary or helpful.
75. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Finance the reason cohabiting partners cannot be jointly assessed as cohabitants for tax purposes in the same way a married couple would be in view of the fact that they are assessed jointly for social protection entitlements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39306/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe basis for the current tax treatment of married couples derives from the Supreme Court decision in Murphy vs. Attorney General (1980). This decision was based on Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution where the State pledges to protect the institution of marriage. The decision held that it was contrary to the Constitution for a married couple, both of whom are working, to pay more tax than two single people living together and having the same income.
Where a couple is cohabiting, rather than married or in a civil partnership, each partner is treated for the purposes of income tax as a separate and unconnected individual. Because they are treated separately for tax purposes, tax credits, tax bands and reliefs cannot be transferred from one partner to the other. Cohabitants do not have the same legal rights and obligations as a married couple or couple in a civil partnership which is why they are not accorded similar treatment to couples who have a civil status that is recognised in law.
From a practical perspective, it would be very difficult to administer a regime for cohabitants which would be the same as that for married couples or civil partners. Married couples and civil partners have a verifiable official confirmation of their status. It would be difficult, intrusive and time-consuming to confirm declarations by individuals that they were actually cohabiting and it would be difficult to establish when cohabitation started or ceased. Furthermore, while there may be an advantage in tax legislation for a married couple or civil partners as regards the partial transferability of the standard rate band and tax credits, their legal status as spouses/civil partners has wider consequences from a tax perspective both for themselves and persons connected with them. To counter tax avoidance, numerous restrictive provisions regarding transactions between "connected persons" are contained in the various Tax Acts and the definition of "connected persons" extends to relatives and children of spouses and civil partners. Such provisions could be very difficult to prove and enforce in respect of persons connected with a cohabiting couple where the couple has no legal recognition.
To the extent that there are differences in the tax treatment of the different categories of couples, such differences arise from the objective of dealing with different types of circumstances while at the same time respecting the constitutional requirements to protect the institution of marriage. Any change in the tax treatment of cohabiting couples can only be addressed in the broader context of future social and legal policy development in relation to such couples.
The treatment of cohabiting couples for the purposes of social welfare is primarily a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Mr. Leo Varadkar TD. However, it is also based on the principle that married couples should not be treated less favourably than cohabiting couples. This was given a constitutional underpinning following the Supreme Court decision in Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare (1989) which ruled that it was unconstitutional for the total income a married couple received in social welfare benefits to be less than the couple would have received if they were unmarried and cohabiting.
76. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance further to the recent change in the Finance Bill to section 110, concerning the carve-out for a section 110 company that is involved in the loan origination business, if an Irish non-bank lender operating an origination platform for an investment bank offering finance to the Irish commercial property market would be able to operate in a tax-neutral manner as a section 110 company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39325/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am advised by Revenue that the income of a loan origination business should comprise interest received on loans originated, with the associated expenses being the normal expenses of carrying on such a business plus any interest paid on the funds borrowed for use in the loan origination business.
If the loan origination company is a qualifying company (within the meaning of section 110 TCA 1997) then it would be able to operate in a direct tax neutral manner in Ireland. There are a number of non-bank lenders currently active in the Irish market. These lenders are seen as an important alternative source of credit to Irish businesses which is why I provided that they would not be impacted by the introduction of the new subsection (5A) to section 110 Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which is currently being inserted by Finance Bill 2016.
However it is also possible for an Irish resident company carrying on a loan origination business to achieve near tax neutrality under the normal corporation tax rules. Equally, if the investment bank that was based in a country with which we have a double tax agreement (and which taxes interest received from non-residents), lent directly to its Irish customers, then no Irish tax would arise on those profits. For a non-resident lender to achieve Irish tax neutrality there is an administration burden placed on the Irish borrowers.
The main benefits of using a section 110 company are therefore the certainty which the lenders have in relation to the tax treatment available; in addition Irish borrowers would experience an increased administrative burden if a non-resident lender is used rather than a section 110 company.
There is no loss to the Exchequer from allowing section 110 companies carry out loan originations in a tax neutral manner.
77. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Minister for Finance the number of State boards under the remit of his Department or its agencies in tabular form; the total number of members of each board; the number of women on each board; and the percentage of each board that is made up of women. [39345/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn response to the Deputy's question, I have been advised by the seven State Boards under my Department's remit of the information you have requested. The table sets out the names of the State Boards, the total number of members of each board, the number of women on each board and the percentage of each board that is made up of women. The Deputy may be interested to note that this information can also be accessed from the State Boards website http://www.stateboards.ie/.
|
State Board |
Current number of board members |
Number of Women on board |
Percentage made up of women |
|
Central Bank Commission |
10 |
3 |
30% |
|
Credit Union Restructuring Board |
12 |
2 |
16.7% |
|
Financial Services Ombudsman Council |
3 |
2 |
67% |
|
Irish Fiscal Advisory Council |
5 |
1 |
20% |
|
NTMA Board |
8 |
3 |
37.5% |
|
Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland |
9 |
4 |
44.4% |
|
The Board of the National Assets Management Agency |
7 |
1 |
14.3% |
78. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Minister for Finance if he will re-examine the fairness and rules of allowing persons claim tax back in respect of third level fees, with particular reference to the case of a person (details supplied) who was unable to claim tax back due to not earning enough through being on a low wage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39356/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraAn individual may claim income tax relief at the standard rate (20%) on qualifying fees paid by him or her in respect of approved third-level courses. An individual may claim tax relief on qualifying fees paid in respect of any person as long as he or she has paid the fees. Qualifying fees means tuition fees, but not examination fees, registration fees or administration fees. In addition, relief is not available in respect of any part of the fees that are met by way of a grant or scholarship. The maximum limit on such qualifying fees at present is €7,000 per annum, per individual, per course. Moreover, for the purposes of the relief, the first €3,000 of qualifying fees in respect of a full-time course, and the first €1,500 of qualifying fees in respect of a part-time course, is disregarded.
I am advised by Revenue that in the case of the person concerned, his income and tax credits for 2015 were such that no income tax was payable by him. In October of this year, the person concerned made a claim for tax relief in respect of tuition fees paid in 2015 in respect of the 2015/2016 academic year. In the circumstances there was no income tax liability against which to offset the tuition fees paid.
Tax reliefs, in general, are only available to those who are liable to taxation. Consequently relief in respect of tuition fees for third-level courses is contingent on a claimant having an income tax liability for the tax year in respect of which the claim is made. I have no plans to change this basic principle. As the person concerned did not pay any income tax for the tax year 2015, he is not entitled to any refund of tax as a result of having paid fees in respect of a third-level course in that year.
79. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Finance if any staff employed in the public service and Civil Service are seconded to work with him or any Minister of State in their constituencies; and the number of same and cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39568/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI wish to inform the Deputy that there are no civil servants seconded to work in my Constituency. I have one Personal Assistant working in my Constituency and there is no cost to my Department as the individual is paid by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
With regard to Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, I understand he has one Parliamentary Assistant and one Secretarial Assistant working in his Constituency. Again there is no cost to the Department as these individuals are also paid by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
80. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the degree to which he intends or expects adequately trained and skilled personnel to remain available to meet requirements in the industrial sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39321/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe work of the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs and the Skills and Labour Market Research Unit in SOLAS provides Government with forecasts for existing and future skills needs of different sectors of industry. These forecasts are used in the creation of strategies and initiatives aimed at responding to the skills needs of industry.
The work of the EGFSN and the SLMRU has fed into the development of the new National Skills Strategy 2025 – Ireland’s Future, which was launched in January of this year. The Strategy identifies Ireland’s current skills profile, provides a strategic vision and specific objectives for Ireland’s future skills requirements, and sets out a road map for how the vision and objectives can be achieved across the education and training sector. With over 140 Actions, the Strategy sets out the Government's commitment to improving and using skills for sustainable economic growth and outlines how we can develop a well-skilled, adaptable workforce that contributes to and shares in the benefits and opportunities of economic expansion.
This strategy alongside the ambitious targets set out in the Action Plan for Education 2016-2019 will ensure that Ireland will have the best Education and Training System in Europe thereby ensuring the availability of adequately trained and skilled personnel as required.
81. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Education and Skills the criteria in relation to school bus drivers (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39178/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy is aware, Bus Éireann operates the school transport scheme on behalf of the Department.
Bus Éireann has advised that the minimum age for school bus drivers is 23 years and the candidate must have at least two years driving experience.
In response to the expressed wishes of many school bus drivers - both Bus Éireann and private contractor school bus drivers - who wanted to remain in the position upon reaching retirement age at sixty-six years, and following the advice of their Medical Department, the Company decided to alter the compulsory retirement age for school bus drivers who provide services under the School Transport Scheme to enable experienced personnel to remain on in the position for a maximum of four more years if desired.
School bus drivers who opt to remain on after sixty-six years of age may do so up to the age of seventy, if they are satisfied to do so, subject to annual medical review and once they continue to hold the requisite driving licence. Bus Éireann has further advised that the opinion of the Bus Éireann Chief Medical Officer is that, given the demanding and safety critical nature of School Bus driving, 70 years of age is deemed an appropriate age at which to retire from such employment.
82. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide an estimate, by stage and estimated time, for the completion of a school (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39190/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Deputy will be aware that a building project for the school in question is included in my Department’s 6-Year Construction Plan. My Department has identified a suitable permanent site for the location of the school. Conveyancing is at an advanced stage and should be completed shortly. When the site has been acquired, my Department will be in contact with the school Patron in the context of progressing the project into the architectural planning process.
83. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Education and Skills the average completion time for primary schools by stage, by school type and by county in each of the years 2011 to date in 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39191/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe information sought by the Deputy is not readily available in the format requested. There were over 120 primary schools completed from 2011 to date in 2016 and it would not be possible to calculate the average completion times by stage for that number of projects in the time available to answer this question.
The timeline for delivery of a primary school project is dependent on the delivery method selected e.g. RAPID design and build does not follow traditional stages of architectural planning but generally progresses from design start to completion of construction within 18 -24 months.
Projects which follow the traditional architectural planning model may be expected to complete design stages as follows:
Stage 1 – 3 to 6 months
Stage 2a – 4 to 7 months
Stage 2b – 5 to 10 months (add 5 months if a planning appeal arises)
Stage 3 – 5 to 6 months
Stage 4 - 12-24 months
Stage 5 – 12 to 18 months
However, these completion times are indicative only and can be expected to vary significantly from project to project depending on individual circumstances, including planning appeals, design issues, site issues and issues which can arise at tender and construction stages.
84. Deputy Jim Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will issue a final response to a query (details supplied) that was sent to his office in September 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39212/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraSchool transport is a significant operation managed by Bus Éireann on behalf of the Department.
Currently over 113,000 children, including some 10,000 children with special educational needs, are being transported in approximately 4,000 vehicles on a daily basis to primary and post-primary schools throughout the country covering over 100 million kilometres annually.
Under the terms of the Primary School Transport Scheme children are eligible for transport where they reside not less than 3.2 kilometres from and are attending their nearest national school as determined by the Department/Bus Éireann, having regard to ethos and language.
Bus Éireann has advised that the child in question is eligible for school transport under the terms of the above scheme; he was originally deemed ineligible in error.
As there is no suitable school transport service available, my Department will contact the family regarding the Remote Area Grant which is payable towards the cost of making private transport arrangements.
85. Deputy Martin Heydon asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding the provision of a special needs assistant for a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39241/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI wish to advise the Deputy that the National Council for Special Education (NCSE), which is an independent statutory agency, is responsible, through its network of Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs), for processing applications from schools for special educational needs supports, including S support.
The NCSE allocates S support to schools in accordance with the criteria set out in my Department's Circular 0030/2014, which is available on my Department's website at www.education.ie in order that students who have care needs can access S support as and when it is needed.
Responsibility for deciding on the quantum of educational supports and resources to be allocated to schools to support individual pupils rests with the NCSE.
It should be noted that S allocations are not made to individual children, but are made to schools to support the care needs of children with assessed special educational needs in the school.
Where schools wish to make applications for S support for newly enrolled or assessed pupils who have care needs they may submit such applications to the NCSE.
Where a school wishes to appeal the S support allocation which has been made to them, they may do so through the NCSE appeal process, details of which are set out at www.ncse.ie. The option to invoke the NCSE appeals process is open to the school in question.
All schools have the contact details of their local SENO. Contact details are also available on the NCSE website. The local SENO is also available to discuss any concerns that parents have about the present or future educational needs of their child.
As the question raised by the Deputy relates to an application for S support for an individual child, I have arranged for this question to be forwarded to the NCSE for direct reply to the Deputy.
