Michael Noonan
Question:25 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Finance if he will attend the meeting arranged with the Irish League of Credit Unions. [5290/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). - Credit Union Meeting.
I am fully acquainted with the current views of the League of Credit Unions and, consequently, I do not plan to attend the meeting arranged for tomorrow.
After two years, it is time for the Minister to stop sulking. As Minister with responsibility for taxation matters he is not doing his job if he does not attend the meeting tomorrow. It is time to get over this animosity and meet the credit unions tomorrow, with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, to seek a solution to this continuing débâcle.
People who know me reasonably well would say I am not inclined to sulk or hold a grudge – I find it difficult to ignore someone for more than a week. I have dealt with this matter on many occasions in this House including last week when Deputy Noonan tabled a Private Members' motion. I replied to this as did the Minister of State. I have also replied to a large number of questions on the matter put down by Deputy Noonan and other Deputies. I am fully conversant with the views of the Irish League of Credit Unions on taxation matters. No other Member knows these views better than I. The league will meet the Taoiseach tomorrow to explain its concerns. It would not add to my knowledge to meet the league again tomorrow.
If the Taoiseach reaches agreement with the Irish League of Credit Unions tomorrow on how its members' earnings should be taxed, will the Minister carry out any instruction given by him?
We had this debate last week.
Will the Minister answer the question?
A number of factors will be taken into account in dealing with the report of the working group, a minority of whom recommended how this taxation matter should be dealt with. I said last week that an investigation of the existing status of the taxation arrangements applying to credit unions is taking place, without awarding further concessions. The motion adopted by the House in Private Members' time stated that when the investigation is complete, it will be taken into account by the Government in future taxation arrangements with the credit unions. As I also said last week, there are other questions regarding equity and all savers which must also be borne in mind in making special arrangements for particular financial institutions.
In the aftermath of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts which dealt extensively with the use of multiple accounts in financial institutions where there were exemption levels of interest, and given the problems with that, Members should be reluctant to advocate a new form of exemption for financial institutions.
This is a filibuster.
Are Deputies saying a certain amount of tax evasion is all right, depending on who is involved? I am not prepared to say that as Minister for Finance.
In his filibuster, the Minister refused to say if he will he carry out any instruction given by the Taoiseach if agreement is reached tomorrow. Having failed to get an answer to that question, can the Minister confirm there is a divergence in policy between himself and the Tánaiste, both at ministerial and official level, and that the Tánaiste's officials in the working group supported the recommendations of the chairman, while the Minister's officials and those from Revenue opposed them?
That information has been provided in the House and is public knowledge since the submission of the working group's report on 1 October 1998. I subsequently published the entire report. There were nine people in the group, comprising representatives from my Department, the Revenue Commissioner, the Tánaiste's Department, the Register of Friendly Societies, the Irish League of Credit Unions and an independent chairman. The Deputy alluded to the views of these people which are well known. They are not a secret.