Jim Mitchell
Question:28 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance the total cost of the DIRT Inquiry; the total revenue received to date as a result of it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12508/02]
Priority Questions. - DIRT Inquiry.
The main costs associated with the DIRT inquiry were borne by the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The extensive investigation undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor General into the administration of deposit interest retention tax and related matters for the years 1986 to 1998 cost €1.39 million or £1.096 million. I have been informed by the Houses of the Oireachtas that costs borne by it relating to the work of the sub-committee came to €1.67 million or £1.314 million. The total direct cost of the DIRT inquiry was a little more than €3 million.
In the Finance Act, 1999, powers were introduced to enable the Revenue Commissioners to conduct on-site audits of the DIRT returns of banks and building societies, with full powers to investigate the bona fides of accounts claimed to be in the beneficial ownership of non-resident persons. Using these powers, Revenue commenced a programme of DIRT look-back audits in April 1999 and these yielded a total of €219 million or £173 million in tax, interest and penalties.
These look-back audits of financial institutions were not focused on the underlying tax liabilities of the depositors themselves and, as a follow-up operation, Revenue began the investigation of the tax compliance position of the depositors in accordance with a statement of practice issued in May 2001. The voluntary disclosure phase of this investigation ended on 15 November last and yielded tax, interest and penalties of €227 million or £179 million in total. The investigation phase of the operation is continuing into persons who did not make voluntary disclosures, and the yield from it will not be known for some time. The total yield to date is €446 million.
The question has been edited from that originally tabled. The Minister has gone on record as praising the DIRT inquiry and its members for their expeditious achievement. Why then did he see fit at a private function marking the retirement of the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners to criticise the members of the inquiry in a manner which was the reverse of what he had said in public?
I did not criticise members of the DIRT inquiry at the function referred to, which was public in the sense that 400 to 500 people must have been present, including the Deputy and the Garda Commissioner. A wide cross-section of the public service was present. I have often praised the DIRT inquiry and the results it achieved and have no hesitation in doing so again. The inquiry was conducted expeditiously and achieved good value for money as evidenced by its cost compared with the cost of other inquiries. I am in favour of TDs scrutinising legislation and making inquiries.
However, I am not in favour of committees conducting their business in a certain manner. I thought some of the questioning and the procedures and processes relating to the treatment of current and former public officials were not correct. It is well known that I am of this view regarding inquiries. People's good reputation is important and that was borne out by a recent decision of the High Court relating to the Abbeylara inquiry.
When I was in Opposition many years ago, the Deputy and I served on a sub-committee which led to the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, many years later. Even then I was of the view that the Houses of the Oireachtas should not be turned into a court. While I have been critical of the courts, I do not want a system where people are dragged before the Houses. Some of the procedures and processes for dealing with public servants during the DIRT inquiry were not the correct ones and, as a result, the public service felt at a disadvantage vis-à-vis its political masters. These are my views and I do not have any difficulty giving vent to them again.
Does the Minister not agree that he gave the impression at the function concerned, at which I was present, during a speech which was not scripted for public consumption, that somehow there was oppressive questioning during the DIRT inquiry when in fact the members of the inquiry were well trained by legal advisers that there should not be any such questioning and when we went to great pains to ensure that there was not? What precisely was the Minister at? The Committee of Public Accounts is well trained in asking the hard questions of senior public servants and doing so in an effective and courteous manner. Was he implying otherwise?
There is room for improvement in the processes for dealing with civil servants. This relates not only to this inquiry, but others as well.
As regards the speech not being scripted, as Deputy McDowell will often testify, some of my best comments have been unscripted. The Deputy looks forward to them all the time. At committee meetings he wants me to read the official note and then to hear what I have to say myself. Is this not what Members want me to do? That way they can make great speeches about what I have said. What else would they do if I did not do that?