Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 2004

Vol. 585 No. 6

Adjournment Debate.

Offshore Accounts.

Mr. Crawford

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for giving me an opportunity to raise this important issue and I thank the Minister of State for coming here to reply.

The issue of so-called offshore and non-resident accounts is causing serious anxiety and anger for many people living in the Border areas, particularly people living just south of the Border near towns like Aughnacloy, or any other Border town from Derry to Warrenpoint. Aughnacloy is within one mile of County Monaghan as against 12 miles from Monaghan town. I give this as an example of people using their nearest bank, often spending money shopping in Northern Ireland or using accounts for students going to college in Belfast or Coleraine.

Under the present regulations, many of these people feel like criminals and must pay accountants to clear their names. It is strange that someone setting up a business and creating jobs south of the Border, and exporting most of the products to Northern Ireland, cannot get grants for export because the Government does not treat these as foreign exports, yet it is considered to be off shore. I got what appeared to be a reasonable answer from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, regarding such clients as a result of a Dáil question. However, the recent "Prime Time" programme caused panic and serious anxiety. Mark Little and Kevin Rafter made public the unjust level of fines and penalties imposed on ordinary people. One woman discovered £3,810, less than €5,000, in a deposit account belonging to her late husband, which she cashed in her local bank in the South. When discovered, the DIRT amounted to €10,436. Interest and penalties amounted to €29,647. Her settlement amounted to more than €40,000, ten times the amount she cashed from the account. How can this treatment of an ordinary widow or anyone else be justified?

I do not condone blatant tax avoidance or tax evasion, but how can penalising ordinary people be justified when €50 million was wasted on e-voting in recent weeks? Storage of these machines will cost councillors €50,000 to €80,000 a year. Punchestown cost €16.5 million while the Bertie bowl cost €220 million to €250 million. Will the Minister consider taking accounts of between €5,000 and €10,000 out of this trawl? How much would this cost the Government? How much good will would it receive from ordinary people? The revenue saved from trawling through accounts could be matched by one group of drug barons or those laundering oil.

This is a serious issue and it is bringing people to the brink of suicide. I have been informed that some have already taken this course. Does the Minister not agree that the people with these small accounts who are forced to settle should give what is calculated to church, charity or the disabled? At least they would feel that they had not been treated as criminals. Would the Government pursue banks which encouraged clients to transfer their money? There are cases where banks did this, but it is clear that the Government does not want to pursue them. In a debate on "Prime Time" a spokesperson for the Revenue Commissioners made it clear that they were pursuing what he termed the real criminals. He did not see the benefit in chasing people from banks.

I urge the Minister to review this situation. He should not treat ordinary individuals with small savings in a bank in Northern Ireland as criminals. An accountant said to me that——

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to give way to the Minister.

Mr. Crawford

He sent more than 100 letters to the Revenue Commissioners and has not received one answer. These people should be given some relief.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley)

The background to the current Revenue offshore investigation is that, in December 2003, the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners met the chief executives of Irish financial institutions with subsidiaries or branches outside the State and informed them that a wide-ranging investigation into holders of offshore accounts and other financial investments would begin early in 2004 using all available Revenue powers. He sought the co-operation of the financial institutions concerned and requested that they write to their Irish resident customers with accounts in their offshore subsidiaries and branches, advising them of the impending investigation and of the benefits to be obtained by making a disclosure of unpaid liabilities before it commenced.

All the financial institutions concerned indicated that they would do so and, although the Revenue Commissioners are not aware of the precise numbers of letters which issued from the institutions to their customers with offshore accounts, it is understood that the figure was in excess of 100,000. It is also understood that a large number of the letters were sent to holders of accounts in branches in Northern Ireland.

The Revenue Commissioners prepared a booklet, entitled Making a Qualifying Disclosure of an Offshore Related Tax Default to Revenue, to explain the basis of the investigation and the steps which taxpayers should take to make a full disclosure before the deadline dates. This booklet also contains tables which indicate the level of interest and mitigated penalties which will be applied to the qualifying disclosures.

Mr. Crawford

The interest rate is 350%.

Mr. T. O’Malley

There were two stages to the process. First, taxpayers had to give notice of an intention to make a disclosure to Revenue before 29 March. Second, they were required to submit a full statement of disclosure together with payment of tax, interest and mitigated penalties within 60 days and before 28 May 2004. In the event, about 15,000 individuals notified the Revenue of their intention to make a qualifying disclosure and these disclosures and payments are now being received.

The current Revenue investigation is aimed at those taxpayers who had not previously disclosed their full income or gains and put the funds offshore to conceal them. Consequently, tax will be levied on the underlying income or gains and, if appropriate, on the income or gains which has accrued on these funds. The investigation is not aimed at taxpayers who have funds outside the State on which they have already paid tax unless those funds generated income or gains which have not been disclosed.

The Revenue Commissioners appreciate that some of the accounts in branches in Northern Ireland were for legitimate business or other purposes unconnected with tax evasion. For example, it is clear that a number of cross-Border accounts were held to facilitate routine shopping or to fund children who may have been studying there. Revenue has responded to many enquiries from holders of such accounts in Northern Ireland and advised them no liabilities will arise.

However, it is also clear from the enquiries and disclosures already made, that significant tax liabilities will arise with some of the accounts held in Northern Ireland and the taxpayers have been so advised. Where taxpayers have unpaid liabilities, regardless of where the offshore account or investment is held, the Revenue will apply interest and mitigated penalties on the basis set out in its code of practice for Revenue auditors and reproduced in the booklet to which I already referred.

For anybody who has made a qualifying disclosure by 29 March, the normal fine or penalty will be reduced from 100% to 10%, provided there is full co-operation. However, to the extent that a tax default arose for a period before April 1991, the Revenue has no discretion to mitigate the penalty. This is because mitigation for pre-amnesty years was prohibited in the 1993 amnesty legislation.

The Revenue Commissioners appreciate that in the run up to the 28 May deadline for payment, the combined effect of interest and penalties, especially where there is no mitigation for pre-amnesty years, may cause financial hardship to many people. Where taxpayers feel that they will have difficulties in paying those liabilities, they or their tax agents should contact their local Revenue district to discuss the matter.

It is appreciated that some will find this process difficult and stressful. Nevertheless, there is a basic duty on taxpayers in the State to pay their lawful taxes in the interest of the common good. The vast majority do so conscientiously and it is not unreasonable for them to expect that the duty should be observed by all.

Harbours and Piers.

Mr. S. Ryan

This is one of the important issues that I have raised since elected to Dáil Eireann. The motion is on the privatisation of two of our major amenities in north County Dublin, namely, Balbriggan and Skerries harbours. I am well aware that the Government has plans to privatise nearly everything in my constituency, including Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and bus and train services. However, I never envisaged that Fianna Fáil, the so-called champions of the ordinary people, would facilitate the sale of our harbours.

The Harbours Act 1996 provides for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, with the consent of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to transfer by order all properties of the harbours to the council in which the harbour is situated. To the best of my knowledge, no such order has been made and the public is entitled to know the views of both Ministers on this issue. At the same time and with the consent of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Dublin Port Company has decided to seek an expression of interest for the sale and privatisation of the two harbours. This is a scandal and must be resisted. Matters are developing more quickly than I envisaged as I have been informed that tender documents for the sale will be available from tomorrow. At this stage I wish to caution the company on this development.

The special amenity value of the two harbours must be protected. Deep harbours are the focal points of both towns and are attractive locations for recreation, leisure pursuits, tourist attractions and employment. These facilities are enjoyed not only by the ever increasing number of people living in the growing towns of Skerries and Balbriggan, but by thousands from the greater Dublin areas and holidaymakers from abroad.

While on the decline, fishing has been a traditional livelihood in the north Fingal area and in the two towns in particular. The sight of working fishing boats retains the ambience of another era and this adds to the tourist attraction of the harbours. Our harbours still provide employment for our fishermen, and fishing will cease if the harbours are sold to private speculators.

Should the sale be allowed to proceed, it will be purchased at knock-down prices to Irish and multinational consortia more interested in profit than anything else. Access to the facilities by the general public on social or recreational grounds will not be guaranteed or deemed a priority by this group. I also envisage that in such circumstances there will be applications in the future for high density apartments and marinas at inappropriate locations which will not be in the interest of either town.

I am satisfied, having read the legislation, that it was not envisaged under the Harbours Act 1996 that either harbour would be put up for public sale. The two Ministers in question and the Dublin Port Company should reconsider their positions. In the event of a sale, what is wrong with a new Minister coming in and implementing sections 4 and 7 of the legislation? No cosy deal can override this legislation.

I want to be positive about this matter. Fingal County Council is prepared to take over the ownership of the harbours under certain conditions. The Dublin Port Company wishes to dispose of the harbours because they are a liability. The local community demands that they be given an input and their be views taken into consideration, yet the two Ministers in the centre of this issue are trying to find a solution to it. There is a solution that will ensure that the public amenities of the two harbours are retained in public ownership in the interests of the general public. It is up to the Minister and the Government to ensure the proper decision is taken and that these harbours are not sold, which would not be in the interests of the general public.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Browne)

I thank Deputy Seán Ryan for raising the issue. I do not agree with his broad statement that the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government wants to privatise everything. I have not heard any mention of privatising Aer Rianta, which he referred to earlier.

Dublin Port Company was established in March 1997 and is statutorily responsible, as a commercial State port company under the Harbours Acts 1996 and 2000, for the management, control, operation and development of its harbour.

Section 15 of the Harbours Act 1996 makes provision with respect to the sale, leasing and acquisition of land by commercial State port companies. With regard to disposal of land, it provides that a decision by a company to dispose of any land shall only be made by the directors of the company and that the consideration for which any land is sold by a company shall, in so far as is practicable, not be less than its open market value.

Dublin Port Company has informed my Department that it has decided to offer the two harbours in question for sale because they constitute a burden on the users of the port as the company derives no revenue whatsoever from them. Dublin Port Company does not require ministerial approval to implement this decision, which has been taken by the board of directors of the company.

Mr. S. Ryan

Not according to the Act.

Mr. Browne

It has been the long-standing policy of my Department to transfer a number of regional harbours, including Skerries and Balbriggan, to the control of the relevant local authority. Section 88(4) of the Harbours Act 1996 provides for the transfer of both these harbours to Fingal County Council. The Act provides that the subsection shall come into operation on such a day as, by order made by me with the consent of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, may be fixed therefor. Such an order has not been made.

My Department has been advised by the Attorney General's office that the provisions of section 88(4) of the Harbours Act 1996 do not constitute a legal impediment to the disposal by Dublin Port Company of the two harbours in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Act.

I am advised by Dublin Port Company that public advertisements were placed in the national print media on 24 and 31 March 2004 giving notice of the company's intention to sell the harbours in question by way of a public tender, and interested parties were requested to register their interest with Hamilton Osborne King. This process afforded all users, local and national interest groups and potential purchasers an extended period to give consideration to the sale. I am advised that further advertisements were placed in the national print media on 12 May 2004, indicating that form of tender and conditions of sale were available to interested parties and that the closing date for return of these documents is 3 June 2004. I understand the agents are dealing with a significant number of inquiries, most of which have been for the two harbours together.

In the wider context, my Department continues to work, with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to progress our long-standing policy regarding the transfer of certain regional harbours to the relevant local authorities. However, it remains to be seen whether the two harbours in question will be available for transfer to Fingal County Council.

My wish is that Fingal County Council should take over the two harbours but I am led to believe, contrary to what Deputy Ryan said, that it has no interest in the two harbours. Deputies Ryan and Glennon have been in touch with me on a number of occasions in this regard and I understand they have had discussions with the county manager. Perhaps the Deputies would use their influence with the elected members of Fingal County Council——

Mr. S. Ryan

Provided we get a grant from the Minister's Department to repair them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Minister to reply without interruption. Deputy Ryan, there is no provision for supplementary questions.

Mr. Browne

——to encourage Fingal County Council to buy it. I would much prefer to see Fingal County Council take over the two harbours.

Mr. S. Ryan

Will the Minister give us a grant towards their repair?

Mr. Browne

That would be a wise decision on the part of Fingal County Council.

Suicide Incidence.

Mr. Neville

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this issue on the floor of the House. The suicide figures for last year were published last week and the suicide rates do not show any significant change on recent years, with 444 people taking their lives in 2003. The Minister of State will accept, because I am aware he has an interest in this area, that the incidents of suicide are under–reported and while outlandish statements have been made about the level of under reporting, we believe it is relatively low — somewhere between 10% and 20%. The true figure is that approximately 500 people took their lives last year.

For comparative purposes, 293 people died as a result of road accidents. It is accepted there is a level of suicides among those who die as a result of road accidents. That level is not determinable but internationally it is accepted, especially in the case of people travelling in cars on their own, that a certain number are suicides. It is hoped the number is small, although it is difficult to obtain figures but 293 deaths were as a result of road accidents. Bearing in mind the attention and investment, and perhaps under investment, in this area, including the introduction of the penalty points system and other approaches to reduce the levels of road accidents, it is difficult to understand the reason the level of suicides is being ignored. There is not the same level of interest and investment in trying to reduce the suicide levels but this epidemic is causing trauma for too many families and communities. There is hardly a community in Ireland which has not been touched by suicide.

It is extremely concerning that in 2003, the biggest cause of death in the 15 to 24 year age group was suicide. A total of 29% of those in this age group took their own lives, and 81% of those were males. In the 15 to 24 year age group, therefore, one in three people who died took their own lives. That is very serious.

What we are asking for is investment in the area of suicide prevention and research. We cannot have proper prevention without research, although I would draw the Minister's attention to suicide prevention programmes that have been introduced effectively elsewhere. In Australia, because of a comprehensive programme, the levels of suicide have been reduced by 31% since 1997. Those who say it cannot be done, therefore, are wrong.

I spoke about mental health in the debate earlier today on disabilities. Investment in mental health is crucial to the reduction of incidence of suicide because 80% to 85% of people who take their own lives are suffering at the time from some psychiatric illness, usually depression. An investment in that area would have a singular effect on the level of suicide. I do not wish to rehearse the debate of earlier this evening but it is vital to point this out.

The national task force reported in 1998 and made 86 recommendations. I was disappointed last year when a Minster, in reply to a question, told me a strategic committee was to be established to look at how this should be handled. In 1998, I was told that the national suicide review group would introduce strategies to reduce the level of suicides, based on the report of the national task force on suicide. Six years later, we are now told that a strategic committee is to be established. The strategy to reduce suicide is comprehensive implementation of the 86 recommendations of the 1998 report of the national task force on suicide.

Earlier this year we learned that 10,500 people attempted to take their lives last year. This is a frightening and worrying statistic. These were the people who presented at accident and emergency units. We do not have figures for those who did not present at accident and emergency units, who presented at general practitioners or who did not present at all. The true level of attempted suicide is not known. We must research why, in the past 40 years, suicide has increased from an average of 65 per year to an average of 450 per year. We do not know why. We need to know why there is such a crisis among our people, especially our young people, and why they feel so despondent that they take their own lives.

I ask the Minister of State not to give me the figures for what has been spent on suicide prevention over a number of years. We need to know when the annual average of 450 suicides will be significantly reduced, as happened in Finland, Hungary and Australia. If the Minister of State is planning to tell me that so much has been invested in suicide prevention since 1997 or 1990, I ask him to keep in mind the cost of electronic voting.

Mr. T. O’Malley

I thank Deputy Neville for raising this matter on the Adjournment. According to figures recently released by the Central Statistics Office there were 444 deaths from suicide in 2003. This is a decrease of seven on the 2002 figure of 451 and is lower than the average number of suicide deaths registered over the past five years. The average for the years 1999 to 2003 was 471. While I welcome this slight reduction in the number of deaths by suicide, I am fully committed to the further implementation of suicide prevention initiatives and the further development of our mental health services.

Suicide prevention is an issue with which we all must concern ourselves. Since the publication of the report of the national task force on suicide in 1998, there has been a positive and committed response from both the statutory and voluntary sectors towards finding ways of tackling the tragic problem of suicide. In response to the recommendations of the task force, the national suicide review group was established by the health boards and membership of the group includes experts in the areas of mental health, public health and research.

Health boards, in particular, have a major role to play in co-ordinating efforts to help reduce the level of suicide and parasuicide. In this regard, resource officers have been appointed in all the health boards with specific responsibility for implementing the task force's recommendations. The presence of a liaison psychiatric nurse in the accident and emergency departments of many general hospitals to deal with people who present following attempted suicide is also an important development. The provision of this service ensures that psychological problems in general hospital patients are dealt with promptly. This benefits the patient but also ensures a more efficient use of medical and surgical services.

Numerous regional initiatives are currently being run by the health boards in conjunction with non-statutory organisations which focus on mental health issues such as stress management, depression, stigma reduction and suicide related matters. These are issues of paramount importance which require further attention to ensure that positive mental health and the well-being of people is promoted.

My Department has, over the past few years, given special attention to the resourcing of suicide prevention initiatives. Since the publication of the report of the national task force on suicide in 1998, a cumulative total of more than €17 million has been provided towards suicide prevention programmes and for research.

Mr. Neville

I asked the Minister of State not to say this.

Mr. T. O’Malley

This includes funding to support the work of the national suicide review group, the Irish Association of Suicidology and the National Suicide Research Foundation for its work in the development of a national parasuicide register.

Significant additional funding has also been made available in recent years to further develop liaison psychiatry, child and adolescent psychiatry, adult psychiatry and old age psychiatry services to assist in the early identification of suicidal behaviour and to provide the necessary support and treatment to individuals at risk. In this regard, figures recently published by Comhairle na nOspidéal indicate that a total of 72 additional consultant psychiatric posts have been approved since 1998. My Department also allocates funding, through the national suicide review group, for voluntary and statutory groups engaged in suicide prevention initiatives, many of which are aimed at improving the mental health of the younger age groups. These projects include life-skills courses for high-risk youth, school-based personal development modules and mental health promotion campaigns. This year more than €3.8 million is available to voluntary organisations for their work in this area.

Work on the preparation of a national strategic action plan for suicide reduction is now well under way. This strategy is being developed by the Health Boards Executive and the national suicide review group, is supported by my Department. Since the beginning of this year more than 600 key stakeholders have attended regional consultation days which were organised to determine the priority areas to be addressed in the suicide prevention strategy. This strategy will be action-based from the outset as it will build on existing policy as outlined in the 1998 report of the national task force on suicide. All measures aimed at reducing the number of deaths by suicide will be considered in the context of the preparation of this action plan.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20 May 2004.