Vol. 601 No. 3
42 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he has sought to introduce a policy that only civil servants prepared to decentralise may avail of promotion opportunities; the implications of this policy on the career path of civil servants who wish to remain in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13650/05]
As I outlined in answers to similar questions on 3 March 2005, promotion and recruitment are key elements of the Government's decentralisation programme and I refer Deputies to my earlier reply which set out the general position on this matter.
In keeping with the recommendations of the decentralisation implementation group, recruitment and promotion practices and procedures must be revised. This is being carried out in accordance with the following four principles: decentralising Departments, offices and business units must be able to build up sufficient numbers of trained staff to work in the new locations with minimum disruption to service levels; staff opting to remain in Dublin must be redeployed as quickly and efficiently as possible; the morale of staff must be supported by maintaining appropriate promotional opportunities in Dublin; and the procedures adopted must allow departmental management to discharge the core business functions of the organisation and maintain service levels.
The key point is that where a promotion arises for a post which is being decentralised as part of the decentralisation programme, it is entirely reasonable for the employing Department to ask staff accepting that promotion to agree to move with the post. Changing promotion procedures in this way does not interfere with the voluntary nature of the decentralisation programme. The Government has made clear on a number of occasions that participation in the programme is voluntary and no one is being forced to decentralise.
Discussions are continuing between management and the Civil Service unions with the aim of agreeing new promotion and recruitment mechanisms to support implementation of the programme. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on these discussions.
The Government wants to reach a reasonable agreement on these issues with staff unions, namely, an agreement which supports the early and efficient implementation of the programme while at the same time taking account of the legitimate desires of staff remaining in Dublin to maintain appropriate opportunities for promotion.
I wish to probe the matter further. There are approximately 17 locations in the first phase the Minister published if one ignores those reverse commuting from Dublin. A tiny proportion of Dublin-based employees have opted to move in the majority of the 17 cases. With regard to the four State agencies, only 2%, 4% and 8% have applied. Less than a quarter of public servants based in Dublin are opting for positions. Is the Minister telling those based in Dublin that their opportunities for promotion are now entirely closed off because of the selection made? How does that tally with the concept of a voluntary programme? People can exercise their right not to move but their career path will grind to a halt if they do so.
I outlined the position in my first reply. We are committed to implementing the decentralisation programme but recognise the range of concerns among staff members affected by the programme, namely, those who have already chosen to spend their careers working in provincial locations, those who wish to do so in the future and those who wish to remain in Dublin. We are working to reach an agreement through negotiation in partnership with staff interests which seeks to strike a reasonable balance between these very genuine interests while ensuring the programme is moved forward and, most importantly, that there is no reduction in the high standards of service that the public have a right to expect from the Civil Service.
I am confident that it will be possible to reach agreement on the basis of reasonable compromise and that it will not be necessary to impose a solution. Imposed solutions, by their nature, are measures of last resort and rarely as effective as agreements reached on the basis of goodwill and fair compromise between parties. However, it would be an abdication of the Government's responsibility for us to rule out thinking of what might happen should the talks fail. Given the strong spirit of partnership and public service that has characterised Civil Service industrial relations, I am sure an agreed resolution will be found in the near future. I am confident that, on the basis of our present discussions, we can reach a solution that is acceptable to all.
Has the Minister indicated to his Cabinet colleagues and others that he will impose a solution and close off all promotional opportunities to Dublin-based staff? Has he indicated that he is considering such a threat? What will happen in situations where there is less than 25% take-up from Dublin-based staff? Will he consider imposing a solution? No one in these grades wants to move from Dublin to the selected locations so he will close off their careers and tell them they have no future career advancement. Is that what he is saying, and is it in accordance with natural justice and fair procedure?
That is not what I am saying and I have given two replies to the contrary.
The Minister has said that he will do this.
I have not. I said that imposed solutions, by their nature, are measures of last resort and are rarely as effective as agreements reached on the basis of goodwill and compromise.
He has published comments stating that he will impose solutions.
I am not responsible for what is printed in the media, which is where the Deputy gets his information. I am stating the facts. Discussions are ongoing and there is a good partnership relationship with Civil Service industrial relations. These discussions are continuing and I am confident we can reach a negotiated solution.
Therefore, the Minister is not saying that if one messes with him one will not win, unlike what his fellow Minister said.
I am here to answer questions about what I am doing. I am continuing discussions with the Civil Service unions and am confident we can find the basis of a resolution through negotiation. Anything the Deputy says to the contrary does not represent a factual position.
43 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance the situation in respect of PAYE and PRSI contributions for workers brought here from a non-European country for the purpose of employment in the construction industry; if there is a mutual taxation agreement between Ireland and Turkey; if he intends to review these arrangements in view of reports concerning a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13465/05]
Taxpayer confidentiality requires that a Minister for Finance does not answer a parliamentary question about the tax affairs of an individual or company, other than when the Deputy is asking the question on behalf of the individual or company. I regret I cannot comment on the tax affairs of any taxpayer.
However, by way of general comment, the Revenue Commissioners inform me that the question of whether the deduction of tax under the PAYE system applies to emoluments paid to workers brought to Ireland from a non-European country for the purpose of employment in the construction industry, or any industry, depends on the facts and circumstances prevailing in any specific case. For example, the emoluments payable to an individual working here under an Irish contract of employment are subject to deductions of tax at source under the PAYE system. Where the foreign employing company has a subsidiary company in Ireland, emoluments paid by that Irish subsidiary to individuals working here are also subject to deduction of tax under the PAYE system.
On the other hand, an employee working here under a foreign contract of employment and who is paid outside of Ireland by that foreign employer does not pay tax here under the PAYE system but rather is personally responsible for payment of Irish tax under the self-assessment system on his or her salary.
Individuals resident here who are not Irish domiciled can avail of a long standing statutory tax relief, more commonly known as the "remittance basis", against their foreign source income including employment income.
In brief, individuals resident here who may avail of the "remittance basis" relief pay tax here on the full amount of their Irish and UK source income and on that amount of their non-Irish and non-UK source income, including employment income, brought into the State.
Ireland normally includes a specific provision in its double taxation agreements dealing with the remittance basis of taxation in Ireland. It provides that where an individual is subject to tax in Ireland by reference to the amount of income or gain remitted rather than the full amount, any exemption or relief required to be granted in the other country under the double taxation agreement will apply only to the income or gains remitted to or received in Ireland. This is aimed at avoiding a situation where the income or gains are not taxed in either country. There is no double taxation agreement between Ireland and Turkey. However, negotiations are ongoing to conclude such a treaty but it is not possible at this stage to state when these negotiations will be finalised.
Issues relating to PRSI are a matter for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. However, my understanding is that exemption from payment of social insurance employment contributions, for a period not exceeding 52 weeks, can be granted in respect of the temporary employment of persons who are not ordinarily resident in the State. Such exemptions are subject to the employee in question having a valid work permit and confirmation by the employer that social insurance contributions are paid in the employee's home country. Employees granted exemptions have no entitlement to social insurance benefits in this country during the period of the exemption. Should an employee continue to work here after the period of the exemption, PRSI contributions are payable in the normal manner through the revenue system.
Is the Minister not concerned that of 1,900 exemptions issued since 2003 in respect of foreign workers in Ireland in the circumstances described by the Minister, 1,400 were issued to Gama, the Turkish construction company at the centre of controversy? Is the Minister not concerned that these 1,400 exemptions were issued on foot of permits and that they offer a complete exemption from PRSI, which represents approximately 20% of labour costs? They also offer a parallel exemption as outlined by the Minister in his reply from tax on a PAYE basis. This means that Gama is at an immediate labour cost advantage over other employers, including Irish companies, of at least 25%. Given the value of the public sector contracts availed of by this company, it has achieved an advantage of at least €5 million and perhaps up to €15 million. This is not only a scandal but also a scam and a fraud on the taxpayer.
Is the Minister not concerned that this is a back door way, presumably found by those clever accountants and lawyers employed by Gama, to undermine the PRSI system and, in parallel, the PAYE system? Were these arrangements originated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Were the Revenue Commissioners, who are responsible for collecting PRSI and PAYE tax from employers, aware of the special exemptions for this company? Will the Minister order the Revenue Commissioners to carry out as soon as possible an investigation into this undermining of the PRSI and PAYE structures? We have enough tax scams without the need to create more.
The remittance basis is one of the oldest reliefs found in tax law and obviously has a wider application than the specific case raised by the Deputy. Questions regarding employment law etc. are matters best directed to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment who can give a detailed reply and has already done so through the parliamentary question system since the matter first came into the public domain.
Regarding the views of the Revenue Commissioners and any lessons to be learnt from this case, obviously the Revenue Commissioners will examine the labour inspectorate report on the Gama employees working in the State. As soon as they consider the matter in the context of their own investigations, I am sure they will take whatever steps they deem necessary and advise me accordingly. As matters stand, we await that.
Will the Minister order an inquiry? I understand that neither the Department of Social and Family Affairs nor the Revenue Commissioners has been aware of the way in which this exemption from PRSI and PAYE tax has been operated for the benefit of this company. It gives a multi-million euro advantage to this company which is not enjoyed by Irish employers operating in the system and treating their workers decently. I want the Minister to undertake to have an inquiry carried out into what is essentially another part of the Gama scam in which its workers have been treated exceptionally badly by the employer. Not only has it been ripping off the workers, it has also been ripping us off as taxpayers.
The time allocated to this question has been exceeded. We must proceed to the next question.
It is getting public contracts at full prices and making a joke of the social protection and tax systems.
We must proceed to Question No. 44.
Is the Minister not concerned?
Obviously everybody is concerned at what they have learnt about this matter since the latest issues were brought to our attention earlier this year. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment responded immediately with the labour inspectorate report which is now the subject of High Court proceedings as the Deputy will be aware. As soon as the Revenue Commissioners have an opportunity to examine the matter, I am sure they will make whatever recommendations they feel are necessary and we can take the matter from there. Until that examination takes place and we have received that advice, I am not in a position to say or do anything more than state the present position and recognise that this is an ongoing matter.
44 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Finance if the practices of life insurance companies will be subjected to the same degree of investigation by the Revenue Commissioners as the policyholders who are being targeted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13468/05]
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the current focus of their investigation is into undisclosed taxable sums invested in life assurance products and, in the first phase, to encourage as many taxpayers as possible to avail of the voluntary disclosure scheme which was announced on 11 April 2005. Following the voluntary phase of the investigation, Revenue will take steps to identify those who do not come forward and will actively pursue those who have outstanding liabilities. While the focus of this disclosure scheme is on individual taxpayers, if any evidence emerges that suggests that life assurance companies had any role in encouraging tax evasion, the issue will be fully investigated.
Regarding what is referred to as "hot money", does the Minister agree that the life assurance companies should be targeted to a greater degree than the policyholders? Does he agree that the corporate executives who designed the insurance scams should be examined and made to answer to the Revenue? It was an industry-wide product which was not dreamt up by one company. The financial institutions believed they were above the law in trying to get people to hide money. Why should we pursue the policyholder? Is it not the service provider which should be pursued? The consumer and policyholder could be seen as a soft touch in that they are easy to identify. It is important to point out that the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 existed at the time and was not used by the Revenue to target the providers of such services.
Does the Minister agree that we are targeting the wrong people? The companies are in breach of regulation and we should pursue them. They colluded in this activity. Does the Minister agree that the State has a responsibility to ensure that natural justice applies in this case, which means going after the companies that designed these plans? Does the Minister agree that commission-based agents were tasked to trawl communities and target hot money?
In the Finance Act 2005 we widened the Revenue powers regarding aiding and abetting offences which seeks to deal with the situation the Deputy has outlined should there be a requirement to do so. Rather than the assertions made by the Deputy, should evidence be found to that effect, the Revenue Commissioners now have powers which they previously lacked to deal with those matters. The Government has proactively made decisions on the matter. The Revenue Commissioners advise me that authorised Revenue officers are empowered to make an application to a judge of the High Court seeking an order requiring insurance companies to supply names, addresses and other relevant information concerning policy holders who used life assurance products to hide funds that should have been disclosed for tax purposes. If the funds were related to taxable income that should have been disclosed, the individual taxpayer was responsible for the disclosure and it is an offence under our tax law not to disclose. It has come to Revenue's attention that there is sufficient de facto evidence to suggest that these products were used to evade tax. I also emphasise the need for people to avail of the voluntary disclosure scheme. This was introduced by Revenue to enable those who voluntarily disclose their position to avoid an imposition of penalties and interest in addition to whatever liability may be due. As I have already stated, the focus of the Revenue Commissioner’s investigation is on individuals who used insurance products to evade tax. There is no evidence that insurance companies engaged in tax evasion.
Does the Minister agree that when reputable companies put a product on sale, the ordinary consumer will think the product is all right? In most cases, a consumer will not think he or she is avoiding tax because his or her agent states that this is how the system works, this is how one invests money and if one wishes, this is how one avoids being caught. It sounds as though these companies will get off scot free, whereas the Revenue should have tackled them 20 years ago.
Hear, hear.
This matter has only come to Revenue's attention in recent times.
It has been happening for 20 years.
The Revenue Commissioners have very successfully dealt with some legacy issues going back many years encompassing a sum of almost €1.7 billion. This particular issue has now come to their attention. I again emphasise that individual taxpayers are personally responsible. If one has undisclosed taxable income, one is personally responsible for it. I have also pointed out that unlike previously, we have broadened the ambit of the Revenue Commissioners' powers to ensure that anyone who aided and abetted individuals to engage in tax evasion practices will be subject to prosecution.
In the past, the Revenue Commissioners found it difficult to prosecute because of the interpretation of their legal powers. As a result of enactments in this year's Finance Act, the Revenue Commissioners now have the necessary powers to follow up on these issues in a way that was not previously possible as far as both individuals and — should evidence emerge — the companies are concerned. I emphasise that at present, no such evidence is available to the Revenue Commissioners.
The Minister is asking the companies who devised the scam——
The Deputy should be very brief.
——to now sell those individuals back to the tax authorities. The Minister is targeting sitting ducks. He is asking companies who devised the scam——
One person's sitting duck is another person's tax evader.
The companies devised the scams.
The Deputy can have the answer, unless he wants to continue talking.
I would like to understand the answer.
The Minister is doing a great deal of talking.
Order, please.
The Revenue Commissioners advise me that in line with best practice elsewhere, they increasingly apply a risk focus to their operational activities. In this instance, their research indicates that the tax risk is largely related to the higher value policies. As a result, their initial focus is on investments which in aggregate exceed €20,000. The people who had small amounts to whom the Deputy referred will not be the focus of this investigation, at least in the first instance.
45 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his proposals for better budgetary procedures; and the proposed involvement of the Oireachtas in shaping these procedures. [13651/05]
I am currently examining proposals for change that could be implemented in the short and medium term. Any changes to current practices would need to meet best practice, improve both the quality of debate and the data available to the House on the budget, meet our obligations to the EU and be capable of being delivered within the existing budget timetable. I will discuss the possibilities for change with my colleagues in the Government shortly. Subsequently, I will bring proposals the House will then have an opportunity to discuss.
I am disappointed the Minister is reluctant to put his proposals on the record. It is amazing that only last week, when appearing before the Oireachtas Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service, the Taoiseach was prepared to discuss the issue quite openly. He indicated that sweeping changes were being brought forward. I am now amazed to hear the Minister state that the Cabinet has not even discussed them yet. It is strange that the Taoiseach has not discussed it with the Minister. The Taoiseach indicated that when the Estimates are published in mid-November, information on the activities relating to the various programmes will accompany them. Does the Minister agree? Will he confirm that that will be the case? Will there be information pertaining to key performance indicators? Will there be indicators relating to targets for any new spending? If new tax concessions are introduced, will information pertaining to ongoing costs be available, such as what they are expected to be? Will performance indicators also be attached to these Estimates? Can the Minister confirm that he will be required to stand over the expected expenditure for new programmes? I raise this point because we have seen some awful errors in the past. For example, the announcement regarding medical cards cost multiples of the then Minister's projections. I understand that it was five times the actual estimated cost. As far as the pre-1953 PRSI contributions are concerned, the multiple was something like 12 times the estimated costs the Minister of the day announced.
Will there be some way of making the Minister responsible to the House for such errors? Will the Minister elaborate on the consultation that will take place with the Houses regarding any proposed changes in terms of budgetary discussions and similar matters? Will he discuss all of his new plans with the House before they are introduced and implemented?
As things stand, these matters are part of the deliberative process. The Government must approve them before I can discuss them with anyone else. This is the reason I am not in a position to go into any great detail. The Government is considering a number of options. As I indicated on budget day, there is room for improvement to the process of budget policy formation. We need a constructive debate on the procedures in place and how these can be enhanced. I hope the House will discuss the issues in a useful and productive manner. In the past, the Government produced meaningful changes. For example, the capital envelopes facility my predecessor introduced in the budget of 2004 encourages a more structured planning approach and therefore greater value for money with regard to infrastructural projects. I welcome debate on changes to the budget process. However, it will be important to implement changes that strengthen the process rather than weaken it through lack of effective implementation. We must also take into account reforms to the Stability and Growth Pact, which have been agreed recently as the Deputy is aware.
I cannot go into great detail, but as I stated with genuine and sincere sentiment in the budget speech, I would like to see more effective participation by the Oireachtas regarding the available documentation and how we might go about proceeding, rather than Members feeling that the process is done and dusted before they get up to speak about it. I have heard some resonances from the Fine Gael document. The Deputy will forgive me if, not being a member of his party, I do not accept every single dot and comma of his colleagues' proposals. They are a good contribution to the debate and I am sure when I bring forward some ideas, they can be discussed. I would like to see a productive and constructive debate rather than just a points-scoring exercise.
If the Minister is anxious to send in an application form to join the party, we will consider it in due course. We might find a vacancy for him at some stage.
I must protest in the strongest possible terms. This is an outrageous slander on my character.
The Minister should send in the form in triplicate. Can he give an indication on a time frame as to when he might bring these proposals forward? Is it likely that we will be able to have a discussion in committee or is it likely to be in the House? Will it require additional legislation to implement? Does the Minister consider it strange that the Taoiseach appeared able to openly discuss this at the Oireachtas Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service while the Minister is so reluctant to release any of the gems contained in his plans?
During his career, Deputy Paul McGrath may discover that there are certain privileges and discretions which a Taoiseach enjoys but which a Minister does not.
My proposals simply aim to improve, in practical terms, participation in or contributions to the budgetary process by other Members. No Minister for Finance would transfer control of the budgetary process to an Opposition, even one that would claim to be as enlightened as the current Opposition. There will be some practical ideas that we can take forward in the medium term with a view to introducing more long-term reforms following more detailed consideration. A debate should take place and I would like it to be more productive because no Member is in permanent control of his or her seat at any given time.
46 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance his views on the recent report from the Revenue Commissioners on the effective tax rates of the top 400 earners for the tax year 2001; his further views on whether it is appropriate that such high earners should be able to minimise and in some cases eliminate tax liability; the steps he is taking to address this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13466/05]
The recent Revenue Commissioners' report on the effective tax rates of the top 400 earners, which covers the short tax year 2001, indicates that between the years 1999-2000 and 2001, the number of high earning taxpayers with an effective tax rate of less than 15% decreased by 3.75%, while those with an effective tax rate between 15% and 29% increased by 3.25%.
This upward movement in effective rates indicates that measures such as the capping of capital allowances available to passive investors continued to take hold. The increase in effective rates took place despite the 4% reduction in the standard and top income tax rates, from 24% to 20% and from 46% to 42%, respectively, during that period.
Despite the increase in the effective tax rate for many high earners, some continued to reduce their tax bill to zero. This, however, is not a new phenomenon as all of the previous tax years examined by the Revenue Commissioners, starting with the tax year 1993-94, indicated that a number of individuals had recorded a zero rate.
As the Deputy will be aware, in budget 2005, I announced that my Department, in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners, would this year undertake a detailed review of certain tax incentive schemes and tax exemptions. This review is under way and the information contained in the latest report of the Revenue Commissioners will provide a valuable input to that important policy review. Until the review is complete and I have considered the matter, I do not propose to make any comment on what steps I may take in this area.
Is the Minister aware that the study highlights the fact that the top 115 earners each received an average of €500,000 in tax breaks per year? I am not sure if the Minister gambles but that figure is equivalent to a small national lottery win — guaranteed and risk-free, if one uses certain tax breaks. The statistics show that 29 of the country's top 400 earners in the country paid no tax. The Minister will recall stating in a previous reply that 41 people, single and married, with incomes of over €500,000 per year paid no tax.
When will the free ride for these people end? Does the Minister propose to merely postpone taking action? The Taoiseach, in particular, and the Tanáiste have both stated that they find it morally unacceptable — they may also find it economically unacceptable — that certain individuals who earn extraordinary amounts of money can avoid paying tax. Most of the people to whom I refer avoid paying tax by availing of the property-based tax breaks introduced by the Minister's predecessor.
Why, in respect of the study, did the Minister propose to abolish the provision of information regarding individuals who do not pay tax in the future? The response of the Government to the embarrassment caused by those on high incomes who pay no tax is to quarantine the information. The study proposes a new methodology where there will be no class of people recorded as paying zero tax. The information in the future will refer only to those paying under 5%. If these people pay DIRT, it will qualify them as paying tax.
I am a chartered accountant by profession and if I was advising any of these lucky lotto winners, I would suggest that they invest €1,000 or €10,000 in their favourite local bank, pay a small amount in DIRT and thereby remove themselves from the category of those who do not pay tax. Why is the Minister proposing to block the release of the information in question when, as he stated in his reply, he is deferring taking any action in respect of eliminating the scandalous situation involving very wealthy people who, mainly because they benefit from the property-based tax breaks introduced by the Minister's predecessor, do not pay tax?
I am never surprised by Deputy Burton's ability to concoct a conspiracy where none exists. I had no say regarding the methodology used in respect of this study. It was the sole preserve of the Revenue Commissioners, who are independent. Deputy Burton should desist from imputing a dishonourable motive on my part because it detracts from her argument.
Regarding the issue of deposit interest retention tax raised by Deputy Burton, the Revenue Commissioners have advised me, in respect of their recent report on effective tax rates of high earners, that for the small number of taxpayers whose income consists of very large sums of deposit interest, the amount of DIRT deducted means that their effective rate of income tax paid was very close to the 20% standard rate at which DIRT is deducted from deposit interest. This is because DIRT deducted at the standard rate is a final tax. The taxpayer has no further liability to income tax on the deposit interest concerned. Like similar taxes, deposit interest retention tax is a form of income tax. As far as the Revenue Commissioners are concerned it is, therefore, appropriate to include it in such studies on tax paid by those on high incomes. The fact that this was not done in the past was an oversight which is now being corrected.
The idea that the change in methodology will not show the numbers of people with a 0% effective rate of tax is not correct. Essentially, the change being made is about accuracy of information and ensuring that taxpayers are correctly categorised into the different bands of effective rates. Future studies will show high earners who have a 0% effective rate of tax.
The recent study makes it clear that, with regard to the proposed new methodology for future studies, "individuals paying some tax, although amounting to an effective rate of 1%, will be excluded from the 0% range and included in the less than 5% range". To facilitate comparisons, tables 3A, 3B and 4 in annex 1 recast tables 1A, 1B and 2, respectively, to show the numbers and percentages on the basis of the methodology that will be used in future. Table 4 in annex 1 of the study shows that the number of high earners with a 0% rate effective rate, if any, will be identified in future studies as they have been in this most recent study. In future, those who pay no tax at all will be in the 0% category, those paying some tax but less than 5% will be included in the greater than 0% and less than 5% category.
Regarding other aspects of Deputy Burton's question, we are talking about the use of tax incentives and reliefs introduced by successive Governments for the purpose of economic and social development. We need to achieve a balance in the budget between incentivising economic and social development and ensuring that everyone pays his or her fair share. This was not done during the tenure of the rainbow coalition. This Government has closed down a range of schemes introduced by the rainbow coalition.
The measures and schemes to which I refer include: the designated seaside resort scheme, which was introduced in 1995 — I wonder who was Minister for Finance at that stage; the Customs House docks area scheme introduced in 1985 — I do not believe there was a Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance then; the designated islands scheme introduced in 1996 — I believe a Labour Minister for Finance was in office at that time; a double rent relief element in respect of the various tax designated area schemes introduced under the original urban renewal scheme of 1985; and foreign earnings income tax relief, which was introduced in 1994. I cite these examples in respect of bringing a measure of balance and accuracy to the debate.
I have a supplementary question.
We have exceeded the time limit for this question. Deputy Burton must be brief.
Is the Minister willing to review the recommendation whereby the giving of the information regarding 0% taxpayers will effectively be abolished? He acknowledged this in his answer but he did not answer my question.
I have explained the situation regarding the Revenue Commissioners. The reasons for doing so were correcting oversights in the past and ensuring accuracy of information. Those who pay no tax will be in the 0% category.
The Minister is closing down information.
If the Deputy wishes to suggest any impropriety, she should refer it to the Revenue Commissioners and not to me.
