Vol. 737 No. 3
33 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Finance if he will detail the number of companies operating here who pay less than the 12.5% rate of corporation tax; if he will provide this number as a percentage of the total number of companies currently operating here; and the reason these companies pay less than the 12.5% rate of corporation tax. [18606/11]
55 Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Finance the percentage of companies currently operating here who pay the 12.5% rate of corporation tax. [18605/11]
78 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons currently employed in those companies that pay the full 12.5% rate of corporation tax. [18607/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 33, 55 and 78 together.
I wish to advise the Deputies that companies operating in Ireland are chargeable to corporation tax at the 12.5% rate on their trading profits. A higher 25% rate applies in respect of investment, rental and other non-trading profits and chargeable capital gains. This rate also applies in respect of certain petroleum, mining or land dealing activities. The 10% corporation tax rate for profits from manufacturing expired at the end of 2010 and the 12.5% rate now applies to such profits. Accordingly, all companies operating here pay corporation tax at the 12.5% rate or at the higher 25% rate on their taxable profits. Irish resident companies pay corporation tax on their worldwide profits subject to relief for foreign tax paid on profits earned abroad. Non-resident companies trading in Ireland through a branch or agency pay corporation tax on the profits of their Irish branch.
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that, for the year 2009, which is the most recent year for which information on corporation tax returns is available, approximately 47,000 companies with taxable income filed returns for accounting periods ending in that year. Of these, approximately 28,000 companies, or 60%, paid corporation tax at the 12.5% rate. The remaining companies either paid tax at the 10% manufacturing rate, now expired, or at the 25% rate.
In regard to employment, the Revenue Commissioners do not have an estimate of the number of persons currently employed by companies chargeable to tax at the 12.5% rate of corporation tax but, based on P35 returns filed by employers for 2010, the estimated number of employments in all companies on Revenue records for that year was 1,590,367. I should emphasise that this number relates to employments, not individuals, and reflects the reality that many employees have more than one employment. Employees with more than one employment are therefore counted more than once in the figures provided.
How many of the companies subject to the 12.5% rate pay a lower effective tax rate as a result of various measures allowing them to write down their tax liabilities? Does the Minister have numbers or percentage figures in respect of companies that have not paid tax as a result of these initiatives?
I do not have the figures sought by the Deputy to hand but, in overall terms, there has been a debate on who pays what rate of corporation tax across the European Union. If one takes the effective rate rather than the nominal rate, Ireland is positioned in the lower segment of mid-table. Our effective rate is 11.9% whereas our nominal rate is 12.5%. The two rates are very close because most of the allowances have been removed over the years. France, for example, levies a variety of rates. The rate that applies to SMEs is approximately 32% whereas the rate is much lower for the top 40 French companies in general terms. This has been a matter of contention in France for a long time. While one needs to compare like with like, if one combines all the rates that apply in France, its effective rate stands at 8.1% even though it is making considerable noise about our effective rate of 11.9%. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we are mid-table in Europe and are not at the bottom of the table by any means.
I was surprised to hear the Minister state that the effective rate is 11.9%. Perhaps he can clarify the source of the figure because other figures were outlined in the Private Members' debate on this issue which indicated that the effective rate was approximately 10%. Can he confirm whether the fleets of company cars which are given to highly paid executives in highly profitable companies continue to be written down for tax purposes so that companies can sidestep some of their corporation tax liabilities? Given the sacrifices being made by ordinary workers and vulnerable people dependent on our public services, is it fair that profitable companies which make hundreds of millions of euro per year pay a lower proportion of tax on their earnings than the workers who clean the floors of their buildings? How can the Minister morally justify that in the current circumstances?
As corporation tax is a tax on company profits, obviously costs are taken out before one calculates the base on which the 12.5% rate is applied.
Should swanky company cars be taken out?
If it is a cost, it is a cost. It is a tax on profits. That is straightforward. The source is a survey carried out by one of the international accountancy firms. I do not have further information to hand but I will get it for the Deputy. The survey investigated nominal rates and effective rates throughout the European Union and we circulated the results widely through the diplomatic service to ensure the debate is conducted on the real figures. This is one of the reasons the European Commission, the IMF, the OECD and 25 of the 27 member states either support us or are silent. The quid pro quo of changes to our corporation tax rate in return for a reduction on our interest rate is now an issue that only France is pursuing.
While I agree with the Minister on comparisons between the French rate or even the European average and Ireland's effective rate, I would like to know the number of profitable companies which pay a low effective tax rate as a result of being able to write off their taxes against the various initiatives introduced in successive budgets. Can an argument be made for a minimum effective tax rate for profitable companies so that they can only avail of these schemes to a certain extent? That is the line of questioning I wish to pursue but I do not know if the Minister has the relevant figures to hand. Clearly, if our effective tax rate is lower than the nominal rate, certain companies are paying smaller amounts and I would like to know the rationale for this. Is it on the basis of being able to avail of different schemes, as was the case for high earners until a minimum tax rate was introduced in respect of them? This is the type of information I seek.
More than 28,000 companies pay tax at the 12.5% rate but the Deputy wants to know how many pay smaller amounts. I do not have the precise figures to hand and I do not think anybody does. In general terms, there are few allowances but the tax is levied on profits. Obviously companies can deduct costs before the tax break arises. The one break of which I am aware was introduced in the Finance Bill 2004 and allows write-offs for research and development. This has proved attractive to companies setting up here.
The normal course for a company is that it incurs significant costs when it initially sets up operation here and, as such, pays little tax over the first several years while it offsets these costs. Once it is established it comes up to the 11.9% rate, which is the standard rate paid, as against the nominal rate of 12.5%.
Deputy Doherty touched on an interesting line of questioning. If the Minister is correct about the effective rate, which he undoubtedly is given that he cited the figures he was given, what is the reaction of his counterparts in France when he tells them we in Ireland regard it as rank hypocrisy that they are demanding a reduction in our rate? Their rate is lower than most others in Europe, including ours. Will he tell them we will listen to what they say but will do what they do by reducing our tax rate to the same effective rate as applies in France? That should keep them happy.
We have shared this information through our diplomatic system. The initial reaction of colleagues in Europe was surprise but they all accept it now. We got the information published in the leading French newspapers, including Les Echos, which is the French equivalent of the Financial Times, and I think it was also published in Le Monde. There has been a change in the French position. It is no longer seeking an increase in our 12.5% rate and has moved the argument on to the tax base. The information has gone through, therefore, and it has had an effect.
Would the Minister consider reducing our corporation tax to the same effective rate as in France? That would be fair.
The Minister opened up my supplementary question on the related issue of the base, changes to which could result in corporate profits currently taxed here being taxed in another European jurisdiction. What is the current position on these discussions?
During the recent summit of the European Council, there were suggestions that the issue of the base was now the quid pro quo for a reduction in the interest rate on the bailout. Can the Minister confirm if the discussions between our officials and European officials is focused on that issue?
Discussions are focused on the possibility of getting an interest rate reduction. An argument about the rates has moved on to the base for quite some time now. The base is described along with the CCCTB, and the Commission has done a paper on it, which will eventually come before the Council of Ministers. It is before some technical committee at the moment which is making adjustments to it. There are 27 countries in the Union and all 27 of them have expressed unhappiness, to one degree or another, about the CCCTB paper. France has a view about the base which its officials are pushing, and we do not agree with that view, so we are not doing business there either.
34 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Finance the steps he will take to address the summer flooding in the Shannon Callows; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18433/11]
In my reply to a similar question in March, I stated the consideration of flooding matters in the River Shannon catchment falls within the national programme of catchment flood risk assessment and management studies, or CFRAM studies, being commissioned nationally throughout 2011. The Office of Public Works appointed engineering consultants, Jacobs International, in Dec 2010 to undertake the Shannon CFRAM study. This work will identify and examine in detail the causes of flooding throughout the Shannon catchment and produce an integrated plan of specific measures to address the significant flood risk factors in a proactive and comprehensive way. Its output will be a flood risk management plan for the Shannon catchment, taking into account economic, social and environmental factors.
Considerable progress has been made in progressing the study, which will continue to 2015 and will meet the requirements of the EU floods directive. A number of meetings of both the CFRAM advisory and progress groups, which includes representatives of the principal stakeholders, have taken place and the study programme remains firmly on track.
The incidence of summer flooding of the Shannon Callows between Portumna and Athlone is an important part of the CFRAM study for the Shannon catchment. It is important to stress that the long-term resolution of significant areas of flooding risk in the Shannon catchment, and indeed on all national river catchments, must derive from the extensive range of CFRAM studies now being undertaken.
In the context of the delivery of the first principal reporting stage of this study, which is the preliminary flood risk assessment, a public consultation will take place in the late summer in the local authority areas contiguous to the River Shannon catchment, as well as nationally for all other catchments. In parallel with this public consultation, I have engaged extensively in a series of meetings with local delegations and the Irish Farmers Association in Athlone, Longford and east Galway.
Since my appointment as Minister of State, in addition to the observations and dialogue I have already heard during my recent sequence of meetings along the Shannon, I am arranging for a stakeholder consultation forum at the end of this month. This will include the main stakeholder groups in the Shannon catchment and will provide a more structured opportunity for those groups to set out their concerns. This stakeholder consultation forms an integral part of the CFRAM process.
In the interim, a number of minor flood mitigation works have been funded by the OPW through the relevant local authority in Ballinasloe, Athlone and Carrick on Shannon, totalling €2.4 million in 2010 and 201. This is a very considerable investment in this region to provide enhanced flood protection.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Operational control of water flows on the Shannon is essentially a matter for both Waterways Ireland and the ESB. The OPW maintains regular consultation with Waterways Ireland and the ESB to ensure water management protocols for the major storage areas in the Shannon system are kept under review.
Some maintenance works on the Shannon channel are subject to agreement with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Approval for the application to carry out these minor maintenance works has been the subject of discussions between the OPW and the NPWS. In this regard, I also had a meeting at the end of May with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and a number of Shannon-based Deputies. The issue of licence approvals was discussed at that meeting and I am pleased to note assurances from the NPWS that the first of these approvals will be given this month. A meeting to resolve the outstanding issues on the remaining application will take place this week between my office and the NPWS. Subject to these approvals, it is intended that these maintenance works will be scheduled for autumn 2011.
35 Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide a list of the funds provided by him for all buildings currently rented or leased by the State that are subject to upward only rent reviews indicating which of those buildings have been subject to rent increases in the past three years; and the amounts of any such increases. [18590/11]
Prior to March 2010, when legislation addressed the issue, virtually all commercial office leases in the market with a lease term longer than five years contained the provision for an upward only rent review. This stipulated that on review, the rent could not be lower than the current passing rent or the initial rent. In general, these lease rent review provisions typically provided for rent to be determined every five years and the rent review provisions usually stipulated that the reviewed rent could not be lower than the rent payable prior to review.
The Office of Public Works has 462 leases, of which 160, with a total rental yearly value of €58,080,640, attract the upward only rent review clause. The following table schedules these leases with county, location, building and rent per annum. Seven leases had a rent increase since 2008 and the total increase was €206,882. The details are set out in the following table.
|
COUNTY |
LOCATION |
BUILDING NAME |
CURRENT RENT PA |
PREVIOUS RENT PA |
RENT PLUS |
|
GALWAY |
GALWAY |
Galway DAF Dockgate [Following Arbitration] |
922,250 |
744,826 |
177,424 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 11 |
Finglas Finance Storage |
72,500 |
61,677 |
10,823 |
|
SLIGO |
SLIGO |
Sligo Gov Off-Westward Town Cntr |
42,260 |
33,750 |
8,510 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Abbey Street Upper 26 — 30 |
672,176 |
667,133 |
5,042 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 10 |
Ballyfermot Prob & Wel Service |
39,500 |
36,822 |
2,678 |
|
WICKLOW |
DUNLAVIN |
Dunlavin GS + MQ |
10,500 |
8,888 |
1,612 |
|
LAOIS |
PORTLAOISE |
Portlaoise DAF Appeals Office |
84,051 |
83,259 |
792 |
As can be seen, virtually all this increase related to one property, which is Dockgate in Galway. The OPW resisted the rent increase that was being sought and referred the review to a formal independent arbitration. The arbitrator, whose decision is binding, awarded an increase of 24% in the rent payable to the landlord.
|
COUNTY |
LOCATION |
BUILDING |
RENT PA |
|
CARLOW |
CARLOW |
Carlow Temp Decent Off (D/ETE) |
369,436 |
|
CLARE |
CRUSHEEN |
Crusheen GS + MQ |
25,000 |
|
CLARE |
KILRUSH |
Kilrush Decentral.Revenue Off. |
85,050 |
|
CORK |
BANTRY |
Bantry SWO — 7 Main Strret |
24,000 |
|
CORK |
BLARNEY |
Blarney GS |
26,750 |
|
CORK |
CARRIGALINE |
Carrigaline DSFA Office |
103,940 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork C&E Centre Park House |
48,000 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork C&E Centre Park House |
43,940 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork C&E Centre Park House |
110,000 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork Environment Office |
76,774 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork Gov Off Doughcloyne |
42,158 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork Gov Off Irish Life Bldg |
61,448 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork Gov Off Irish Life Bldg |
69,915 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork Marine Office |
53,320 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork Marine Office |
58,500 |
|
CORK |
CORK |
Cork SWO — ESB Premises |
120,000 |
|
CORK |
FERMOY |
Fermoy SWO — Connolly Street |
15,300 |
|
DONEGAL |
BALLYSHANNON |
Ballyshannon Maritime Office |
25,000 |
|
DONEGAL |
DONEGAL |
Donegal D.T.C. |
23,260 |
|
DONEGAL |
LETTERKENNY |
Letterkenny Driving Test Centre |
15,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
BALBRIGGAN |
Balbriggan Passport Office |
553,670 |
|
DUBLIN |
CABINTEELY |
Cabinteely GS |
34,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Abbey Street Upper 26 — 30 |
672,176 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Abbey Street Upper 26 — 30 |
1,206,097 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Abbey Street Upper 26 — 30 |
994,570 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Abbey Street Upper 26 — 30 |
211,542 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Arran Quay (Arran Court) |
165,337 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Capel Street 89 -94 |
689,322 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Gardiner Street Upper 77 |
201,190 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Great Strand St Millennium Hse |
265,675 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Irish Life Centre Block 2 |
1,335,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Irish Life Centre Block 5/7 |
1,110,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Irish Life Centre Block D E & F |
900,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Kings Inn House SWO |
558,200 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Kings Inn House SWO |
208,275 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 01 |
Parnell Sq 16 |
1,493,645 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Adelaide Road 29-31 |
2,970,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Bishops Square |
1,120,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Bishops Square |
1,495,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Bishops Square |
1,525,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Clare Street 12 |
112,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Clonmel Street [Clonmel Place] |
804,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Earlsfort Terrace Earl Ctr Blk |
195,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
East Essex Street Dolphin House |
655,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Ely Place 7-8 Ely Court |
711,323 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Harcourt Road Dun Sceine |
850,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Harcourt Sq Garda Block 1 |
1,300,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Harcourt Sq Garda Block 2 |
1,832,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Harcourt Sq Garda Block 3 |
1,278,800 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Harcourt Sq Garda Block 4 |
417,250 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Harcourt St Harcourt Cntre Blk 2 |
228,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Holles Street Holbrook House |
174,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Leeson Street Lower Ossory House |
900,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Lombard St East 8 — 11 Joyce Hse |
560,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Merrion Row 2 — 4 |
472,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Molesworth Bldg Setanta Cntre |
114,388 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Molesworth Bldg Setanta Cntre |
2,267,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Mount St Lr 73-79 Ballaugh House |
933,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Mount St Upr 36 |
200,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Nassau Building Setanta Centre |
469,680 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Revenue Castleview Georges st |
1,827,522 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
St Stephens Gr 94 |
612,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
St Stephens Gr 94 |
408,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Tara Street Apollo House |
453,120 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 02 |
Tara Street Apollo House |
560,750 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 04 |
Shelbourne Rd 21Shelbourne Hse |
1,018,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 04 |
Waterloo Road St Martins House |
570,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 05 |
Raheny DTC |
60,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 06 |
Canal Road (Canal House) |
370,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Bow Street Gov Office |
450,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Navan Road Ashtowngate Block B |
254,401 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
North Circular Road Park House |
92,778 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Nth King St 90 Georges Court |
1,353,509 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Nth King St 90 Georges Court |
655,940 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Ormond Quay Ormond House |
282,750 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Richmond Hospital Courts |
525,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Richmond Hospital Courts |
31,743 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 07 |
Smithfield Off of Film Class |
255,955 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 08 |
Conyngham Road Phoenix House |
365,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 08 |
Garden Lane Prob/Welfare Off |
55,980 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 08 |
Mountshannon Rd Fur Br Off Block |
460,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 08 |
The Chancery Building |
543,880 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 09 |
Airways Industrial Estate |
290,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 10 |
Ballyfermot Prob & Wel Service |
39,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 11 |
Finglas Driv Test Ctr+Rev Store |
45,520 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 11 |
Finglas Finance Storage |
72,500 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 11 |
Finglas Prob&Welfare Service |
66,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 11 |
Jamestown Business Park Unit 38 |
231,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 11 |
Finglas Driving Test Yard |
120,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 12 |
Park West Business Park Block 43 |
212,586 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 12 |
Park West Ind Est Unit 4 |
180,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 15 |
Blanchardstown Gov Off |
638,678 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 18 |
Sandyford Furze Road |
255,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 22 |
Clondalkin SWO Ninth Lock Rd |
215,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 24 |
Tallaght PIAB |
188,554 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUBLIN 24 |
Tallaght Gda Vehicle Pound |
1,000,000 |
|
DUBLIN |
DUN LAOGHAIRE |
Dun Laoghaire Prob&Welfare Serv |
85,999 |
|
DUBLIN |
MALAHIDE |
Malahide SWO |
15,872 |
|
DUBLIN |
SWORDS |
Swords Agricultural Inspectors |
8,253 |
|
DUBLIN |
SWORDS |
Swords Business Campus Unit 4 |
634,853 |
|
DUBLIN |
SWORDS |
Swords Business Campus Unit 5/6A |
231,444 |
|
DUBLIN |
SWORDS |
Swords Business Campus Unit 5/6C |
173,227 |
|
DUBLIN |
SWORDS |
Swords Business Campus Unit 5/6D |
181,491 |
|
GALWAY |
GALWAY |
Galway DAF Dockgate |
922,250 |
|
GALWAY |
GALWAY |
Galway Gov Off Hynes Building |
222,425 |
|
GALWAY |
GALWAY |
Galway Irish Water Safety |
41,722 |
|
GALWAY |
GALWAY |
Galway Liosbaun Garda Unit 1B |
25,988 |
|
GALWAY |
GALWAY |
Galway Prob & Wel Serv |
31,144 |
|
GALWAY |
GALWAY |
Galway Prob & Wel Serv |
42,335 |
|
GALWAY |
LOUGHREA |
Galway Millenium House |
19,408 |
|
GALWAY |
LOUGHREA |
Loughrea Trans & RSA Temp Off |
31,225 |
|
GALWAY |
LOUGHREA |
Loughrea Trans & RSA Temp Off |
56,188 |
|
GALWAY |
LOUGHREA |
Loughrea Trans & RSA Temp Off |
51,838 |
|
KERRY |
KILLARNEY |
Killarney D.T.C. |
40,000 |
|
KERRY |
LISTOWEL |
Listowel Revenue Office |
244,924 |
|
KERRY |
TRALEE |
Tralee Agric Warehouse |
18,325 |
|
KILDARE |
NAAS |
Naas Agric Off — Poplar House |
95,696 |
|
KILDARE |
NAAS |
Naas SWO — Rathasker Square |
23,000 |
|
KILDARE |
NAAS |
Willow Hse Millennium Pk Block 6 |
119,163 |
|
LAOIS |
PORTARLINGTON |
Portarlington Decentral Office |
73,500 |
|
LAOIS |
PORTLAOISE |
Portlaoise Agri Records |
98,133 |
|
LAOIS |
PORTLAOISE |
Portlaoise Agric Warehouse |
107,919 |
|
LAOIS |
PORTLAOISE |
Portlaoise DAF Appeals Office |
84,051 |
|
LEITRIM |
CARRICK ON SHANNON |
Carrick-on-Shannon Dcnt SWO |
800,000 |
|
LIMERICK |
LIMERICK |
Limerick Decent Off DFA |
900,000 |
|
LIMERICK |
LIMERICK |
Limerick Gov Off Houston Hall |
373,568 |
|
LIMERICK |
NEWCASTLEWEST |
Newcastlewest Prob/Wel Office |
39,613 |
|
LOUTH |
DROGHEDA |
Drogheda Prob & Wel Serv |
66,000 |
|
LOUTH |
DROGHEDA |
Drogheda SWO Singleton House |
70,533 |
|
MAYO |
BALLINA |
Ballina Road Safety HQ Unit 3 |
121,250 |
|
MAYO |
BALLINA |
Ballina Road Safety HQ Unit 4 |
121,938 |
|
MAYO |
CASTLEBAR |
Castlebar Prob/Welfare Service |
38,260 |
|
MAYO |
SWINFORD |
Swinford DSFA Office |
18,840 |
|
MEATH |
NAVAN |
Navan Athlumney House |
439,921 |
|
MEATH |
NAVAN |
Navan Gov Off Kilcairn |
573,700 |
|
MEATH |
NAVAN |
Navan Revenue Abbey Mall |
575,360 |
|
MEATH |
NAVAN |
Navan SWO |
230,000 |
|
MONAGHAN |
MONAGHAN |
Monaghan Drainage Workshops |
32,500 |
|
OFFALY |
TULLAMORE |
Tullamore SWO Castle Buildings |
204,045 |
|
SLIGO |
SLIGO |
Lough Arrow Field Study Centre |
33,430 |
|
SLIGO |
SLIGO |
Marino House |
57,642 |
|
SLIGO |
SLIGO |
Marino House |
57,640 |
|
SLIGO |
SLIGO |
Sligo Customs and Excise Store |
24,000 |
|
SLIGO |
SLIGO |
Sligo Gov Off-Westward Town Cntr |
42,260 |
|
SLIGO |
SLIGO |
Sligo Gov Off-Westward Town Cntr |
53,250 |
|
TIPPERARY |
BORRISOKANE |
Borrisokane GS |
14,000 |
|
TIPPERARY |
NENAGH |
Nenagh Justice Office |
36,270 |
|
TIPPERARY |
ROSCREA |
Roscrea Civil Defence Office |
178,825 |
|
TIPPERARY |
ROSCREA |
Roscrea Civil Defence Office |
25,000 |
|
TIPPERARY |
TIPPERARY |
Tipperary Temp Decent Off |
103,958 |
|
WATERFORD |
WATERFORD |
Waterford Agri Belview |
13,220 |
|
WATERFORD |
WATERFORD |
Waterford RSA Test Centre |
40,000 |
|
WATERFORD |
WATERFORD |
Waterford RSA Test Centre |
156,000 |
|
WEXFORD |
ENNISCORTHY |
Enniscorthy SWO Portsmouth Hse |
25,000 |
|
WEXFORD |
ROSSLARE HARBOUR |
Rosslare Harbour Government Off |
79,206 |
|
WEXFORD |
ROSSLARE HARBOUR |
Rosslare Harbour Government Off |
10,860 |
|
WICKLOW |
ARKLOW |
Arklow Prob & Welfare Serv |
19,046 |
|
WICKLOW |
BRAY |
Block D Bray Civic Centre |
471,541 |
|
WICKLOW |
DUNLAVIN |
Dunlavin GS + MQ |
10,500 |
I am surprised that Question No. 70 has not been taken with this. The Department has obviously appealed the decision on the upward only rent review, or sought an independent arbitration. Does the Minister of State believe it is fair that other Departments in the Government are operating such rent reviews? The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operates an upward only rent review at a premises in Killybegs, and this is putting businesses there under severe pressure, and possibly out of business.
In respect of the Government's commitment to legislate to end the practice of upward only rent reviews, what is the Minister of State's view on the DKM report, which has shown that a substantial loss would be borne by the State, via the banks and NAMA? Has there been any contact with NAMA officials about legislating to end this practice?
The Deputy is aware of the commitments in the programme for Government in this area, which are being dealt with by the Minister for Justice and Equality. He is working with the Government on the legislation under consideration and will make a statement in due course.
As the principal body responsible for leasing State property, the issue is about getting value for money. The total sum paid out by the Department in 2009 was €149 million. For 2011, we estimate that the sum will be €117 million, so it is coming down. I must admit I would like to see it come down sooner, as it is important to get better value for money when we are running a deficit reduction programme. The OPW is proactive in ensuring we get rent reviews and in ensuring the breaks which were part of the original negotiations are set out.
Has the Government got legal advice to the effect that it is possible to remove this clause from existing leases? Has any assessment been done of the overall net impact to the State of removing the clause? While it would be very beneficial for tenants and retailers, there is also an impact on property values, financial institutions and NAMA.
That is primarily an issue for the Minister for Justice and Equality, as he is responsible for the legislation. He is having consultations across the Government on the issue. The key issue is the long-term impact it will have on the State. We all want to reduce leases and the amount we are spending on them. There are many cases where one arm of the State is renting from another arm of the State. This is principally an issue for the Minister for Justice and Equality to determine, following Government support and approval. I presume he will be in a position in the not too distant future to make a statement on that.
36 Deputy Seamus Kirk asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline the progress made on the commitment in the programme for Government to tightly regulate moneylenders. [15365/11]
There is already a comprehensive licensing system in place for moneylenders. Moneylenders have to apply to the Central Bank annually to have their licences renewed. Section 93 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995, as amended, sets out the Central Bank's powers in regard to the grant or refusal of a moneylender's licence. The appropriate moneylending application form — new or renewal — must be completed and returned to the Central Bank with a number of items for review and consideration.
In addition to the licensing system, the Central Bank has in place a consumer protection code for licensed moneylenders. The Central Bank has power to impose sanctions on moneylenders for a contravention of the code. The code sets out general principles with which a moneylender must comply. For example, a moneylender must act honestly and professionally with due skill, care and diligence in the best interest of consumers. The code also places requirements on moneylenders in regard to the provision of information to the consumer, preservation of a consumer's rights, knowing the consumer, suitability, unsolicited contact or cold calling, disclosure, errors, handling complaints, consumer records, unsolicited credit facilities, arrears and guarantees, debt collection and the contents and presentation of advertisements.
On 18 February 2011, the Central Bank published the results of a themed inspection of licensed moneylenders. The inspection showed a high level of compliance with the requirements of the code among firms. Inspections were conducted in 11 of the 46 licensed moneylenders currently operating in Ireland. The inspections focused on whether consumers were being charged in accordance with the moneylenders' authorised APRs — that is, their annual percentage rates — and costs of credit as set out in the moneylenders' licences. It also examined whether firms had their licences on display and whether they indicated the high-cost nature of loans on loan documentation issued to consumers, as required by the code. Overall, the inspections found a high level of compliance with the requirements and that consumers were being charged in accordance with the moneylenders' authorised APRs and costs of credit. In addition, firms had their licences on display and indicated the high-cost nature of loans on loan documentation issued to consumers.
I expect that in future the annual regulatory performance statement of the Central Bank will refer to the regulation of moneylenders. This statement will be presented to each House of the Oireachtas. The Central Bank Reform Act 2010 provides that a committee of the Oireachtas may request the Governor of the Central Bank or the head of financial regulation to attend before it and provide information relating to the regulatory performance statement. This will allow Deputies the opportunity to seek relevant information on regulatory matters, including the regulation of moneylenders.
It is clear from that report that the level of compliance among licensed moneylenders is quite good but the issue is the plethora of unlicensed moneylenders. There was a commitment in the programme for Government to regulate this area tightly. Perhaps the Minister might elaborate on what he had in mind in that regard. Is it to bring in new measures which would bring into the net many of those unlicensed moneylenders or is he planning an even tighter regime in regard to those currently licensed and regulated by the Central Bank?
Operating as an unlicensed moneylender is illegal and it is a matter for the Garda Síochána in the first instance. In regard to the licensed moneylenders, we have ongoing discussions with the regulator and the Central Bank about all the lending institutions. I will raise the issue the Deputy mentioned with the Cental Bank and the regulator.
On the issue of licensed and unlicensed moneylenders, given that many people, especially those on low and middle incomes, are going to moneylenders because they cannot get access to credit from the banks, does the Minister believe the APR they are allowed to charge is too high and that we need to revisit that issue owing to the economic conditions in which we find ourselves?
In regard to the illegality of unlicensed moneylenders, I do not know them personally but we hear stories of unlicensed moneylenders in most towns and villages throughout the State, in particular in the run-up to Christmas. The fact they are illegal does not seem to matter. Will there be tighter legislation which will remove these types of parasites who are feeding off the financial difficulties people experience, in particular in the run-up to events like Christmas?
The APR is set down in regulation and it is always a matter of debate as to whether a particular interest rate is too high, but it is regulated. As Deputy Michael McGrath pointed out, the issue of most concern is not the licensed moneylenders who, by and large, comply with the law, but the unlicensed moneylenders. The best approach to this is to ensure credit unions continue to be a strong part of the landscape for lending small amounts in communities throughout the country. We are committed to that in the reorganisation of the credit unions which is proceeding at present.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
