Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 May 2017

Vol. 951 No. 2

Priority Questions

Tax Yield

Michael McGrath

Question:

1. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding the review of Exchequer tax revenue in view of 2017 tax revenue to April coming in €344 million under target, with specific reference to the shortfall in income tax, including the universal social charge, USC, corporation tax and excise; his views on the possibility of this persisting throughout 2017; the potential impact on the deficit for 2017; the potential impact on the fiscal space in 2018; if he revised the fiscal space; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23771/17]

This question relates to the Exchequer returns and, in particular, to the shortfall we have seen under a number of different tax headings so far this year. Income tax, corporation tax, excise duty and stamps are running well below profile. What are the Minister's views on the implications of this? Does he believe the trend is likely to continue during the course of the year? What are the consequences in terms of both the deficit and the fiscal space for the forthcoming budget?

Cumulative Exchequer tax revenues at the end of April 2017 were slightly below profile, coming in just 2.4%, or €344 million, under expectations. In terms of the "big four" tax headings, corporation tax, income tax and excise duties recorded shortfalls against profile, but VAT was ahead of expectations. Corporation tax receipts of €587 million were collected to the end of April. As a result, cumulative revenues were down 27.6%, or €223 million, against target. It is important to point out that Exchequer receipts from corporation tax can vary throughout the year and just over 10% of the total annual receipts was expected in the first four months of the year. By comparison, over 60% of corporation tax receipts are expected during May, June and November. Due to the non-linear nature of corporation tax receipts, the potential for company-specific factors and the low proportion of the annual receipts received to date, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about corporation tax at this stage of the year.

Income tax receipts to the end of April were 3.1%, or €198 million, below profile. It is important to point out that income tax encompasses a broad range of elements, some of which are not directly impacted by employment or wage developments. These include deposit interest retention tax, life assurance exit tax, dividend withholding tax, professional services withholding tax and back duty. These payments, by their nature, can be non-linear and timing can vary from year to year. I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the majority of these specific components were causing a drag on overall income tax receipts in the first four months of 2017.

Notwithstanding this, the performance of the USC is lower than expected, and my Department is currently reviewing its performance, in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners. The initial indications are that the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the overall estimate of the budget 2017 package in respect of USC changes was costed accurately at €335 million. At the time of budget 2017, the apportionment of the total USC package between PAYE and schedule D was expected to be €263 million and €72 million, respectively, in line with previous norms. However, subsequent analysis by the Revenue Commissioners indicates that the allocations of the USC package between PAYE and schedule D should have been €311 million and €24 million, respectively, due to the dynamics of the USC package. While, this helps to explain some of the current under-performance against profile for USC paid by PAYE taxpayers, it is important to point out that this reapportionment should have no adverse impact on the overall collection of the USC receipts as they should equalise later in the year when self-employed returns are made.

I thank the Minister for his reply. It is early days yet and the alarm bells should not be ringing completely but the trend is a concern. It is not just a trend over one month; we are now looking at data for four months. I accept the point about corporation tax. We have not had any significant months for corporation tax receipts. Later in the year will tell a story in that regard. Corporation tax, as the Minister knows, now accounts for approximately 15% of our tax take. We are dependent on a small number of very large companies. There is one potential vulnerability in that regard.

The income tax issue is intriguing because although the receipts are up 1.2% year on year, we are 3.1% below profile. The unemployment rate is falling, thankfully, so one would expect income tax receipts to be stronger. In simple terms, is it attributable to a miscalculation in regard to the USC? Is there any other explanation that the Minister believes accounts for the trend? It is a concern. That should be acknowledged.

I acknowledge that there is some concern. I hope circumstances will right themselves as the year goes by. With regard to the personal taxes, PAYE yield is in line with expectations. It is up a little. PRSI receipts are up but the USC receipts are down. What I have said in my reply does not fully explain the USC discrepancy. There is something else happening in respect of it. The Revenue Commissioners are examining it. I cannot throw further light on it today. I hope circumstances will right themselves as the year goes by. We will have a better idea about corporation tax after the May and June receipts come in. By the half-year point, we will see whether the initial concerns are justified or whether circumstances are righting themselves.

My question really concerns how the approach needs to be adjusted if the trend continues. I refer to the budget in October, for example. What impact could there be on the calculation of fiscal space? I acknowledge a number of variables feed into that.

It is not just a question of income tax and corporation tax. The excise yield, for example, is 6.3% below profile. I realise it can be difficult to forecast what the receipts will be in a particular month but if the trend continues there will be a problem.

However, if the trend continues pro rata - it has been €344 million over the first four months - throughout the remainder of the year, the shortfall will be in the region of €1 billion. That is a big "if" and, hopefully, it will not continue. If it did, what issues would that throw up in our approach to the budget?

First, the Deputy must recognise that some taxes are quite lumpy in the way they come in and the Revenue is still confident that the figures will right themselves as the year goes by. We can safely say at this stage that we will not have the overrun in tax receipts that we had over the past two years. The other side of the balance sheet is expenditure and that is running behind profile as well. We are more or less in balance at the moment but expenditure can accelerate as the year goes by. We hope it will stay in balance. We are not thinking of corrective actions yet. It is too early to do so but the first step always in correction is to make sure the expenditure does not exceed revenue flow.

Question No. 2 is the name of Deputy Pearse Doherty. The Ceann Comhairle has provided, given the Deputy is at a committee meeting, that his question can be taken within Priority Question time if he returns. We will move on to Question No. 3.

Help-To-Buy Scheme

Michael McGrath

Question:

3. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding the independent impact assessment on the help-to-buy scheme as introduced as part of budget 2017; the number of approved applications to date; the cost of the scheme to date; the number of persons yet to be approved; his views on whether the €50 million estimate is sufficient; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23772/17]

This question relates to the help-to-buy scheme for first-time purchasers of new houses, which was introduced in the budget last October. I seek an update on the number of approved applications, on whether the estimated cost of the scheme at €50 million has changed, given the number of applications was higher than the Minister expected, and on the independent impact assessment he has committed to, which went out to tender some weeks ago.

As the Deputy will be aware, during the Committee Stage debate on the Finance Bill 2016, I agreed to commission an independent impact assessment on the effects of the help-to-buy incentive for completion prior to budget 2018. Following a competitive tender process, Indecon Economic Consultants were appointed in April to undertake this impact assessment.

This purpose of this project, in general, is to assess whether the policy objectives on the supply of new homes are being met, what impact, if any, the scheme is having on new and second-hand house prices, and what impact the scheme is having on the residential property market generally. It is expected that the assessment will be completed and submitted to me by the end of August.

In response to the Deputy's queries concerning the uptake and cost of the incentive, there are two stages involved in the help-to-buy process. Stage 1 is the application stage, wherein prospective applicants can query whether they qualify for the incentive. They can also get clarity on the maximum amount of rebate they could potentially benefit from, based on their tax paid in a four-year period. Stage 2 is the claims stage, wherein applicants that decide to proceed with purchasing or building a qualifying property must provide documentary evidence of the relevant property transaction or their mortgage drawdown.

As of Thursday, 11 May 2017, Revenue had received 6,084 applications to stage 1 of the help-to-buy incentive, of which 3,621 have been approved. However, it is possible that many of these applicants may never make a claim to stage 2 for a variety of reasons. These could include individuals who do not go on to obtain mortgage approval, who may decide to purchase a second-hand property, or who are not able to source the new home that they desire.

To date, 1,677 stage 2 claims have been made, of which, 1,154 have been approved, at a total estimated cost to the Exchequer of just over €17 million. This cost covers almost 70% of the stage 2 claims made to date.  Using this as a base, it could be estimated that a further €5 million remains outstanding in respect of these claims. This would bring the cost to just over €22 million, which relates to the scheme being available in respect of relevant homes over an 11-month period. Given that just over seven months remain in 2017, my officials estimate that the cost of the incentive this year will largely be in line with the original estimate of €50 million.

I thank the Minister his reply and for the updated numbers. There have been more than 6,000 stage 1 applications, with in excess of 3,600 approved and 1,677 completed at a cost to date of €17 million with applications worth €5 million in the system, giving a total of €22 million. The cut-off date was 19 July 2016. The Minister seems to be saying the cost is likely to come in line with the budget estimate of €50 million for this year but we can revert to that issue.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has honoured his commitment to conduct an independent assessment to examine the impact of the scheme on the supply of new homes, the prices of new homes and the market generally. Many independent commentators, who do not have any skin in the game, have raised a concern that the scheme is directly pushing up prices, which is not what the Government should want. Can the Minister clarify his own view at this stage? Has he evidence of the scheme putting upward pressure on prices? Does he believe that is the impact it is having?

No, we have all agreed several times that the problem with housing relates to supply. The supply of houses is not sufficient to meet demand. Housing demand is not a lot of people who want houses; housing demand is a lot of people who want houses and can put the money up to buy them. It is much more likely that the hugely increased activity in the mortgage market is contributing to the additional demand driving up prices than anything in the help-to-buy scheme. A sum of €22 million is neither here nor there as an injection over an 11-month period into house purchasing. If that is compared to the billions of euro that have been authorised in mortgages, the Deputy can see the relativities. There is no doubt that additional money leading to money demand tends to drive up prices but the amount provided under the help-to-buy scheme is relatively small in comparison to the credit and savings available in the market. There is significant increased money demand for houses now. The scheme is working as intended but we will know when I get the report back from Indecon, which I will share with Deputies.

A number of issues arise but one issue that is not often mentioned is the impact on non-first-time buyers. The combined impact of the scheme and the 20% deposit requirement disadvantage these buyers when it comes to buying a new home. First-time buyers require a 10% deposit for a €400,000 house, which is €40,000, and they can get half that under this scheme. Their deposit, therefore, is €20,000. Non-first-time buyers require a 20% deposit, which is €80,000, but they cannot access the scheme. That is a significant distortion of the market. That is not entirely down to the scheme as the Central Bank imposes different deposit requirements. However, these important issues are having an impact on families. I welcome that the Indecon assessment is under way and will be completed by late August. I trust the Minister's successor will share that with the Oireachtas in order that we can have a fuller debate in the lead-up to the forthcoming budget.

I can confirm that is the intention.

We will move on to Question No. 4 in the name of Deputy Pearse Doherty. We will come back to his Question No. 2 at the end of Priority Questions.

Central Bank of Ireland Investigations

Pearse Doherty

Question:

4. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if the Central Bank will reopen the investigation into the misselling of payment protection insurance in view of a court ruling that the failure of a financial service provider to alert a consumer to the fact that the insurance company involved was part or fully owned by the provider constituted misselling; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23774/17]

I wish the Minister well following his earlier announcement. We have had many battles across the Chamber and this may be the last in this format.

I want to thank the Minister for his engagement so far.

The issue I have raised here is payment protection. It has been brought to my attention that there is potentially a whole new wave of payment protection insurance, PPI, policies that have been missold. I have contacted the Central Bank and am currently compiling additional information that it has requested from me. It appears that we have another scandal on our hands where the consumer has been cheated. Importantly, many might not be aware of the outcome of a court case that was held last year and the fact that the appeal was withdrawn earlier this year. It is my view on one financial institution, one insurance company, that all products that it sold after a certain date were missold as indeed the courts found in a particular test case. Is the Government going to examine the widescale nature of this issue?

As the Deputy is aware, the Central Bank is an independent organisation and it would not be appropriate for me to give it instructions on whether or not to conduct any investigation or to re-open a closed investigation.

In March 2014, the Central Bank, concerned about the sale of PPI, published a report on a review of the sale of PPI in Ireland. The focus of the review was where there was a possible detriment to consumers from unsuitable sales resulting in premiums being refunded. The review covered 11 firms and covered all PPI sales from 1 July 2007. I understand from the Central Bank that refunds of over €71 million have been refunded to approximately 83,500 customers since 1 July 2007, by these 11 credit institutions.

With regard to the court ruling referred to in the Deputy’s question, I understand that the Deputy has been in contact with the bank about this issue. The Central Bank is aware of this non-disclosure issue from previous supervisory engagements. However, the Central Bank is prohibited from commenting on any firm specifically and from disclosing confidential information concerning the business of a credit institution otherwise than in accordance with the supervisory directives, which include the Directive 2013/36/EU. Additionally, under section 33AK(3)(a)(i) of the Central Bank Act 1942, the Central Bank is obliged to report to An Garda Síochána any information that leads the Central Bank to suspect that a summary offence may have been committed by a supervised entity.

The role of the Minister for Finance is to ensure that there is an appropriate legal framework in place to ensure that consumers are properly protected and that financial institutions are regulated in an appropriate manner. Officials will study the ruling and consult with the Central Bank with a view to ensuring that consumers have the appropriate level of protection under the legislative framework.

My concern is that the Central Bank has carried out a review of 11 institutions, including three that I have very strong reasons to believe are involved in breach of the consumer codes by not disclosing their interests in the underwriter. That should have been picked up by the Central Bank when it carried out its review. It was not. A judge has now ruled in a test case that the defendant's conduct was capable of amounting to a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of section 43(2) and 43(3)(c). The appeal against that ruling has been withdrawn, so the ruling now stands.

The Minister of State will be aware that I have legislation which will hopefully be passed in this House quite soon that would lift the blanket ban on the six years rule in relation to making complaints against financial institutions, including insurance companies. This is another reason why we need to expedite that legislation. What I would like to hear from the Minister of State is his concern to create awareness with regard to this institution for thousands of customers. Let me explain what it did. It sold payment protection insurance to individuals, claiming that it had no interest in the underwriter, when it owned 100% of the underwriting insurance business. One other insurance company which we own 75% of had a similar case. Therefore, there is a reason why the Government would get involved in this, as it is the main shareholder in one of these institutions that, in my belief, were involved in this time of misselling.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. Of course the Department is concerned with the matter at hand. Officials in the Department are looking at the ruling and they are consulting with the Central Bank with a view to ensuring that consumers have the appropriate level of protection under the legislative framework. The Deputy will also be aware of the Minister's recent experience at a committee to speak about the issue of the Statute of Limitations, and officials are engaging with the Deputy on that point as well. I note the concerns that have been raised by the Deputy, both publicly and in the House, and I also note that the Central Bank, in its correspondence with the Deputy, requested further information to be provided to it so it could get a better understanding of what area and what entities the Deputy was speaking about. I understand that has taken place and the Deputy has responded to the Central Bank with that information.

I have responded and I will continue to engage with the Central Bank, but I think there is also a responsibility for the Minister and the Government to engage with Permanent TSB, for example, to ask it about this section, which the courts have ruled was tantamount to misselling a product, and why it did not disclose to people who bought payment protection insurance that it had a relationship with the underwriter, which it was legally responsible to disclose if that relationship was above 10%. The other institution which I have concerns about is Ulster Bank, which also needs to be investigated.

The test case taken was against a financial institution. I believe there were thousands of contracts entered into by that institution, which also had its products missold. The problem is that those consumers do not know it. They do not know about the case taken to the High Court last year. They do not know that the appeal was withdrawn. They do not know, in all likelihood, that what probably happened was that there was a settlement reached with this individual. I can only imagine. It is important that the Government steps in here, brings information to consumers and makes sure it is properly investigated.

It is important to note the work that the Central Bank already did in this area in relation to the review that it conducted and the report that it published. That led to the refunding of over €71 million to consumers, some 83,500 customers since 1 July 2007. Of course I recognise the concerns raised by the Deputy, and that is why officials from the Department are already studying the ruling that has been given. They are studying this with the Central Bank and officials there to see whether or not any changes need to be made to the legislative framework that underpin the protections for the consumer.

Revenue Commissioners Enforcement Activity

Joan Burton

Question:

5. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Finance the number of bank account holders involved regarding the Revenue Commissioners' recent request for undeclared income offshore prior to 4 May 2017; the amount of income the Revenue Commissioners has received in respect of their request for undeclared offshore income; the number of settlements agreed; the number of cases outstanding; the amount of revenue in tax, interest and penalties the Revenue Commissioners anticipate will be generated by the exercise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23734/17]

My question is to ask the Minister for Finance what the up-to-date figures are in relation to the recovery of tax and penalties in respect of people who have income and assets abroad and who have failed to properly declare them for tax purposes in the Republic of Ireland.

In my Financial Statement to the House on 11 October 2016, I indicated that I would act to restrict the opportunity for tax defaulters to use the voluntary disclosure regime with effect from May 2017. In line with this undertaking, section 56 of the Finance Act 2016 provided that, as and from the voluntary disclosure deadline date, the making of a qualifying disclosure is no longer permitted where the tax liabilities involved relate to offshore matters.

The period during which a qualifying disclosure could be made to the Revenue Commissioners in relation to offshore matters ended on 4 May 2017. Disclosures received are still being processed and final data about them will be available shortly. I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the number of disclosures exceeds 2,500, with a value of more than €73 million. I understand also that the disclosures relate to a range of offshore matters, including foreign sources of employment–related income, foreign pensions, income from overseas property, offshore bank accounts and trusts and funds. A breakdown between tax, interest and penalties is not available at this point.

Revenue will now proceed to examine all of the disclosures received, to determine which of them can be settled without further action and to identify any cases in which further inquiries may be required before they can be brought to finality. Anybody who has tax liabilities relating to offshore matters and who did not act by the deadline of 4 May to address them now faces the prospect of substantially higher penalties, publication in Revenue’s quarterly list of tax defaulters and possible prosecution. Revenue has assured me that it is committed to making full and effective use of the large volumes of data that it will receive, under international arrangements for the automatic exchange of information, to identify and pursue anybody who attempts to evade his or her tax obligations by using offshore accounts, assets or structures.

Tax justice, as it is understood by hard-working, ordinary taxpayers, has to mean that people who have, for whatever reason, a privileged position of tax exile and then fail to pay their fair taxes have to be pursued.

It is extraordinary in this day and age of so much information being available that the trawl of this category has identified, according to the Minister's own figures, 2,500 people and brought in €73 million. There is a continuing option for tax exiles to live part of the year in Ireland but otherwise be resident for tax purposes abroad. In the Government of which I was a member with the Minister, there was an agreement to a levy. I had a different view to the Minister on it, as he will probably recall. The agreement was that people would pay a levy of €200,000. That levy has produced very small potatoes. The Minister himself has acknowledged that. Given what this trawl has produced in a very short period of time, does the Minister not agree that it is wrong from any tax justice point of view that there are multi-billionaires who are not resident in this country for tax purposes but live here all the time? While a trawl of 2,500 people can yield €75 million, the Minister's levy has yielded a fraction of that. He was aware of my view on it at the time. Can the Minister learn from this experience?

This question does not relate directly to what were traditionally known as the tax exiles. The Revenue Commissioners have informed me that a very large proportion of the disclosures were received in the days immediately prior to the deadline of 4 May. All of the postal and electronic correspondence received is now being examined. Further details about the disclosures and their value will be available as soon as that work has been completed. As the Deputy knows, it arises from section 56 of the 2016 Act. It has removed the possibility of making a qualifying voluntary disclosure of tax liabilities where any matter contained in the disclosure relates directly or indirectly to offshore matters. After 4 May last, anybody who is now found to have an offshore source of income along the lines described in my reply will not have the benefit of the arrangements put in place for disclosure prior to 4 May.

This is a very good result on the part of the Revenue Commissioners. The Minister took a decision that was contrary to the position I and others took in the debate on the budget when we argued that the six months' notice was excessive. Notwithstanding the six months' notice, which allowed people with more to hide to make other arrangements, by April there were about 530 disclosures. As it was extended to 4 May, in the last few days 2,500 people have declared. That has produced €73 million according to the Minister's own figures.

I wish the Minister well in his retirement, but he may have a longer stay in finance depending on how quickly the party's internal procedures and the discussions with Fianna Fáil proceed. Would it not be right and proper to strengthen the Revenue audit section to find those people who are imposing on people who are working hard and paying a lot of tax, and get them to pay their fair share as well?

The six-month period was the period advised by the Revenue Commissioners. They sought to ensure the maximum return from the voluntary disclosures in terms of time and in terms of the amount of tax that would come in on a voluntary basis. The estimate is now somewhat in excess of €73 million. Those that are availing of tax exile status are doing so in accordance with law. If any change was to take place on that, it would need substantive change in a subsequent finance Bill. This does not apply because they are operating in accordance with law.

Brexit Issues

Pearse Doherty

Question:

2. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the options being considered by the Revenue Commissioners with regard to the Border post-Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23773/17]

Yesterday at the finance committee, we had the Revenue Commissioners before us for the first time. They gave us information on some of the contingency plans they were looking at for Border controls post-Brexit. The information was quite concerning. The Minister might be aware that I made a freedom of information request for documents that the Revenue Commissioners held. Indeed, the Minister's own Department held one document, for example, which was a briefing given by Revenue to the Minister more than three months ago. That information has not made its way into the public domain. Will the Minister put into the public domain the information that Revenue has presented to him on its contingency plans for custom posts to monitor trade post-Brexit?

The oral question put by the Deputy is different from the written question. I will read out the prepared reply first and then we can discuss it.

The Government has published a comprehensive document on Ireland and the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union on 2 May.

The Government's position in regard to the Border with Northern Ireland in the context of Brexit is very clear - continued freedom of movement, absence of a hard border, and minimal impact on business and trade are key objectives.  Clearly, in this regard the closer the trading relationship between the UK and EU is more generally the better.

I would point out that the guidelines for the EU 27 Article 50 negotiation framework, agreed by the heads of state and government on 29 April, specifically refer to the need to support and protect the achievements, benefits and commitments of the peace process.

In this regard, the guidelines recognise the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, outlining the need for flexible and imaginative solutions, including the aim of avoiding a hard border, while respecting the integrity of the union's legal order.

The Government has welcomed the EU’s negotiating guidelines as reflecting Ireland’s unique concerns and priorities. They express the EU’s continued support for the peace process and the need to protect the Good Friday Agreement. They acknowledge the need for flexible and imaginative solutions to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. They agree to the recognition of existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the UK and Ireland, which are compatible with EU law, such as the common travel area.

Ireland has also secured the agreement of its EU counterparts on the need to recognise the unique constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the need to ensure that should a united Ireland be brought about in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement, the entire territory of such a united Ireland would be part of the European Union.

This is a positive outcome, showing that the Government’s extensive political, diplomatic and official campaign of recent months has been effective in ensuring the understanding and recognition of our unique circumstances and specific issues.

Like all Government agencies, the Revenue Commissioners are actively engaged in examining a range of scenarios in order to support Ireland's objectives.  The precise arrangements that will apply after Brexit will depend on the outcome of negotiations which will now take place between the EU and UK.

This is a political issue, which will require a creative political solution. It is not helpful to pre-empt any particular outcome at this early stage of the process.

Yesterday's exchange at the committee was illuminating, although it was like pulling teeth. However, it did establish some facts that some of us, at least, knew were the case. Mr. Barnier told us last week that there would be consequences of Brexit for the Border. Of course there will be consequences and some type of Border posts or customs posts will be in place, even if they are not quite on the Border and even if, as the Revenue says, they will be called trade facilitation stations instead of custom posts. Of course there will be disruption and delays to people and goods crossing the Border when one side of the Border is in a customs union and the other side is not.

Border communities and the wider public deserve to know what is being planned, even on a contingency basis. We do not keep it hushed up when the ESRI tells us the impact Brexit could possibly have on employment, debt, economic activity and growth. We do not hide the consequences for agriculture when we see reports being published. Why is this issue different? Why is the Minister not releasing the information in the presentation Revenue made with the Minister, that 8% of vehicular freight traffic crossing the Border would be diverted to the trade facilitation posts and that there would be roaming patrols along the Border making random checks.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to come back in.

Why is this information not being put into the public domain? Why is the Minister still refusing to do so?

As I said, this is a political issue which will require a creative political solution. The political solution being sought is along the lines of that promulgated by the European Union's negotiating guidelines and reflects Ireland's unique concerns and priorities. The guidelines express the European Union's continued support for the peace process and the need to protect the Good Friday Agreement. They also acknowledge the need for flexible and imaginative solutions to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. They agree to the recognition of existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is what is reflected in the EU guidelines and also in Prime Minister May's letter when she invoked Article 50. Revenue is independent and it would be prudent for it to look at a range of scenarios that might occur to be prepared for a range of scenarios that might occur if the negotiations do not go in accordance with the guidelines agreed between Ireland and the European Union and between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

The political position is quite clear. We do not want a hard but an invisible border. We do not want the Border to encroach on any aspect of the Good Friday Agreement.

I do not want to do this, but if everybody breaks the rules time-wise, somebody will miss out on the opportunity to ask his or her question. Will Deputies, please, try to keep to the time limits?

I do not fault the Office of the Revenue Commissioners for doing its work or the scoping exercise in which it is engaged in planning on a contingency basis. My understanding is the plan to divert 8% of freight traffic crossing the Border and have roaming customs patrols randomly stopping people does not represent a hard border solution; it is part of what it is called minimising the impact of Brexit. In that case, I would not like to see what a hard border would look like or the contingency plans. This goes to the core of the question. The finance committee, of which Deputy Michael McGrath and others in the House and I are part, is examining the impact of Brexit in financial, customs and trade terms. However, the contingency plans and the 31 documents that deal with the issue of customs posts along the Border are not being released to any Opposition Member in the House. Why not? Mr. Barnier stood on this spot and said we needed to speak the truth. His next sentence was that Brexit would have consequences. We are all big enough in this House to look at these issues and also need to know what the contingency plans are. We need to be armed with all of that information. I appeal to the Minister, despite the independence of Revenue, to present the finance committee with the presentation the Revenue Commissioners have undertaken on potential scenarios in policing the Border after Brexit. That is what should happen in a normal functioning democracy in which committees and Members are respected.

Mr. Irwin briefed the finance committee on what Revenue was doing. I am now briefing the Deputy in the House on the policy position on the political side. There is no contradiction between the two. The Deputy knows quite well that I do not decide on what is released in responding to freedom of information requests. There are independent officers who make these decisions without me even knowing what documents are being released or that their release has been refused. I am not amenable to answering questions on freedom of information issues. That is not a matter for me. If the Brexit policy of the United Kingdom is continued to its conclusion, there will be an international boundary between the European Union and the United Kingdom on the island of Ireland. It will not just be a bilateral matter between us and the United Kingdom. The Revenue Commissioners, as described yesterday at the committee, are using their independent mandate and especially their responsibility for customs issues, to scope the different possibilities in order to contribute to a solution in the event that the negotiations go differently to the political and policy position of the Government.

The time for dealing with Priority Questions has expired. We must, therefore, take Question No. 6 in ordinary time.

Top
Share