There are no measures for adoption under No. 1.
No. 2 is a Council decision establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Community on the interpretation of Article 14 of the Aarhus Convention. Deputy Costello has concerns in this regard and requested clarification.
Previously I asked whether it was true that Ireland was the only member state of the European Union that had signed but failed to ratify the Aarhus Convention. The note confirms this to be the case. Clearly, the convention is important in terms of a person's right to a healthy environment, public access to environmental information and public participation in certain decision making procedures. Despite the fact that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated in October 2007 that Ireland would ratify the convention, nothing has occurred since. The committee should recommend that the Minister bring Ireland into line with the rest of the European Union and provide citizens with the extra rights available elsewhere.
I agree. According to the Minister's detailed reply, the proposal relates to changes to the first Council directive - 68/151/EEC - and the 11th company law directive - 89/666/EEC. We can write to the Minister and follow up the matter with him. COM (2008) 194 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Directives 68/151/EEC and 89/666/EEC as regards publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies.
COM (2008) 228 has been addressed. It is recommended that COM (2008) 230, COM (2008) 309, COM (2008) 314, COM (2008) 341, COM (2008) 348, COM (2008) 353, COM (2008) 362 and COM (2008) 363 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no items proposed to be sent to sectoral committees for their information. It is proposed to note CFSP (2008) 403, CFSP (2008) 450, CFSP (2008) 480, CFSP (2008) 481, CFSP (2008) 485, CFSP (2008) 487 and CFSP (2008) 491. Is that agreed? Agreed. There are no Title IV or Title VI proposals.
No. 6 is early warning notes C146/06, C146/07 and C163/09. It is proposed that these measures do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no proposals proposed for further scrutiny. No. 8 is proposals proposed for forwarding to sectoral committees for their observations to be returned to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, preferably within four weeks but within six weeks at the latest. COM (2008) 336 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat. The Department's information note indicates Ireland has concerns about the possible impact on food hygiene, public health, the environment and trade in the event of the removal of the ban on the use of AMTs. Ireland's position is that any decision to lift the ban on such treatment should only be taken on the basis of conclusive scientific risk assessments. More evidence from the European Food Safety Authority is needed on the efficacy of AMTs, with reassurance on the possible effects of the application on poultry meat. In view of the concerns raised by the Department, it is proposed that the proposal warrants further scrutiny and that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for written observations to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Could we forward this documentation to Irish poultry meat producers?
Yes.
We could seek their observations on it. There is a section about frozen poultry being labelled as fresh.
Yes, as well as traceability checking and so forth.
I always thought that if something was described as frozen, it was frozen.
There is a big issue with regard to traceability and the labelling of chicken and a major impact on poultry farms in County Monaghan. It is a major concern in the retail trade. We could indicate to the Department that we have forwarded the documentation and would welcome observations. Should poultry producers forward observations to this committee or the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
When they are forwarded to the Department, will they automatically go to the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, who has a particular responsibility for food?
We can send a special note on the matter directly to the Minister of State.
The joint committee went into private session at 11.44 a.m. and resumed in public session at 11.47 a.m.
We will now deal with No. 8, COM (2008) 147, a proposal for a Council directive amending VAT Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on a common system of value added tax to combat tax evasion connected to intra-Community transactions and a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1798/2003 to combat tax evasion connected to intra-Community transactions.
On behalf of the members of the joint committee, I welcome Mr. Pat Murphy and Ms Blaithín Nic Giolla Rua from the Department of Finance; Mr. Niall Cody and Ms Clare Robson from the Revenue Commissioners; Mr. Mark Fielding from ISME; Ms Patricia Callan from the Small Firms Association-IBEC; and Mr. Donal Kennedy and Mr. Dermot O'Brien from the tax administration and liaison committee.
I draw attention to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I call Mr. Murphy who will make a joint presentation on behalf of the Department of Finance and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.
In March the European Commission brought forward a proposal to combat VAT fraud. The proposal is the first step in a series of measures being developed by the Commission in response to the agreement reached at ECOFIN in November 2006 on the need to establish an anti-fraud strategy at Community level to combat fraud, especially tax fraud, in the area of indirect taxes. I will put the Commission's proposal in context, outline its main elements, elaborate on our concerns and the position being adopted by Ireland at Council working party level. In developing our position, we have consulted business representative bodies including IBEC, the Small Firms Association and the Irish Small and Medium Enterprise organisation. Revenue also raised the proposal with the tax practitioners' bodies represented at the tax administration liaison committee. We are grateful for the comments we have received from these groups to date.
VAT is the single largest source of revenue within the Irish tax system and it accounts for approximately 30% of all tax take. It is a general and broad based consumption tax assessed on the value added on goods and services. It applies to a large number of goods and services bought and sold for use or consumption in Ireland or across the European Community. Goods which are sold for consumption outside Ireland are normally subject to VAT in the country of consumption rather than here. They are effectively exported VAT free.
VAT is charged as a percentage of the price of a good or service and arises at each stage in the production and distribution chain. VAT charged by a trader is paid to Revenue but, in calculating the amount to be paid, the trader in his or her two-monthly VAT return is entitled to deduct all the VAT already paid in the preceding stage of the chain. In this way, double taxation is avoided and tax is paid only on the value of each stage of production or distribution. This, however, leads to the payment of large amounts of money to Revenue and, at times, substantial repayments by Revenue to traders.
In 2006 a number of member states expressed concern about the growing problem of VAT fraud and, in particular, what is termed "carousel fraud" or "missing trader". Particular concerns were expressed by Germany, Austria and the UK, which reported significant losses in VAT revenue. Carousel fraud targets intra-Community transactions, that is, goods traded across the community. These are typically consignments of high value and low volume goods. Some of the items which are most frequently traded are computer chips, mobile telephones and, most recently, contact lenses. The zero rate of VAT applied to the initial intra-Community supply of these goods provides an attractive vehicle for fraudsters who charge VAT on the goods to their customers but either fail to pay it over to the relevant tax authorities or reclaim VAT that they have not paid.
In developing the anti-fraud strategy, the ECOFIN asked that several different measures be considered by the European Commission in conjunction with member states. These include conventional measures which are primarily concerned with enhancing information exchange and co-operation between member states. They also include more far reaching measures, including the taxation of intra-community transactions and the introduction of a general reverse charge mechanism whereby the final consumer becomes liable for VAT, with no tax arising during the intermediate stages of distribution. A general reverse charge mechanism is of particular interest to Germany and Austria.
The Commission proposal falls within the category of conventional anti-fraud measures. As members will be aware from the information provided in April, the proposal from the European Commission is designed to address VAT fraud by speeding up the existing arrangements for collection and exchange of information on intra-Community transactions. The Commission considers that a higher frequency exchange of information on intra-Community transactions is key to identifying fraudulent activity. Currently, information is provided through the VAT information exchange system, VIES, which is a system of administrative co-operation between member states. It is based on the computerised exchange between member states of VAT registration data and data collected from VAT registered suppliers in each member state. In addition to the normal two-monthly VAT return traders make a VIES return statement to Revenue in respect of their intra-Community supply of goods; that is, goods sold to VAT registered persons in another member state. It includes details of the goods and also the VAT numbers of their customers in other member states. The VAT authorities then have a further three months to make the information available to other member states.
The normal two-monthly VAT return also includes very limited global information on a trader's inter-Community sales and acquisitions. In addition to this, traders with purchases from other member states in excess of €191,000 or sales to other member states in excess of €635,000 annually must complete a separate interstat monthly return. This is for intra-Community trade statistics purposes and the information provided, while somewhat more detailed than in the two-monthly VAT return, is at a fairly high global level.
Under the Commission proposal the VIES statements on intra-Community sales would be submitted by traders at monthly intervals, rather than quarterly intervals. It also seeks to reduce to one month the deadline tax authorities have for processing and making information available to other national authorities. Of more significance, the Commission wants traders to make their normal VAT returns on a monthly basis if the value of their purchases of goods and services from other member states, for which they are liable for VAT, exceeds €200,000 in a calendar year. Such returns not only involve accounting information but also payment of VAT due on such goods and services, along with the VAT due on normal domestic supplies. This would replace the current normal two-monthly VAT return and payment period. Such a development, while having a potential benefit for the Exchequer in speeding up payments, would raise cash flow issues for companies.
Ireland is fully committed to developing and implementing an effective strategy to tackle the growing problem of VAT fraud. We consider that the fight against VAT fraud should be targeted at the areas of greatest risk, without imposing additional obligations on the entire body of taxpayers involved in cross-frontier transactions as proposed by the European Commission. We have doubts on whether the Commission's proposal is a proportionate or effective response to fraud and remain unconvinced that a strategy weighed heavily in favour of increased frequency of returns would necessarily provide an effective anti-fraud solution. The additional administrative burdens and associated costs for companies is contrary to the move towards removing the obligatory burden on business.
Ireland, along with other member states, has argued at EU level for the need to strike an appropriate balance between effectiveness against fraud and the potential burden of compliance businesses and on tax authorities. Recently the French Presidency tabled an alternative proposal which responded to Ireland's concerns and those of other member states. However, the majority of member states, many of which already operate a system of monthly VAT returns, expressed a preference for the approach proposed by the Commission as the basis for further work. In acknowledging this response the French Presidency withdrew its alternative proposal and confirmed its intention to proceed on the basis of the Commission's proposal, which we are discussing today. Given the divergence of opinion across member states regarding the proposal, further work on the dossier will be required to achieve agreement. Ireland intends to continue to highlight its reservations with a view to achieving a more targeted and less burdensome approach to VAT fraud. However, we must recognise that some action will need to be taken on VAT fraud in other member states. In this regard, a tightening of reporting requirements could well be the more palatable of the measures likely to be proposed. We will be looking to decouple the proposals in order that if there are changes with regard to the various return statements, this will not automatically entail changes in the normal VAT return. We will bring forward amendments to the proposal to the effect that the new directive would not interfere with member states' rights with regard to the timing of the normal domestic VAT returns.
Thank you for your detailed submission.
I represent ISME, Irish Small and Medium Enterprise, an independent body representing small and medium businesses in Ireland. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to make a submission to the committee.
The new rules, with effect from 1 January 2010, will introduce a fully electronic refund procedure, under which companies which incur VAT in member states in which they are not established will be able to reclaim the foreign VAT from their own member states' tax authorities. As part of the exchange of information, suppliers will be required to submit a monthly statement outlining the details of each customer to which it has supplied services which fall under the reverse charge mechanism. In order to make it easier for companies to meet their declaration obligations and avoid unwieldy manual collection of data on an electronic form for some, it will be possible to use electronic data transmission. All businesses affected should benefit from the proposed fully electronic EU VAT refund system which will ensure an easier and faster refund process. The current paper system is extremely burdensome. In some cases it has taken six months or more to obtain VAT refunds from other countries. In addition, the fact that businesses will be entitled to interest if member states are late in making refunds will be an incentive for tax administrations to speed up the process.
ISME is pleased that for the purposes of this regulation, buyers or customers making transactions to a value of less than €200,000 per calendar year will be exempt from monthly VAT declarations. This threshold will ensure SMEs which make intra-Community acquisitions occasionally or for small amounts will avoid the extra obligations imposed by the regulation. Our consultations with ISME members indicate that these measures will not impose a significant additional administrative burden on the SME sector. The speeding up and simplifying of refunds is to be welcomed and more than compensates for any extra administration.
ISME is supportive of the European Commission's objective of reducing administrative burdens on business by 25% by 2012. We agree that the regulation will slightly increase the business burden in a certain number of cases, but the overall objective of successfully combating VAT fraud far outweighs the extra administration for a number of large organisations which are well capable of adapting their systems accordingly. In addition, the fact that they can now submit data electronically rather than manually, as was the case for a certain number of companies up to now, will reduce the business burden.
ISME has concerns, however, with regard to the amount of automated information to which all member states will have access on taxable entities and requires that this aspect of the proposed regulation be scrutinised. We also suggest harmonised standards be put in place for speedy registration and deregistration of VAT-liable entities to assist in combating VAT fraud. The one question that ISME would pose is whether the financial administrations in the individual member states, particularly Ireland, have the necessary resources to evaluate the data quickly and efficiently in order that they can carry through the regulation, service the business community and avoid the payment of interest on late refunds.
In summary, taking into account the potential for fraud, the absence of an alternative system, the improvements in the proposed system and the small number of operators affected, ISME has no objection to the regulation.
Thank you.
I am in the unusual position today of representing two organisations. My colleague, Fergal O'Brien, was called to Brussels and he has sent me his comments in advance. I have incorporated them into our overall opinion. The Small Firms Association, SFA, represents small companies employing fewer than 50 people and has 8,000 members throughout the length and breadth of the country. This proposal has been reviewed with our member companies and there have been a number of concerns over it which we would like the committee to examine further, and perhaps also discuss them with the EU Commission.
The first issue is that no evidence has been presented to suggest that this will have the impact that has been envisaged. Nothing has been produced to show that by doing this tax evasion will be tackled. We call for a full impact assessment to be conducted before the regulation is implemented. While the standard cost model is useful it is not the determining factor, and I think it would be worthwhile having a full impact assessment.
We also have concerns about the lack of clarity regarding a threat to payment periods and the individual member states rather than just statistical returns, and there is scope within the regulation for that. We would like to be assured that we would still have the right to run our own tax system in Ireland and have the right to make payments when our Minister for Finance and Revenue see fit. There would be very serious cashflow issues if VAT returns were to be completed monthly. This is heightened at the moment because of the credit crunch and the fact it is very difficult to get term loan financing and people are relying on overdrafts. Any impact on cashflow would have serious implications.
Another issue which needs to be examined is the threshold, because €200,000 may seem a lot but these are high-value, low-volume transactions. It is likely a small company might get caught in this. Whereas larger companies will have elaborate IT systems they can amend to fulfil the new requirements, smaller companies do not have that so there will be a level of investment required to give statistical returns.
In general terms, once those questions are answered we support the notion that there would be faster VAT rebates and tax evasion would be solved. At the moment the VIES return is seen by SFA members as a bureaucratic burden; very complex, difficult and with no visible benefits. Perhaps there could be improved communication in respect of where the information goes and how it is used. Many State bodies like to collect information but their ability to use that information effectively or why they even need it is sometimes questionable. Communication with businesses providing them with the information might solve a lot of problems. I thank the Chairman.
Thank you very much.
I shall say a few words and then hand over to Mr. Kennedy. A concern we have is a new layer of power being brought into play. Revenue has wide-ranging powers available to it which are necessary for many of its functions. We would be concerned if Brussels, while it has an important role to play in combatting tax evasion which we support, laid down an additional layer of power on top of what was already there.
I agree with previous speakers that we would have some reservations about the likely effectiveness of these measures in combating fraud. We believe they are probably misplaced; there are more effective ways of doing it. Over the long term they may require more difficult political decisions but are much more likely to be effective.
Our main concern is the range of new reporting requirements which will impact more on legitimate business than on fraudsters. There is no doubt that it is going to affect all layers of business as things stand. With the monthly VIES reporting requirements which have already been described there is no threshold. Therefore, for a person supplying services to another business in another EU member state, reporting requirements will be necessary where it is quite clear that such reporting requirements will do nothing to combat the type of fraud at which these measures are supposedly aimed. Aside from those comments we do not have any major concerns with the monthly VIES accounting, subject to the sensibleness of introducing a threshold for that requirement.
In regard to the information exchange requirements being placed on the various authorities in the different member states, we echo what previous speakers have said as to whether the resources are available to comply with these obligations but, more importantly, question whether this will be an efficient and effective use of Revenue's resources. We know that on the VAT side, Revenue's resources are stretched. To have to divert some of those existing resources to deal with this issue, largely what we believe will be an ineffective measure, does not seem to us to be a sensible use of those resources.
There are two specific aspects I wish to home in on, that is the detail rather than the macro level in the proposal. The first is the proposed amendment to Article 252, sub-article 2, which would set the norm as making a VAT return on a monthly basis. That would cause concern if it becomes the norm because it would accelerate cashflow costs for many businesses. In the proposal there is an exception where member states can set it outside that norm but not for companies that buy in services above the €200,000 level or buy in goods from other EU member states above the €200,000 level as they would be caught, without any exception. That would make for a considerable cashflow.
The introductory paper to the proposal suggests that the €200,000 threshold was quite high but that is not the case. Certainly many of the large multinationals and those in the IFSC which buy in many of these services will cross that threshold quite easily. They would be in the position of filing monthly returns which will generate cashflow costs across many large groups of industry in Ireland.
The second point I wish to make tends to get lost, namely, there is going to be a deemed tax point on the calendar year end where somebody buys in services from another member state. It will state that at 31 December in the case of an ongoing contract we will deem a tax point. That will have a particular impact on ongoing third party contracts but it will also have a major impact on global service contracts or intergroup transactions when a true-up would be done at the end of the company's financial year and no consideration would be given at an arbitrary point, based on a calendar year, as to what value has been put on services to that point. At year end, one would look at resources allocation and work out how much recharge for services would be distributed among subsidiaries globally. An arbitrary date like that will cause many problems.
Thank you very much. Is it the cut-off end of year?
Yes.
There is quite a difference of opinion between ISME to the Small Firms Association and IBEC and the Revenue in regard to the bureaucracy involved for businesses, the elimination of fraud and the practicalities of doing monthly returns. I ask Mr. Murphy to outline the extent of the excess volume coming through. There has been a huge level of imports into Ireland in the past 12 years. Is there a problem with invoice and shipping dates because once an invoice is completed by a supplier there can be a difference of three weeks in the arrival date? What date will be used? When will the clock start ticking? Will it be from the date the supplier writes the invoice or the date the goods dock at Dublin Port? The sum of €200,000 appears very small taking into account the intensity and volume of trade. Having been at Dublin Port and seen container loads arrive, I imagine four to five containers would bring one beyond the threshold.
Essentially, VAT follows the date of the invoice. A supplier issues an invoice which determines VAT liability. There are two elements to the Commission proposal. Where an Irish company supplies goods on an intra-Community basis, it must fill in a VIES return--
When is that filled in?
It is filled in on a quarterly basis in respect of the supplies in that three month period.
From outside the European Union.
From here to a customer in another member state. The VIES return covers supplies from Ireland to other Community member states.
On a point of information, I understood that once someone exporting to another member state had a VAT number, there was no requirement to charge VAT. Is that correct?
Yes. It is zero rated once they have the invoice and the VAT number of the customer in the other member state. As part of that process, on a quarterly basis they are required to send in a VIES return setting out total supplies in the three month period to each customer with a VAT number in the other member state.
With regard to the payment of VAT, is there an exchange of VAT returns with each jurisdiction? Would the VAT not be applicable in the country of destination?
VIES data are available from other member states for interrogation in respect of acquisitions of supplies from Ireland by their taxpayers. The VAT return forms the other part of the proposal. The requirement set out is that if goods or services to a value in excess of €200,000 are acquired from another member state, one will be required to file a monthly VAT return. The VAT return determines one's liability for the period but also contains the total value of acquisitions from the other member state. Essentially, the Commission envisages a facility where the two sets of information should balance, if everything is correct. There will be a facility for revenue authorities to interrogate the returns to determine if there are mismatches.
When goods are taken from Dublin Port, is it not the case that one pays VAT following customs clearance? Does that represent consumer taxation? It is the consumer who pays at the rate of 21%. When customs clearance is being sought at Dublin Port, is it not the case that one must pay the VAT due?
The VAT payable at point of entry only relates to imports from outside the Community. If something is brought in from the United States, it is subject to VAT at point of entry which is charged and collected by customs, but if goods are acquired from the United Kingdom, one quotes the VAT number. The goods are zero rated from the supplier in the United Kingdom and accounted for on the reverse charge basis on the VAT return. It is a transaction dealt with on the VAT return. That is what provides the opportunity to engage in carousel type fraud that the proposal is trying to address. We can manage to strip the VAT; the acquirer sells on to another customer, charges VAT, disappears and does not pay VAT to the revenue authority.
Was there not a precedent for this case? As Mr. Cody said, Mr. Murphy referred to the exchange of computer data and the incidence of paper fraud with the falsification of invoices in respect of which stock was not shipped. Is that the origin of this case, namely, that documentation was prepared but that there was no stock?
There have been variants of carousel-type fraud. It would probably have started off with the supply of goods and missing traders and evolved into the examples mentioned by the Chairman, in which invoices were transacted throughout the Community, but there were no goods. There have been some significant high profile multimillion euro and sterling fraud cases, particularly in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom suffered a significant loss of revenue three or four years ago to such a level that the national trade statistics were called into question concerning items such as computer chips and mobile phones.
On that point, are there outstanding cases in the United Kingdom involving the collection of revenue in this State? Have cases involving such irregularities and anomalies affected Ireland?
There was certainly the involvement of companies registered in Ireland. The experience to date is that companies registered in Ireland, often set up by UK based parts involved in carousel fraud, used Irish VAT numbers and zero rating to perpetrate serious fraud. There was significant involvement by the Revenue Commissioners and CAB in specific cases.
Are they ongoing?
There are some ongoing cases in the United Kingdom. In recent years the United Kingdom has introduced particular measures to target transactions in respect of computer chips and mobile phones. The authorities there consider they have at least got to grips with some of the more extreme cases. However, we have seen evidence in our communications with other member states that where when opportunities are closed in, say, the case of mobile phones, another item is targeted. The key products in such cases are of high value that can be moved easily.
I thank Mr. Cody for that clarification.
I thank the delegates for their presentations. If, as Mr. Murphy said, 30% of the overall tax take of each member states derives from VAT receipts, it is a substantial matter if there is fraud in the system. Do we have any reasonably clear objective information on the extent of such fraud? It has been indicated that Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom reported significant losses of VAT revenue. What constitutes a significant loss? Does Ireland have similar problems? Mr. Cody might be able to indicate the extent of carousel or other fraud? How substantial is it and how it is affecting our tax receipts?
The main thrust of the proposal is to reduce accounting procedures and speed up the process involved. If the procedure takes two months to complete, under the proposal, the time involved will merely be halved. If the process could be speeded up and made more effective through the use of electronic mechanisms, it could be made more efficient. Are the countries that have experienced heavy fraud, for example, Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, operating a system under which there is an exchange of information on a two-month or one-month basis? In other words, has it been tested against what occurs in countries where returns are made monthly or bi-monthly? It was stated that the majority of countries in the European Union have monthly systems. Is it possible to indicate the exact number in this regard and to outline how efficient the extra month has been in limiting fraud? A number of our guests indicated that there does not appear to be any evidence to suggest that the measure will prove effective.
Ms Callan stated that no real impact assessment has been carried out in respect of this measure. Surely such an assessment would take the form of examining what is happening in countries where the monthly system is already in operation and trying to discover whether the authorities in those states have managed to reduce the levels of fraud.
The cut-off level of €200,000 appears to be quite low, particularly in the context of the cost of goods and services that are traded across the European Union. Are those who represent the Small Firms Association and ISME suggesting that the cut-off level should be higher?
Over-regulation is a major issue. If there is a commitment to reduce regulation by 25% by 2012 and also a necessity to increase electronic activity in the context of the compilation of figures, etc., surely the two could be done together. The latter should be the thrust of the proposed policy.
I thought harmonised rules relating to VAT processing were already in existence throughout the European Union. Perhaps Mr. Cody might indicate what will be required in order to introduce fully harmonised standards within the Union.
I will reply first to the question on the harmonisation of processes and procedures. Essentially, VAT information exchange system, VIES, returns, which replaced the customs declarations that existed prior to the introduction of the Single Market, are harmonised on a three-monthly basis. Intra-Community suppliers, therefore, have three months to report to their own authorities and the revenue authorities then have three months to compile the relevant information and make it available to the authorities in other member states. That is a harmonised regime.
On VAT returns, member states are granted a great deal of flexibility in the context of making monthly returns, bi-monthly returns - as we do primarily in our case - and, for small traders, annual returns. Member states may pick a particular return or mix of returns to suit the circumstances of their trade.
The other key issue in the context of VAT administration relates to invoices, which represent the main controlling mechanism for the VAT system. As Mr. Murphy outlined earlier, VAT is assessed on the value added on goods and services and is charged as a percentage of the price of a good or service and arises at each stage in the production and distribution chain. Under the system we use, one deducts the VAT one is charged on an invoice and one charges VAT on one's invoice for supplies. The invoice is the key document which supports the VAT system. That is provided for in the VAT directive.
In the context of the Deputy's question regarding countries where monthly returns are used and whether that can inform us of the effectiveness of this proposal, I am afraid it cannot do so. At present, the purpose of the proposal is that monthly returns will be harmonised with VIES returns, which are currently submitted on a quarterly basis. While each member state has a monthly return, one cannot conduct an experiment to determine what has led to increased information because the quarterly VIES return is the basis of the provision.
It probably relates to the question of whether it is effective to try to match the reporting requirements and data supplied by individual traders across 27 member states and to drive an audit programme based on mismatches. Our strong view is that would lead to a series of mismatches and paper chases and the firms represented here would end up with interventions and audits by Revenue where there was an error in the return or an incorrect VAT number was quoted because a trader had become incorporated and the sole trader number was used or it was a matter of late compliance across all member states. We are all at one on this side that an attempt to match transactions where millions of transactions are involved to drive an audit programme is not necessarily the way to go.
Reference was made to what Revenue authorities do with the information. The information is important but it is only one piece of a jigsaw, which is fed into a risk evaluation process. The material is captured and we look for trends. With regard to tackling fraudsters, greater benefit results from initiatives targeted at vulnerable sectors, in which we have experience, and most important, enhanced bilateral and multilateral co-operation with members states. We have a dedicated team leading our interaction with colleagues in the UK, the Netherlands, France, etc., exchanging information and feeding it back to increase the knowledge of our auditors on the ground. Essentially, the fraudsters' aim is to hide in the mass of information. Their success depends on appearing to be legitimate and not coming to our attention. Our experience of fraudsters is that paper compliance is quite high. As the Chairman said, they have no problem filling out invoices. The invoice is handy because one does not have to have goods. At the registration stage, we try to identify cases in which a premises is not owned or the profile does not fit. For example, much of our interaction is with the UK regarding cases involving UK directors and bank accounts. A key part of successful fraud is often getting a significant repayment from Revenue. The focus is on what we regard as doubtful repayments while always having regard to the fact that the vast majority of repayments are legitimate and are linked to the cash flow of companies.
The Commission will bring forward more proposals in this area and there is probably more to be gained by targeted proposals relating to particular sectors.
I refer to the magnitude of carousel fraud in various countries. It is difficult to estimate but in the UK it was estimated to be approximately €3 billion a year, which in Irish terms equates to between €150 and €200 million. Such fraud is estimated at approximately €17 billion in Germany.
I will make a general point to echo what Mr. Cody said about Revenue. The general perception among small businesses is that in an effort to do good and to curb fraudsters, the Revenue applies too much bureaucracy to legitimate business. We must always be wary and question what are the benefits to us of the imposition of this cost. If it is said to be €250 million in money terms, what would be the return to us on this cost? We can ask the EU Commission for an impact assessment and this would be useful.
I am very impressed with the Revenue and its understanding of the additional bureaucracy being imposed on small business. Its approach is to recognise and appreciate the role which small companies play in the economy.
As I mentioned earlier, the burden of these requirements will fall on legitimate businesses, by and large. It behoves the Commission - if it is going to place that burden on legitimate businesses - to ensure that whatever system is introduced has a very significant chance of success in combating the evasion. They have that obligation to businesses throughout the Community. I do not believe that by what we have seen so far, the Commission has made that case. It should be put back to the Commission that it has a duty to legitimate businesses who keep the Community ticking over.
Is Mr. O'Brien saying there is not enough proven evidence to indicate the validity of this?
Exactly, but the Commission has an obligation to do so.
Deputy Costello has asked the questions I had in mind. Mr. Cody referred to VIES, the VAT information exchange system, which is issued quarterly. Would it not be better if VAT returns were to be quarterly rather than every month? VAT is currently returned every two months. I agree with Ms Callan and those who agreed that this will put an extra burden on small businesses and affect their cashflow. In many cases they are getting a 60-day credit and they do their VAT every 60 days. Now their VAT will be required to be returned every 30 days and they are giving 60 days' credit. It is obvious this will affect the cashflow of many small businesses.
The VIES is issued every three months. By changing the timescale for VAT returns to every month, how will this help Revenue and Europe more so than a timescale of every two or three months?
The Chairman also raised an important point. If the timescale becomes 30 days - and I would not be in favour of VAT being returned every 30 days because of the unnecessary burden it will place on business - will it be defined by the invoice date or the despatch date? It was stated that the invoice is the critical document in this process. The goods being despatched will include an invoice or a despatch note. Some goods could take nearly 30 days in transit if they are going by sea. This proposal will have a significant bearing on business costs.
I refer to the rigorous audits carried out by the State on small and large businesses. Neither the delegation nor anyone else can quantify the cost to the Exchequer, and the delegation has not supplied any figures.
I would like to support the approach being taken by the authorities that are negotiating on behalf of the State. The Department of Finance, which is the lead Department in this regard, and the Revenue Commissioners are involved in that process. Along with the other interested parties, they have made a logical argument in support of their case. I am familiar with carousel fraud. As far as the British Government is concerned, it is a serious matter. What is the position regarding the movement of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Surely it presents major difficulties for the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance.
That is a very good question.
Problems may result from the movement of fuel, such as diesel, washed diesel and petrol.
That is true.
Does the European Union take a percentage of all VAT that is collected? Do I understand correctly that the EU sets the actual VAT levels? The Union takes a percentage of the overall VAT take.
Is the Deputy seeking clarification on the different rates of VAT?
I am asking about Ireland's contribution to the EU, as far as VAT is concerned.
Senator Burke asked why the Commission is proposing to issue VAT information exchange system statements on a monthly basis, rather than on a quarterly basis as is done at present. Under the proposal, the Revenue Commissioners will have to process the relevant information and make it available each month. The proposal is based on the concept that fraud can be targeted and tackled more efficiently if information is accessed more speedily. It involves the issue of VAT information exchange system statements on a monthly basis.
In fairness to the Commission, it is not proposing a move to monthly VAT returns to try to change cashflow effects on traders. It believes that if information on intra-Community supplies can be made available more quickly and intra-Community acquisitions in other member states can be more speedily recorded - within a month of the end of the month to which the information applies - the authorities will have a better chance of being able to get to the fraudsters' doorsteps before they disappear. A key part of "missing trader" fraud is that the fraudster has to stick around for a while, before he or she passes on an invoice to somebody else to allow that person to claim back VAT from the revenue authority in the relevant member state. The Commission's initiative--
When they start paying it back, they have it paid.
There are at least two parties to the fraud. There are three or four parties in some cases of carousel fraud. The Commission wants to make information available to the member state of acquisition at an early stage. If a member state learns that a trader in that state bought goods in another member state, the revenue authorities in that state need to be in a position to knock on the trader's door before he or she disappears.
The original proposal that was made in 1991 in respect of the Single Market would have led to a double entry - a return from the supplier and a return from the acquirer - being made as part of the VAT information exchange system. That proposal did not receive enough support during the negotiations on the Single Market. The Commission has not forgotten about this issue. The current proposal represents a minor reintroduction of the concept of using VAT returns in this way.
Will proof of delivery be required under this proposal?
When goods are supplied in the normal manner, the supplier has to produce an invoice for the goods within 15 days of the end of the month in which the transaction takes place. That determines the tax point. The invoice determines the supply point.
Yes.
If a taxpayer is claiming VAT back in respect of invoices, and there are doubts about the bona fides of the transaction, we will examine supporting documentation, such as shipping documents.
Yes.
We will look for proof of movement. One must meet two conditions if one is to qualify for the 0% rate on an intra-Community supply. The customer must be registered for VAT in the other member state but the goods must move to the other member state. One of the problems with zero rated supply - and this touches on what Senator Leyden had to say - is that in some cases when they are invoiced, they are diverted onto the home market. That gives the non-compliant evader, in our case, an advantage of 21% as regards supplies, against legitimate trade. Proof of despatch will be looked at, but very much as an audit type of format. Billions of transactions are taking place and Revenue is not duplicating the work the businesses are doing and the invoices become the support mechanism for the VAT system. However, we will follow through and if there is a doubt about the bona fides of a transaction we will be looking at supporting documentation, proof of shipment, proof of transport and the use of transporters.
To answer the question as regards when a supply arises, essentially this happens under the transfer of ownership of goods or services and is a contractual issue. The VAT directive provides rules that are common to the Community for when an invoice has to issue. This is to ensure that there is a deadline and the question of how long goods take to get to their destination is not the determining factor. It is the contractual transfer of ownership.
As regards the harmonisation of the VAT system, a proportion of own resources of the Community is based on various calculations. One component of that is an element of the VAT receipts. I do not want to mislead the committee, as I cannot remember precisely, but it is something in the region of 1%. It is a complex factor, however, that includes not alone the VAT receipts, but also has to do with GNP. For example, our contribution of VAT receipts is capped because of the interaction as regards GNP rules. However, it is part of the financing of the Community and that gives the Commission greater competence in the area. VAT law across the Community is based on the directive, and this contains specific rules as regards rates and the scope of various things such as zero rating. There is a significant degree of flexibility. The standard rate has to be a minimum of 15% for example, and there is no maximum. It ranges between 15% and 25% throughout the Community. However, we are constrained in certain areas and do not have full flexibility.
The movement of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the Republic obviously gives rise to a whole range of issues in the context of the Single Market supplies of most goods and services to final consumers. As part of the Single Market, a private individual can buy goods and services in Northern Ireland or someone from the North can buy in the Republic, subject to VAT considerations in the respective jurisdictions.
Excisable goods were mentioned and there are different rules as regards these. Having regard to the current currency changes, there are differentials in relation to all the categories as regards cigarettes, alcohol products and oils. As regards oils, there is a significant price differential in favour of the prices south of the Border, compared with Northern Ireland. Because of the currency fluctuations, we were the second highest member state for cigarette prices. However, because of the changes in currency, we have now gone into first position, so the price differential has changed in the last while. Again, there is a price differential in alcohol. There is a good deal of current publicity, however, as regards the road haulage sector and that has been part of a multi-agency approach to tackling the abuse of rebated fuel, for example. This, too, has received a good deal of publicity over the last while.
On that point, although it is not directly related to VAT, a major issue arises regarding retail price differentials. I refer to the debate on consumer spending, people doing business in Northern Ireland and issues pertaining to excise, VAT and so on. In many cases, a different methodology is used for VAT, and rates in this regard differ. In certain cases, the differing taxes that obtain, be they VRT or excise duties, can portray certain segments of the retail sector in a highly unfair light.
I note that ISME appears to be satisfied with the proposed electronic refund procedure and welcomes the introduction of a fully electronic refund procedure, under which companies in member states will be able to establish whether they are able to reclaim VAT. Mr. Fielding has stated its membership considers that the introduction of such a measure will be positive.
I refer to the comments made here regarding the advantages of electronic refunds. I was under the impression that one can make electronic returns and receive electronic payments at present. Perhaps I am incorrect in this regard. Can one not make electronic returns to and receive electronic refunds from Revenue at present? Is that not done electronically within the State at present?
Mr. Fielding should deal with this issue because from ISME's perspective and on behalf of his members, I am intrigued by the position he has taken in this regard.
One must remember that we surveyed our members, who represent small and medium businesses. The comments heard by the joint committee from other representative bodies are being filtered through the voice of large business. Less than 4% of our members will be affected by this legislation, which is the reason we have stated it will not affect small and medium businesses.
What is Mr. Fielding's definition of "small"?
As anything up to 250 employees is a medium enterprise, "small" means fewer than 50 employees.
I understand the majority of Ireland's GNP is driven by small companies.
Of course it is.
There are very few large companies.
That is true.
The definitions of "small" and "medium" in Ireland differ considerably from those that obtain in Europe. Does Mr. Fielding agree?
Yes, I agree. My point is that less than 4% of our members, at the higher, that is, the medium level, actually are affected by this legislation.
That surprises me. I understand that ISME represents companies with 250 employees.
Yes.
The derogation of €200,000 appears to be a small amount of money for a company with such employee numbers. I would have imagined that such a company's imports would be considerably greater.
However, one should consider the 98% to 2% rule. The vast majority of the members we represent are in the micro and small categories, that is, fewer than ten and 50 employees, respectively. Consequently, it does not affect them in the same manner as outlined by the IBEC representative.
With regard to Senator Burke's point on the harmonisation of VAT, would this measure not also infiltrate every other business on the domestic front? While it may not have an impact in respect of imports and exports, the introduction of monthly VAT returns would have an impact on domestic sales. I do not doubt there would be VAT returns monthly and bimonthly thereafter. Would this not constitute across the board harmonisation of VAT for one month?
Again, being under the threshold of €200,000 will exempt the vast majority of my members from the one-month returns. A very small proportion of my membership will be affected by this measure. The one-month returns will not affect 96% or 97% of my members.
Not at present anyway.
No. This is an important aspect to take into account.
As for Mr. Fielding's point in respect of electronic payments, are there delays in receiving refunds from Revenue at present?
We receive complaints on a regular basis.
The core of the difficulty is that in Mr. Fielding's opening comments, he referred to the major advantage being that his members will receive payments instantly.
Those involved in this matter and intra-Community transactions reported to us that they were experiencing difficulties in getting refunds. They viewed the move to a complete electronic data transmission system as an improvement.
As an incentive.
Yes.
Would Mr. Fielding recommend it from the point of view of SMEs?
It does not affect SMEs. We consider the others. After examining GDP and GNP figures a few years ago, we needed to recast the country's accounts because of the carousel fraud. It must be stamped out and, in the absence of a better system, we do not have an objection to the one in question.
Is Mr. Fielding stating that 80% of the businesses represented by ISME have individual turnovers of less than €2.5 million per annum and less than €200,000 monthly? The threshold is €200,000.
I apologise. The €200,000 figure is a yearly figure, but it is not turnover. Rather, it is the figure for intra-Community transactions.
Is it consumer driven? Given the level of imports through Dublin Port and the number of containers being shipped out, one must agree that the country is being driven by imports. Regarding Senator Burke's point, I am amazed that the issue in question does not affect more of ISME's members.
I can only supply the information given to me by my members. It does not affect them.
I assume that the majority of micro-industries and small businesses operate within the boundaries of the island.
Yes.
In which case, the issue would not arise.
That is correct.
Is this not the thin edge of the wedge?
That Ireland does not have enough exporters or people engaged in international business is an issue. Enterprise Ireland claims to support 3,500 companies, but it is the agency that drives exporting small companies. Given that there are 250,000 businesses, there is a large gap. We are trying to make more businesses international.
The threshold means that, when one is setting up and trying to create an export presence, one does not have the type of IT and accounting systems required to make monthly returns. This is where the real cost is imposed. Larger companies are more capable in this respect. Most small businesses are domestically based, but we should be doing our utmost to ensure no new burdens or pressures are imposed on our internationally competitive sector.
Ms Callan represents the Small Firms Association and IBEC and her opinion contradicts ISME's. She represents small businesses across the island. Does she have concerns about the matter in question?
Yes. We view our membership from two perspectives in this regard. If people are trading in Ireland, they will not be affected. However, this does not mean that it remains a good idea, as it will affect the businesses that we must try to make as internationally competitive as possible.
Mr. Cody alluded to a problem with the exchange of information. Where there are mistakes - genuine errors, misquoted VAT numbers, etc. - a significant amount of wasted audits will be generated. When one supplies intra-Community goods, one can zero-rate them if the customer in the other EU member state provides his or her VAT number. When one sends services out of Ireland, there is no legislative obligation on the customer to provide one with his or her VAT number. This is a considerable mismatch. Once I know--
Is it an anomaly?
It is an anomaly at European and domestic levels. If I am supplying someone whom I know is in business, I must zero-rate my goods. However, there is no obligation on them to give me their VAT number.
There are a couple of issues arising from what Mr. Fielding and Mr. Kennedy said. New measures are being introduced on 1 January 2010 in respect of refund of payment claims from other member states, what used to be called eighth directive refunds. From 1 January 2010 member states must put in place an electronic refund system for traders in other member states who suffer VAT. At present, a trader in the Netherlands who suffers Irish VAT can reclaim it from the Irish Exchequer.
Please explain.
The rules are changing from 1 January 2010 to allow traders to reclaim it--
Such a trader would have no VAT number.
He or she would have no VAT number in Ireland.
VAT would have been paid on export.
No, this relates to VAT suffered in Ireland. Let us say a trader happens to be in Ireland to attend a convention and suffers VAT. Currently, he can reclaim it through the eighth directive VAT refund scheme.
Is that for services in Ireland?
Correct.
If he were to make a profit here on those services, what would happen?
If he was carrying out business or making supplies here, he might have to register here. The major element is the hauliers who suffer VAT throughout the Community as they pass through. They reclaim VAT through the eighth directive mechanism. From 1 January 2010 it will be an electronic refund system. Some Irish businesses complain that some member states are not as efficient in repaying VAT as others.
What recourse do they have in the event of non-compliance by another jurisdiction in the repayment of VAT? Who can act in the matter?
That has been the problem. Cases have been taken by the European Court of Justice against member states for not operating the system properly. As Mr. Fielding pointed out, a new system will be in place and interest will be payable on late payments.
The second part of the provision is the VAT package for business to business supplies of services. It contains a requirement to obtain the VAT number of the other party. It will introduce a system for the intra-Community supply of services, equivalent to that for the intra-Community supply of goods. It will be provided for in the Finance Bill in 2009 and must be in place before 1 January 2010. The proposal has been passed and was reviewed by the committee 18 months ago. This is layered on top.
Is it being introduced on 1 January 2010?
Yes.
On a point of clarification, if goods are brought into the European Union and reshipped, such as from China to the European Union for warehousing purposes, the containers are not opened and the goods are shipped to another destination inside or outside the Union. How is that matter dealt with?
It depends on where the goods are cleared for customs purposes. If goods are brought from outside the Community into a member state, it depends on the customs rules applied. Many goods are brought to major centres such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. The importer concerned will have the option of clearing the goods through customs in the Netherlands. If so, they become Community goods and subject to intra-Community supply rules. Alternatively, the importer has the option of transiting through the Netherlands. When they arrive in Dublin Port, they then become cleared for customs in Ireland.
In Ireland?
Yes, and in that case they are deemed to be an import into Ireland and become local goods.
Is there an anomaly or a grey area there with regard to compliance?
The rules, as is the case with many rules, are very clear but there are options that the importer can exercise, depending on his or her circumstances. Sometimes it will depend on different VAT rates. It may, for example, be advantageous from a cashflow perspective to clear the goods in a country that has a lower rate for such goods. There is also a wide range of issues - I am not really qualified to talk about customs - concerning customs duties and rules regarding --
Mr. Pat Murphy stated clearly that VAT makes up 30% of Exchequer returns, which is an enormous contribution. In terms of future developments, it is of critical importance that we maximise the payment. Mr. Cody is arguing that there is enormous bureaucracy surrounding VAT laws as well as wide variations in interpretation. In that context, I can see why the Commission is anxious to agree on its harmonisation and to strengthen the controls on VAT.
In terms of the evidence of fraud, are many companies or individuals being taken to court? Mr. Cody has pointed out that one day the goods are mobile telephones, the next day it is something else. Surely, no matter what law is passed - whether it is 60 days or 30 days - or what size the company, those engaging in fraud will continue to do so. Is there much evidence of prosecutions or figures regarding the numbers taken to date?
I presume there is a substantial fraud section in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Perhaps Mr. Cody could give us an idea how it operates, what level of fraud has been detected and whether fraud in this area is in the minor or major league. I presume that the Criminal Assets Bureau is also involved, to some degree. Between the fraud section of the Revenue Commissioners and the CAB, are there any proposals for dealing with the matter, based on experience gleaned on the ground?
I take this opportunity to welcome to the Visitors Gallery Ms Jan Kronberg, MP, from Australia and her husband, Mike. Ms Kronberg is an elected member of Parliament for the city of Melbourne in the State of Victoria. She and her family are visiting Ireland as part of a tour of several European countries. Ms Kronberg has family connections with Ireland through the McArdles of Armagh and the Kellys of Cork. They have just visited Kerry and Cork, where they studied Celtic and early Christian history. Ms Kronberg's son, Andrew, studied at St. Kevin's school in Melbourne so the family also made a visit to Glendalough. In addition to their interest in culture and family history, Ms Kronberg is also interested in our system of Government, particularly how our committee system works and our membership of the EU. I welcome the Kronbergs to Ireland and to this committee meeting.
I hesitate to get into a detailed presentation on the Revenue Commissioner's investigation and prosecution division because I am not responsible for that area, although I have some knowledge of what goes on. Essentially, from an operational point of view, Revenue has four regions and a large cases division, which deal with all of the tax cases in the country.
We also have a dedicated investigation and prosecution division which deals with investigations and recommendations for prosecution of serious tax or customs and excise evasion. This division sources cases for referral to the DPP for prosecution. At this stage, just under 90 open cases of serious tax evasion are being investigated by the division. Some of these cases arise in this area because one of the features of the type of fraud with which we deal is that it is not based on what we call tax heads. One is not a fraudster in respect of VAT, one is simply a fraudster. We tend to look at the person rather than the tax and our experience is that if someone is committing fraud on VAT, there is a fair chance that he or she is defrauding the Exchequer on excisable goods or on income and corporation tax. Our investigation and prosecution division investigates these cases on the tax side and 20 current files are being investigated with a view to prosecution on customs and excise offences. Many of these involve, as Senator Leyden noted, cross-Border movement of goods.
The audit programme is a major element of our strategy for tackling evasion and fraud. This programme conducts in the region of 15,000 audits per year and the names of defaulters are published on a quarterly basis. This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the application of the code of practice because only a small proportion of names are published. From our legacy investigations, we have collected in the region of €2 billion over the past several years.
Our experience in carousel fraud is that it has primarily affected the UK revenue and customs rather than Irish VAT collection. A variety of evasions are practised in regard to VAT, of which carousel fraud is only one. I am afraid that VAT evasion takes place in purely domestic transactions as well as intra-Community movements. The underpayment of VAT can arise through non-compliance, non-registration or from trading being conducted off record. VAT liabilities can also arise as a result of companies being unable to pay after running into difficulties. This is part of a jigsaw, as our chairman regularly notes during his annual appearances before the Committee on Public Accounts to respond to the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual reports.
To what extent does intra-Community VAT fraud impact on the collection of revenue?
Approximately 8,000 companies return the VIES reports annually. The majority are perfectly legitimate, although some of them may have tax issues to address but that is not ultimately due to intra-Community transactions. They do not return domestic sales where they charge VAT.
Is Mr. Cody referring to retail sales?
Yes. The advantage of exploiting the zero rating is that evading in respect of the sale of goods bought in another member state means VAT applies to the full price. However, if one evades VAT on goods bought from someone else one gets VAT on the margin. This is the advantage of the zero rating. The ultimate evasion is on local sales where VAT is not returned. The intra-Community zero rating improves the evader's profit margin.
The differential is from the invoice to the retail.
Yes.
Clearly Mr. Cody comprehensively answered the questions. The VAT regime is different in the retail area. Deputy Costello's question related to the volume of 8,000 companies as did Senator Burke's point. This is why Revenue's endorsement of the system and Mr. Murphy's satisfaction with it are important. We note the improvements that were sought and we will take note of the recommendations that were made. We also note the concerns that were raised.
I thank Mr. Pat Murphy, Mr. Niall Cody, Mr. Mark Fielding, Ms Patricia Callan, Mr. Donal Kennedy, Mr. Dermot O'Brien and their colleagues for the presentation we received and for answering our questions. VAT is a complicated area but I can see the necessity for VAT returns because it is the consumer who pays this tax. Business people facilitate the collection of this money on behalf of the buyer at source. VAT is built into retail prices so it is not taken from profits, it carries taxation from its source. As Senator Burke mentioned, the simplification of the VAT system and collection procedure is welcomed by this committee. The attitude of the Revenue representatives in this regard is also very welcome.
Our discussions have been very informative and will help the committee in finalising its scrutiny report. We will take into account the concerns raised today, particularly those of the Revenue representatives who are unhappy with this system. I think, by and large, there is a consensus on this. We will send the final report to the delegates and, having analysed what was discussed today, if they feel any issues are still outstanding we would appreciate it if they would summarise them for us in the next ten days.
Is it agreed that this letter should go to the Ceann Comhairle's office? Agreed.
