Members should be aware that there are two documents to be considered.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
Have we bypassed the work programme?
No, we are on items 3 and 4. We are joined by officials from the Department of Finance, the Revenue Commissioners and the CSO for that purpose. First, we will deal with EU proposal, COM (2003) 822. The committee decided in March that it would scrutinise the place of supply of services for the purposes of taxation. We are joined by Mr. Pat Leahy from the Department of Finance and Ms Clare Robson and Mr. Kevin Fitzpatrick from the Revenue Commissioners. I thank them for providing a briefing note which was circulated to members. I understand that Mr. Pat Leahy will make a short presentation. Following this, I will open the discussion to members. The officials may respond, as appropriate. While the comments of members are protected by parliamentary privilege, those of visitors are not so protected.
Mr. Pat Leahy
The European Commission came forward with a proposal in December 2003 to amend the rules on the place of supply of services. For VAT purposes, the place of supply means the place of taxation. The proposal deals mainly with the place of taxation of services between taxable persons — in effect VAT registered persons. In so far as there are references to the place of taxation rules between business and private consumers they generally restate the existing rules.
The rules which underpin the place of taxation of services are set out in Article 9 of the Sixth VAT Directive. These rules are mirrored in Irish VAT law. The general rule as set out in Article 9(1) is that the place of supply of services is where the supplier is located. Thus, where a supplier is established in Ireland and his business customer is Irish, the place of taxation is in Ireland. The same rules apply for the taxation of business to business supplies of services when the supplier is established in Ireland and his business customer is located in another member state. VAT is charged by the Irish supplier to the business customer in the other member state at the appropriate Irish rate.
There are some exceptions to the Article 9(1) rule which are contained in Article 9(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive. Article 9(2)(a) to (c) provides that some services such as those connected with the development of property, for example, or work on moveable tangible property are considered to be subject to VAT where the property is physically located or where work on the moveable tangible property is carried out. Article 9(2)(e) of the 6th VAT directive and the Fourth Schedule of the Irish VAT Act provide that a range of services such as consultancy services are subject to VAT where the customer is located. For example, if a business customer in Ireland receives a consultancy service from a company located in another member state, then Ireland is the place of taxation.
This leads to the question of why the existing rules should be changed. However, they give rise to a number of problems. The most significant problem is that all taxable persons in the EU who receive a service but who are not established in the country where VAT is levied must claim such VAT from the administration of the other member state if they wish to avail of their right to recover such VAT. It is a specific right that taxable businesses are entitled to VAT refunds where that VAT is incurred in the member states where they operate or in other member states.
The current refund procedure is time consuming. Businesses do not always pay on time and this creates problems for taxable businesses in terms of exercising their right to recover VAT and also in terms of their accounting arrangements.
The second issue relates to the cross-border leasing of motor vehicles. There are different rules on the right to deduct VAT on motor vehicles in each member state. This creates a tax incentive for taxable persons in certain member states to lease business cars from another member state to take advantage of more favourable rules on the right to deduct VAT. This could give rise to a loss of revenue for member states from such cross-border leasing activities.
The third issue relates to the question of VAT registration in other member states. In many instances a supplier may supply services in respect of movable tangible property, for example, repair of equipment in another member state other than where he or she is established. The supplier is required to register for VAT in each member state where he has customers and make returns to the tax authorities in those member states. For many businesses this is administratively onerous, especially where they carry out activities in a number of member states
The new proposal provides that the general rule with respect to the place of supply of services should be based on where the customer, that is, the taxable person, is established. I will outline the broad implications of the change in the place of taxation rule for Irish businesses. There is no change where both parties to the transaction are in Ireland. The change will only impact on services supplied cross frontier. However, where an Irish business makes supplies of services to other business customers in an EU member state, then the liability for such VAT will rest with the business customer in that member state. The business customer who receives the services will have to account for such VAT to their own national tax authorities at the appropriate rate in whatever member state he or she is established.
This is being proposed as the basic rule. However, this rule is not appropriate for a number of specific services for practical reasons and these are dealt with differently. The exceptions retain the existing rules with regard to the supply of services to property, cultural, artistic, sporting and entertainment and similar services.
The introduction of a procedure which provides that the place of taxation of the service is where the customer is located raises the issue of whether there are appropriate controls to safeguard revenue from this sector. In this context an extension of the VAT information exchange system, VIES, to services is proposed by the Commission. The VIES was set up in 1993 to enable member states to control intra-Community acquisitions of goods by taxable persons. This information exchange system replaced the documentary and physical control of imports and exports to other member states at national frontiers.
Two other significant issues are raised by the Commission proposal — the difficulty of determining the place of supply of a service when supplied to a company that has establishments in more than one member state and the VAT treatment of services traded between various legal parts of a company. These issues are largely technical and are still being considered by the tax group at its meetings in Brussels.
Why is this issue important for Ireland? Ireland has indicated that progressing the proposal to amend the rules governing the place of taxation, together with the increased application of the reverse charge for business to business services, is a significant part of its Presidency programme in respect of indirect taxes. It was always recognised that this was a complex dossier that would not be resolved fully by our Presidency. It is considered that the proposed changes in the rules will benefit Irish business in the following ways: having the place of taxation where the customer is located reduces the existing complexity of the system for traders; the new rules would reduce the need for Irish businesses to recover VAT under the 8th directive, thus significantly reducing the compliance burden for them and improving their cash flow; where Irish businesses provide services in other member states, there would no longer be a requirement for them to register and pay VAT in each of those member states. This arises from the Amsterdam treaty in terms of reducing costs through administrative simplification; the proposal will resolve potential difficulties with the cross-border leasing of business cars, which is an issue of concern to Ireland given the potential for the development of tax avoidance activities in this area; and the issue of composite supplies, that is, supplies consisting of a number of different services, would no longer be a problem since in general such supplies would be subject to the same place of taxation rule.
The draft proposal is, therefore, important for Irish businesses in reducing administrative and cash flow burdens, allowing them to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the internal market. The Irish Presidency has worked hard to attempt to progress agreement on the different aspects of the proposal and has held five working party meetings on the dossier since January of this year. The next meeting to discuss the dossier will be in May.
This is a sensible idea. Does a contrary regime apply in respect of goods? In other words, VAT is paid at the place of supply, not the place of the customer. Presumably, the Commission went for this to permit people to obtain the best value by shopping around and travelling to low VAT countries to obtain a service. Does this measure undermine the ability of people to shop around and take advantage of trading for services they need in countries that offer the lowest VAT rate? They must pay VAT at 21% in Ireland but will they be prevented from taking advantage of the opportunity for legitimate arbitrage and the 5% VAT rate, for example, in Spain?
The Commission is bending over backwards to facilitate business, as it should, to recover VAT that has been overpaid. If an Irish person is working for a French company and he or she has share options in the company, tax is deducted at source by the company but he or she cannot recover the tax paid on them, which ought to be the case. Could the Minister expend similar energy during the Presidency on addressing that taxation problem? This only applies to Irish workers in European-owned companies but there are many of them and it is an issue. I am aware from my constituency clinics that such workers cannot recover the tax. It is similar to dropping a stone in a lake. It will never be seen again if one writes to the French or German authorities seeking recovery. Will the Department put on its list the desire to reach agreements with other member states in respect of refunds for those who hold share options in European companies in which they are employed?
Ms Clare Robson
I will take the Deputy's first question and Mr. Leahy will take the second. With regard to the question of goods versus services, the directive deals with business to business services. In the business to business supply of goods arena, it is exactly the same as what is proposed. The business supplier is entitled to zero rate the goods so that the business customer who receives them in the other member state accounts for VAT in his or her own country. This proposals follows the goods regime in the business to business arena.
The Deputy referred to shopping around and trying to get the best value. That relates to consumers travelling from country to country trying to source goods and services in the country that has the lowest VAT rate. With regard to business to consumer services, where the supplier is located is the place of taxation. That would occur in the consumer area. This proposal makes no changes to that. Mr. Leahy can address the share issue.
Mr. Leahy
The broad reason we are dealing with the VAT agenda is the proposal of the Commission, which has the right of initiative in EU legislation. I cannot claim to have any expertise in the area of dividends or share options, but I can undertake to bring this back to my colleagues for a reply. It is possible the Commission has no powers to bring forward proposals for direct taxation. Members will appreciate there is a lot less activity in direct taxes as opposed to indirect taxes. There are far fewer proposals from the Commission in that regard.
I read the briefing and I accept the broad thrust of what is proposed here, but I have some concerns. The presentation of the case fails to spell out the consequences in particular areas. I am a Border Deputy representing Cavan-Monaghan and the leasing of vehicles is at the heart of the issues you seek to address, particularly when it comes to what is important for Ireland in this measure.
Paragraph 38 states that the proposal will resolve potential difficulties with cross-Border leasing of business cars, an issue of particular concern to Ireland given the potential for the development of tax avoidance in this area. I am particularly anxious to have the facts spelt out here. What is the known level of incidents in this area? What are the possible downsides of the change? Many small businesses may avail of cross-Border leasing arrangements. Is there a possible downside in that people may re-evaluate location? That concerns me.
I note the style of the presentation, which states that it is considered that the changes will benefit Irish business in the following ways. That is fine and I understand the points made. Nevertheless, while one does not want to defend tax avoidance measures, I am concerned about the consequences of these changes for business and employment opportunities. Make no mistake, business and employment in the Border areas can become transient when benefits are offered elsewhere. We have had ample examples of that with petrol and auto-diesel service stations. Now if you travel north you find very few of those, though it used to be the reverse south of the Border when a particular advantage applied.
It is important that we spell this out. This document works in broad brush strokes but the specifics interest me for the reasons I have given. It is important now, and in future briefings, to have an eye on the consequences of measures, particularly when there is a cross-border dimension. We can be sold on the theory but we need to know the consequences of a measure for a particular area and it is important committee members are fully exposed to the facts behind such measures.
I would welcome any additional information. I hope there is no pressure for closure with this Council directive and if the request for additional information is not available in Mr. Leahy's response perhaps we could be advised later through the secretariat. That is the way to approach this measure.
Mr. Leahy
I will give a brief overview but I undertake to provide more information on the cross-Border leasing of vehicles. Cross-Border leasing that is not just between us and the UK; it applies to all countries in the EU.
We do not allow businesses in Ireland to deduct VAT on the leasing or purchase of business cars, therefore there is a significant revenue gain out of that. The income may be as much as €100 million if one assumes 40,000 business cars are purchased during a year. Based on that——
Why is that?
Mr. Leahy
Individual member states can restrict the right to deduct for certain business activities under EU rules. We do not allow deductibility for the leasing and purchase of business vehicles, for petrol, for hotels or for restaurants. Significant revenue is therefore raised from the business community, with cars contributing an estimated €100 million on the basis of 40,000 business cars at €2,500 VAT each. That is probably a low estimate but it depends on a business buying cars per year, which is difficult to estimate. It is difficult to estimate the number of business cars on the road.
If there are 1.5 million cars then that is a very small percentage.
Mr. Leahy
We are working on the basis of 150,00 sales per year. The figure may be higher.
So it is based on the sales per year. That is a significant tax on business.
Mr. Leahy
It would be, but looking at it the other way there is a significant benefit for the Exchequer.
What is the position north of the Border?
Mr. Leahy
There are significant restrictions in the North as well but I would have to check the details.
Is this the case across Europe?
Mr. Leahy
It depends. Some member states allow deductibility and others do not. There is often a correlation between deductibility and those countries with car manufacturing industries. They allow deductibility and that is part of the problem. It is possible to manipulate rules to lease cars in other states, even if cars are physically in other countries, such as Ireland. That means it is possible to have a VAT-free business car in Ireland. The proposal as outlined by the Commission means such cars would be leased where the customer is located — Ireland in this case — thus protecting Exchequer revenue in those countries.
Has much revenue been lost in this way at present?
Mr. Leahy
I am not aware that it has.
It is a great tax if you can get away with raising €100 million without a word. Well done. I am surprised I have not heard more about this.
Ms Robson
In order to protect the Exchequer against this leakage and to police this area in Ireland, there is a provision that purchase of cars by lessors is non-deductible. If a lessor purchases a car and leases it to an Irish citizen it is non-deductible, so it is not a fruitful source of income. One must have an Irish registered vehicle to be on an Irish road as an Irish businessman, therefore there is currently a mechanism in place to protect the Exchequer. If the directive changes the place of supply of the service, there is no need to protect the Irish Exchequer in this way. It will automatically flow that the place of taxation will be Ireland for all the services, no matter where the lessor company is situated.
Ms Robson stated that VAT on petrol sales by businesses is not reclaimable.
Ms Robson
It is not deductible in the case of petrol but it is in the case of diesel.
Is there a difference between leaded and unleaded fuel?
Ms Robson
If it is petrol it is all non-deductible.
Has that always been the case?
Ms Robson
Yes.
Diesel would be the preferred option of those working within the business sector. It is a deductible and claimable allowance.
Why is there a difference between diesel and petrol?
Different rates. However, it is not for me to answer; I am just speculating.
Mr. Leahy
The standard rate applies to both diesel and petrol, therefore it is not a rates issue. It may have been a business issue. It is a long time in existence but I will try to find out why the difference has evolved.
Each time VAT increases are announced in the budget, we hear that it will cripple businesses. If most trucks and vehicles use diesel, we have all been making false arguments. Perhaps we did not understand the issue.
People must be registered to claim back VAT.
In other words, when VAT on petrol increases on budget night, it does not impact on businesses who use diesel.
It will.
No. Businesses who use diesel reclaim VAT. If VAT increases, they reclaim the VAT increase, therefore it costs them nothing. Is that correct?
Mr. Leahy
If there is a change in excise duties on budget night, these are not reclaimable. It would only matter to businesses if the standard rate of VAT increased. Diesel and petrol are standard rated. Therefore if the current rate of 13.5% VAT increased, it would have no impact. If the standard rate increased, it would impact on petrol and diesel users. The standard rate has rarely been changed. It increased from 20% to 21%, and it has not been changed since then. Prior to that, it was not changed since 1993. It is rare to have VAT changes. It is usually excise duty which changes and this is non-reclaimable by business. Perhaps this is why they complain it is an additional cost.
My concerns related to the comparisons between this Exchequer and the neighbouring Exchequer on the island, which is the one that will have the most direct impact in terms of any changes. Would it be possible to provide us with a detailed comparison on the possible effects in order to make an informed evaluation of the consequences of the directive, which is the kernel of the matter? It may be that the concerns I have expressed can be set aside. If that is the case, well and good. However, it is important to explore all of these areas.
Perhaps as a matter of course in terms of briefings prepared by the Department for this committee, there might be a mind to the all-Ireland dimension, particularly the possible down-side consequences, which would obviously be of concern.
Mr. Leahy
Is the Deputy just interested in the cross-Border movement of cars?
No, I am using that as an example. That is the crucial example in the series of five bullet points in section 38. I understand these are the critical changes in the rules. This is the area I would like explored.
We have concluded the discussion on this directive. On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Leahy, Ms Robson and Mr. Fitzpatrick for assisting us in scrutinising the directive. We will take on board the comments made by the Deputy. The committee will consider his views and report to him in due course. The material will be sent to the committee in the normal way.
The next item on the agenda is a presentation on EU COM (2003) 789 concerning the compilation by the institutional sector of quarterly non-financial accounts. The committee decided in March that it would scrutinise this proposal which concerns the compilation of non-financial accounts on a quarterly basis for each institutional sector. We are joined by Mr. Bill Keating, director of macro economic statistics at the Central Statistics Office, and Mr. Mick Lucey, senior statistician. They are both welcome and I thank them for providing us with a briefing note which was circulated to members of the committee. Mr. Keating will make a brief presentation which will be followed by a question and answer session. Officials may respond, as appropriate. While members are protected by parliamentary privilege, visitors are not so protected.
Mr. Bill Keating
The regulation provides for a breakdown of the national accounts by institutional sectors. I am sure members will have heard of the national accounts. They are the comprehensive framework which enables us to present economic data on the performance of the economy in a coherent and consistent manner. They provide a means of reconciling the various statistical indicators according to international standards and they give the important macro economic aggregates such as GDP, GNI values, growth rates and so on.
The proposal for sectoral accounts is for a further desegregation of these overall national accounts to distinguish different so-called institutional sectors. The aim of the proposed regulation is to set up a common framework for the contributions of member states to the compilation of quarterly European accounts. They are deemed necessary for the analysis of cyclical movements in the European Union economy, the euro area economy, the conduct of monetary policy and to give information on the economic behaviour and inter-relationship of individual institutional sectors.
The function of national accounts is to provide a systematic summary of national economic activity. The economic transactions that contribute to this are carried out by a variety of transactors. For the purposes of this regulation, we are talking about those transactors being divided into five institutional sectors — financial corporations, non-financial corporations, Government, consisting of both central and local government, the households and non-profit institutions serving households and the rest of the world account. The accounts will indicate for each sector items such as the value of production, breakdown of profit and wages, investment income flows, transfer of incomes between sectors and so on, down to the value of sectoral savings and investment on net lending positions.
These accounts are a further elaboration of the existing national accounts and, taken in conjunction with financial accounts, would be an input into the behaviour of corporations and households through the business cycle. In this case, the emphasis is on the behaviour of the European Union economy or the euro area economy as a whole.
The existing national accounts show elements, such as savings, for a number of these sectors. In Ireland this is only done annually in full detail at present. However, the sectoral accounts provide much more detail, including interest and dividend flows, and their particular value lies in providing estimates that balance across the different sectors. So, for example, one would look at household income but one would relate it to the sources from which it comes, whether wages and salaries from the corporate sector, Government transfers, dividends or whatever. For many of those, we already make estimates but now they will have to fit and be consistent with a more elaborate framework.
The drive for this regulation has been one of the primary elements of the EMU action plan for statistics and the ECOFIN committee has urged member states to adopt and implement the regulation on quarterly accounts by institutional sectors. We already have a Council regulation that requires member states to prepare these on an annual basis. Ireland has a derogation until September 2005 for submission of these annual accounts and the Central Statistics Office is currently working on those. Some sectors are easier to compile than others. For example, we have good information on Government and on the rest of the world but we have difficulty estimating certain financial flows and savings by the different sectors.
The introduction of quarterly sectoral accounts will, almost certainly, create some additional resource requirements, given that we do not have comprehensive quarterly data systems in place. We envisage relying on a number of estimation techniques for these quarterly accounts but additional data collection is also likely to be needed. The CSO already prepares quarterly accounts dealing with GDP and GNP in both current and constant prices but these are not done on the sectoral basis now required.
Under the Irish Presidency, the working group on statistics at official level has discussed the regulation on two occasions and there has been relatively little discussion. There is general agreement on a text. Ireland and Denmark have placed parliamentary scrutiny reservations. In Ireland's case this is because this committee wishes to form a view on the legislation. We have achieved a postponement of the original date by six months and there is provision for derogation for up to three years. Ireland will be seeking such a derogation and we are confident it will be granted, given that we have yet to provide the annual institutional sectoral accounts. The regulation will be taken up again under the next Presidency when it will go to Parliament for a second reading but we feel it is likely to progress smoothly.
This all seems very technical and worthwhile. Can Mr. Keating tell us the practical advantages of this new disaggregation of the quarterly accounts on GDP? What trends will we pick up more quickly and will we see an improvement in forecasting capability or in early warnings of dysfunction, or whatever it is called in the economic world? What, exactly, are we getting for going along with this decision and requiring the CSO to do this additional work?
Mr. Keating
I will ask my colleague, Mr. Mick Lucey, to speak further on that. The new system is aimed at providing statistics for the euro area as a whole. The need for Ireland to have the new accounts, for Ireland per se, is not stressed. They will allow Ireland’s contribution to the euro area, as a whole, to be given. Mr. Mick Lucey will say more about the use of these accounts.
Mr. Mick Lucey
As Mr. Keating has said, the requirement for these accounts has arisen in the context of the EMU action plan. When looking at the information needed to manage the euro area economy, and particularly the euro currency, the Economic and Financial Committee identified these institutional sectoral accounts as one of the key data gaps and one of the key priorities for additional information. The sectoral accounts provide comprehensive and consistent information for the main sectors of the economy. These are the household, corporate and Government sectors and the rest of the world. Information is provided on the income, expenditure, savings and borrowings of these sectors. Only by having these quarterly sectoral accounts can one determine, on a quarterly basis, some of the key aggregates. These include: the reaction of personal savings; how the corporate sector reacts; and the income, expenditure, investments, net borrowing and lending position of the corporate sector vis-à-vis both the financial institutions and the rest of the world.
Nationally, we have not determined a great demand for these accounts on a quarterly basis. For some sectors, such as the Government sector, there has been a need for them. They have been required for some time to monitor the excessive deficit procedure and the financial positions of economies and Governments. We are now widening them to all areas. They seem to be a key determinant and monitoring instrument in the management of important currencies, such as the euro.
Mr. Keating indicated that there is no need for these additional services, that companies and households are making sufficient returns and that the information could be generated internally from existing data resources?
Mr. Keating
That is true to a large extent. We are currently evaluating that position as we develop that annual sector accounts. We want to use existing data sources and we have a considerable number of those. On the other hand, there may be a need for a small additional number of statistical surveys. For example, we do not, at present, have a survey of corporate profits on a quarterly basis. We are evaluating whether one or two such surveys will be necessary.
These are for the CSO's confidential information. Will businesses complain to public representatives about the burden of regulations and form filling with which they are lumbered?
Mr. Keating
We are conscious of that situation and hope to be able to use existing data sources. There may be some additional surveying but we will try to keep that to a minimum.
Does this relate to the euro area as opposed to the European Union?
Mr. Keating
It applies to both. However, the drive for monitoring of the euro area and the management of the euro currency has come from the European Central Bank, in particular.
Because of the volume of our trade with our nearest neighbour, what would be the effect of the United Kingdom not being included in this?
Mr. Keating
The United Kingdom already has a comprehensive set of institutional sector accounts.
They are more advanced.
How soon after the end of the year will the figures be available and how soon after the end of the quarter will quarterly figures be available? Information must be timely to be relevant. What are the targets for availability of information after the end of a particular period? We will be looking for a derogation so that we will not have to supply quarterly institutional sector accounts until 2008. The regulation states that in the first couple of years after we enter the system such accounts must be supplied within 95 days of the end of the quarter and, after that, within 90 days. In other words, they must be produced within three months.
Why are we seeking a derogation?
Mr. Keating
We are still only developing the annual sector accounts as a result of the introduction of the European system of accounts, ESA, in 1995. That legislation greatly expanded the range of statistics which we had to provide to the EU. We took those matters in order of priority from a national perspective. For example, the EU required us to provide quarterly national accounts and we introduced them a few years ago. We have made a number of other significant developments. We regarded these accounts, from a national point of view, as being much further down the line and at the time negotiated a derogation until 2005. We could not develop all these accounts together; we had to approach them incrementally.
In terms of gathering this information, will questionnaires be used? What mechanism will be used in this regard?
Mr. Keating
We will try to keep the exercise to a minimum and will use information already available from a variety of sources, including our balance of payment surveys, which effectively become for this purpose the rest of the world account.
I have a final question regarding the document presented to the committee in terms of the make-up of households. Households are made up of individuals and include unincorporated enterprises, for example, self-employed persons. There is one exception where an unincorporated enterprise is large enough to be constituted as a quasi corporation. When is such an enterprise considered large enough? I am thinking, in particular, of the many foreign companies operating in Ireland by way of franchise which, as such, are not incorporated in Ireland. Such companies can often be multi-billion businesses. The issue of incorporation is not necessarily a good criteria for separation. Perhaps Mr. Lucey will clarify that point.
Mr. Lucey
In compiling the institutional sector accounts we try to group together units with similar behaviour. An unincorporated enterprise which behaves to all intents and purposes as an incorporated entity must be classified in the corporate sector. Currently, as a matter of course, all branches of foreign-owned companies are classified in the corporate sector. That is the primary cross-over area. One could include very large partnerships such as legal or accountancy firms that are large enough to behave to all intents and purposes as companies. Such companies should be classified and accounted for in the corporate sector.
I just wanted clarification on that point. On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Keating and Mr. Lucey for their assistance in our scrutiny of the proposal. The committee must prepare a report of its views on the proposal and, when agreed, the report will be laid before the Dáil and Seanad and communicated to the sub-committee on EU scrutiny.
Do members wish to agree a view so that the clerk can prepare a draft report for the next meeting?
Agreed.
On that basis, the clerk will prepare a report. We will now move to deal with the final item on the agenda and leave the matter of the draft work programme for another day.
What was the decision regarding decentralisation in terms of our work programme?
That matter is on our work programme.
Have we listed any priorities?
No. There were approximately 25 different items on the work programme, as noted at our last meeting. We have now reduced the list under ten key headings which are contained in the document circulated. I suggest we prioritise that list at our next meeting.
Last summer we met with representatives of the banks and must now schedule a meeting to finalise that report, otherwise our meetings will be considered a joke having never reached any conclusions.
There are many other questions one would like to pose to the institutions concerned.
Perhaps we can propose a mechanism which would allow us to get the report out of the way. IFSRA has been established since we first met on this issue and we may be able to refer to it in this regard.
Perhaps it is not appropriate for me to state this but today's news at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. will concern a Member of the Dáil and her former employment by a financial institution, yet the real focus should be on the financial institutions and the banking sector which designed and promoted the schemes concerned.
And profited from them.
Yes. Those schemes were devised primarily as a means of tax evasion. I believe there is a major issue to be addressed in that regard. The exercise in the Supreme Court today is but a small milestone along that journey, something which this committee should indicate.
We are not restricted in that regard. I suggest that when the clerk has completed a draft report a number of people will take time out to consider it. We will then come back and agree a report.
I endorse, in broad terms, Deputy Ó Caoláin's sentiments. The banks' responsibility for the schemes cannot be evaded or skirted round. We know that in many instances the initiative was taken by the banks, not customers. That does not mean customers were without any responsibility. That is going much too far. However, there is a serious issue to be considered. I am not satisfied that purely concentrating on the customer will deal with and dispose of the issue.
We are agreed on that issue. The select committee will consider the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach, next Thursday, 6 May. I am aware we do not normally meet on Thursdays but the Government Chief Whip is taking the Estimates on behalf of the Taoiseach and in that regard Thursday is considered the most suitable day.
What time will we meet?
At 3 p.m. to facilitate the Government Chief Whip who will be tied up in the Dáil at other times.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 May 2004.