Apologies have been received from Deputy McGuinness. The minutes of the meeting of 13 September 2006 have been circulated. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. Do any matters arise from the minutes? The matter of the Irish Bankers Federation was deferred to this meeting.
Business of Joint Committee.
If there is no response, I am not in a position to throw any further light on the matter for the Vice Chairman. I was not present. Was the item deferred to allow someone to throw light on what further action the joint committee should consider?
It was a response to queries raised by members of the committee and I expect it has been circulated. Queries were raised at the meeting and there was a response from the federation. We can send another copy and deal with it at the next meeting if members do not have it to hand today.
I will now deal with correspondence in accordance with the schedule. The first item of correspondence is a letter dated 22 September from the Financial Regulator regarding the possible attendance of representatives of CUDA today. That has now been agreed.
There is an e-mail addressed to the Chairman from an individual at Home Instead regarding care of the elderly. I suggest, therefore, that we leave it for him because he has the details.
The next item is a letter to the committee from the Chief Whip, Deputy Tom Kitt, outlining the legislative programme for the next Dáil session. A copy is available on request to members.
The next item is a letter from an individual regarding tax proposals in respect of charities and sports bodies involving the donation or redistribution of credit card stamp duty to charities and sports bodies. This was forwarded by Deputy Burton. Perhaps she would like to comment.
Most members of the committee have received representations from this individual. It is essentially a pre-budget proposal that a proportion of the receipts from the duty on credit cards and laser cards should be directed in a specific way to charitable organisations. It has been raised with the Minister for Finance on a couple of occasions. I am not sure whether he has a positive outlook on it. It is very much a pre-budget issue. As a number of political parties and Deputies may be anxious to support the proposal, perhaps it would be appropriate to invite the individual in question to make a presentation to the committee in regard to sports and charitable organisations. The only caveat is that there is no legislation dealing with the regulation of charities. That is a matter that would need to be addressed. Alternatively, it would be necessary to define in a certain way the charities which might benefit.
This is an individual. We usually deal with associations or groups.
The Chairman mentioned on a number of occasions last year that it might be useful for the committee to examine certain proposals. In that context I and many others have received a number of communications in regard to the issue which may be worth examining.
The Chair makes a valid point. However, I see from the correspondence that the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group has weighed in behind this proposal. It appears some exploration with financial institutions has also been organised. The proposal has moved on considerably from the stage of an individual with a good idea to one that is gaining currency. It is similar to proposals considered in previous Finance Bills to extend the basis on which tax relief might be obtained for charitable donations. This is a variant in that it is linked to credit cards; therefore, it is stamp duty rather than income tax relief. It is worthy of consideration. I support Deputy Burton's request to allow the case to be put.
I do not want to set a precedent whereby individuals attend the committee. I am aware that individuals and individual situations are important. However, I am concerned about the workload of the committee. I suggest that we forward the correspondence to the Department of Finance for consideration. If there are bodies that support the proposal, it might be possible to achieve cohesion and perhaps an amalgamated group might make a submission to us. Would that be acceptable?
It is not necessarily the case that both approaches are mutually exclusive. We should seek the Department's opinion on the idea. I support my colleagues on this. I do not believe there is any prohibition on the committee engaging with the individual in question or others who wish to participate in a supportive role. It is important that we inform ourselves fully and that the committee affords us the opportunity to do so. I have had but a cursory glance at what is involved. Somebody has put a considerable amount of time and work into these proposals and should be afforded the opportunity to address the committee. Whether a response from the Department is to hand prior to or in tandem with such a meeting is of secondary importance, although it would be welcome.
I am sure every member of the committee has met many groups recently in regard to these proposals. It seems the individual in question has put his name to many proposals. We should first send the correspondence to the Department and obtain its view on it. We can then decide whether the committee should devote time to it and invite either the individual in question or a representative group to make a presentation.
I honestly think we can anticipate the Department's response. It will include the terms "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" and state the costs will have to be considered and so on. The committee will have to examine the Finance Bill in a few months and this will almost certainly be an issue it will be considering. We should at least hear the proponent's point of view prior to dealing with the Bill on Committee Stage when we will get the Department's very detailed assessment. It will give us a chance to put some shape on a proposal which may not fly. I am not saying it will be the be all and end all. However, given the effort that has gone into it and the endorsements it has received, it deserves consideration by the committee.
I am in the committee's hands. I merely point out that, as Vice Chairman, I do not want to set a precedent with regard to accommodating individuals that might tie the committee in the future. I am not passing the buck but I am of the view that we should send the correspondence to the Department of Finance. The individual in question has put his name to a number of documents before me. I would like to think we had cohesion regarding this submission.
If Deputy Burton is pressing this proposal, I will certainly support it.
There are a number of pre-budget and Finance Bill issues which will inevitably come before the committee. There may be others who wish to bring forward proposals. We are all involved with pre-budget submissions. It could be structured in that context. A significant campaign has been mounted in this regard. I am aware that the Department of Finance has a view.
A number of large-scale charitable organisations support this idea. The Chairman said on a previous occasion that there should be a mechanism for hearing proposals which appear to be worthy of examination and consideration and for considering issues which arise. The tax and charity sector comes back to the committee every year. The matter should be examined. I do not object to doing so in conjunction with other positions put forward by charities in pre-budget submissions. I am open to any reasonable proposals.
I appreciate the Deputy's accommodation. It would be to the benefit of the committee to discuss this proposal in conjunction with others.
Could we invite the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group, since it appears to support this and other proposals? I am sure the group would bring the gentleman in question to the committee.
Is that agreed? Agreed. Item 2006/508 is a letter from Deputy Burton relating to an individual's proposal on stamp duty for charitable and sporting bodies.
The same.
Item 2006/509 is a letter from Deputy Burton requesting the committee's endorsement to attend an event organised by the ESRI.
That is the ESRI's annual pre-budget forum. I will be travelling as far as the Grand Canal, if I go. I was advised to attend.
Will Deputy Burton be attending in a private capacity?
I will be going in my public capacity. I have attended this forum on previous occasions and I can probably walk so no complex travel arrangements will be involved. Other members may wish to attend as well.
Deputy Burton has represented the committee very well at the forum. I will ask the committee secretariat to look after that matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2006/509, a letter from the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, is noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2006/510 is an e-mail from a public affairs company seeking a meeting with the committee. This is a lobbying exercise and I suggest the company be asked to forward a written submission to the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
What is this about?
It is concerned with a credit card company. The e-mail comes from Mr. Simon Gentry.
He is a lobbyist. I propose that we merely note that communication.
I have said that. If the company wishes to make a written submission to the committee that would be acceptable.
Is this the issue we discussed earlier?
No. This group wishes to promote a certain product. We will note the communication and ask Mr. Gentry to put the proposal in writing. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2006/511 has been dealt with. Item 2006/512 is a letter requesting that the committee meet a Georgian delegation. I propose that we agree to this and make arrangements for that meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2006/513 is a reply from the Revenue Commissioners stating that a report requested on the taxation of the provision of services to elderly and disabled people in their own homes will be submitted as a joint Department of Finance-Revenue document. That document arrived today. It can be circulated for the next meeting of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2006/514 is an e-mail from a consultancy group enclosing a letter from the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group. We have already decided to invite this group to address the committee. This matter is closely related to the stamp duty matter which was referred to earlier. Both can be dealt with under Deputy Bruton's proposal.
The next item is a proposal to attend the OECD high level parliamentary seminar on growth and jobs, on 5 October. No member has shown an interest in attending this seminar. A member had indicated an interest in attending but has since withdrawn. We can dispense with that matter.
Sitting suspended at 4.47 p.m. and resumed at 4.49 p.m.