JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2006

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

The committee is in public session and apologies have been received from Deputy McGuinness. The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 22 November. The draft minutes of that meeting have been circulated. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed.

One item of correspondence was deferred from the meeting, No. 537, a request from Senator Phelan that a delegation of the representative Kilkenny body be heard on the matter of pension entitlements when the Senator is present. We agreed to seek a written response to the points raised. Original letters were sent to the Departments of Finance and Social and Family Affairs. A response has been received from the Department of Social and Family Affairs to the effect that the matter is receiving attention, but we must await an outcome. We shall leave matters like that for the moment and we can return to it in the new year if there is not a satisfactory outcome.

We will now deal with correspondence, of which there is not too much. No. 564 is a letter dated 20 November from the Office of the Revenue Commissioners regarding an arrangement recently revoked concerning repayment of corporation tax for start-up companies for their first year's taxable income. That was supposed to be relevant to today's meeting and we had agreed at our previous meeting to invite the Revenue in. We wrote to Mr. Frank Daly and the Institute of Taxation, who were scheduled to come in today. However, the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement satisfactorily resolved the issue of preliminary corporation tax for small start-up companies. I contacted both organisations and informed them there was no need to attend. The matter has been fully resolved and disposed of by the committee, as regards our agenda.

The next item is a letter from the Department of Finance acknowledging the committee's letter requesting information as regards rent allowances payable to specified prison officers. We have noted that and we will be coming back to it when we get more information. No. 566 is a letter dated 28 November from the Office of the Information Commissioner, referring to the committee's report on a review under section 32(2) of certain provisions under the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003. I believe members have read the letter, in which the Commissioner made some strong comments.

Deputy C. Murphy

She had every entitlement to make strong comments.

Chairman

That is fair enough and we have received it. We understand what she is saying. We shall note that, accordingly.

The next item is No. 567, an e-mail from an individual, dated 4 December, inquiring whether the committee had considered a request to meet a credit card company. We are not meeting any individual private companies, as we have agreed previously. The next item is No. 568, an acknowledgement from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs of correspondence on entitlements for women in farming. That again relates to Senator Phelan's earlier correspondence. The next item, No. 569, is an acknowledgement from the Minister for Finance of correspondence from the joint committee about pension entitlements for women in farming communities. That is the same issue.

No. 570 is a letter dated 28 October from an individual about extending the carer's benefit payment and we have referred it to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. The Social Welfare Bill will be coming up in the new year as well as the one before the Dáil today. The next item, No. 571, is a submission from the Dyslexia Association of Ireland seeking support to amend section 469 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. Does the committee require that we formally send it to the Minister for Finance, for it to be taken into consideration for the Finance Bill? I have not studied the letter.

Deputy Bruton

It is pointless to send it to the Minister because he has already indicated that he is not disposed to support this view. It really is a matter for the committee, which will be examining it in the context of the Finance Bill, as to whether we feel that fees paid for the tuition of children with dyslexia should be tax deductible. The view of the Minister at present is that since this is not health-related expenditure he does not consider it to be tax deductible. However, it will come down to its being a net issue whose merits the committee will have to consider in terms of extending tax deductibility. To send it to the Minister, who already has indicated his thinking in this regard, would be a waste of time. In our own preparations for the Finance Bill we might consider whether we as a committee want to see certain changes to this code — and whether we want to pressurise the Minister to consider changes in this field.

Chairman

To concur with the Deputy's last point, the only purpose of sending a letter was that it might put some additional pressure on the Minister in this regard.

Deputy Bruton

It will not put any pressure on him, as he has this already.

Chairman

Yes, he has the letter.

Deputy Bruton

It will be pointless unless the committee indicates that it supports this suggestion.

Deputy C. Murphy

I am aware of a group in my constituency that co-ordinates dyslexia services, and parents pay for the courses. There is a strong argument that this should be included as part of its programme by the Department of Education and Science, because it makes an enormous difference to those children who receive these services. In effect, it probably benefits all the children in a class because there is less interaction required between the teacher and, say, a pupil with dyslexia. I would argue that it is less a tax allowance mechanism that is required than the fact the service should be provided directly by the Department of Education and Science. This is simply not happening.

Chairman

How does the committee wish to proceed?

Deputy Bruton

We should deal with it under the Finance Bill. However, the purpose of a committee such as ours is to take positions on matters such as this rather than being led by whatever the Department of Finance says. As the Chairman knows, the debate on the Finance Bill becomes meaningless because of the time constraints imposed. I am of the same view as Deputy Catherine Murphy that we should not be trying to change the tax code to meet what are essentially basic educational needs. That is not the right way to proceed.

The difficulty the Dyslexia Association of Ireland finds itself in is that the Department of Education and Science thinks along very narrow channels and is not innovative in its approach to matters such as this. We are then being presented with an appeal for help. We should ask the Department of Education and Science to comment on the idea of proposed tax deductibility in this field, and seek a report from it well ahead of publication of the Finance Bill, so that the committee has an opportunity to consider whether tax relief is a good way to proceed. That is the sensible approach because we know what the Department of Finance will say, and I can understand why. However, the Department of Education and Science ought to be addressing this matter. Perhaps we can put some pressure on that Department, set a deadline and tell the Secretary General we want this before the publication of the Finance Bill, towards the end of January, or whenever.

Chairman

Will we write to the Department of Education and Science along those lines?

Deputy C. Murphy

Could we ask the Department to refrain from giving us the global figure it is spending on disabilities and deal with the detail?

Chairman

Drop the macroeconomics. We can all agree with that approach to responses and we shall write to the Department of Education and Science.

The next item is for noting. It concerns statutory instruments for savings certificates and the approval scheme of AIB Finance Limited and Allied Irish Banks.

Other items of correspondence include a letter to the clerk, dated 30 November, and to the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny. We will note that letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There is a Green Paper on the improvement of efficiency of enforcement of judgments in the European Union regarding attachment of bank accounts. It has been referred to this committee for information and consideration purposes. We shall put it on our list for consideration. There is also additional information concerning the proposal for the amendment of the directive concerning the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections of citizens of the Union by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. That has been referred to the committee solely for information purposes and we are not required to do anything further in this regard.

There are just two other items which are an ongoing feature of our correspondence. We wrote to the Revenue Commissioners and the Departments of Health and Children and Finance some time ago on the issue of VAT on meals on wheels provided to the elderly in their own homes on a commercial basis. That issue was addressed in the budget so the committee may dispose of it from our items of correspondence. Once again, the issue as raised by the committee has been satisfactorily dealt with.

The last matter I wish to raise concerns a letter the joint committee wrote to the Minister for Finance on 19 October. It pertained to an individual in Waterford in respect of a recommendation by the Ombudsman to the Revenue Commissioners to the effect that compensation for maladministration should be paid, the full amount of which was not paid. As the joint committee has not yet received a reply from the Minister for Finance, I propose it should write again to him seeking resolution regarding this matter of compensation for maladministration.

At the previous meeting, we suggested the Minister might meet the individual concerned, if he felt it appropriate. This was a suggestion, rather than a recommendation. The matter should be concluded as urgently as possible because it has remained outstanding for months without having been dealt with. We will proceed on that basis.

The next item on today's agenda is the main item of business. I noted earlier that we have disposed of the item we had intended to take in respect of preliminary corporation tax for start-up businesses. As it was dealt with in the budget, we have been able to remove it from today's agenda.

Sitting suspended at 12.21 p.m. and resumed at 12.23 p.m.