Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach debate -
Thursday, 30 Jun 2016

Vote 10 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners (Revised)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to the meeting. While we are dealing with the Estimates, we are overshadowed by Brexit. Members may well like to deal with some of the issues arising from the fallout of that decision. Perhaps we will begin with the Minister's opening statement.

I thank the Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the finance committee today in connection with the 2016 Estimates for my Department and for the offices under its ambit, including the Revenue Commissioners, the Tax Appeals Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I wish to take the opportunity to welcome the new committee and I look forward to the ongoing engagement proposed within the new budgetary framework. The publication of the summer economic statement and the hosting of the national economic dialogue, which took place on Monday and Tuesday, form important parts of this new framework.

As members know, the Department of Finance is structured around two directorates, the economic and fiscal directorate and the finance and banking directorate. If I may, I will take a few moments to bring the committee up to date on the key outputs of the Department during 2015 and to date in 2016.

The EU and international division of my Department manages and advances Ireland's interests at EU and international level on issues relating to the economic, fiscal and financial fields. In addition, it ensures effective co-ordination of the Department's EU policy. This division represents Ireland at European Stability Mechanism, ESM, and European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF, meetings. A key output of this division in 2015 was the conclusion of the early repayment of a major part of the IMF loan, thereby achieving significant interest savings. The post-programme review process also continues to be successfully managed.

The EU financial services division of the Department continues to represent national interests in, and made a positive contribution towards Council agreement on, a range of financial services dossiers in the past 18 months. Key achievements in this area included the transposition of the bank recovery and resolution directive, BRRD, the deposit guarantee scheme directive, DGS, Solvency II, the transparency directive, the credit rating agencies regulation, CRAR, the Single Resolution Board (Loan Facility Agreement) Bill and regulations providing An Post with the necessary authorisation to begin providing payment services. The division will also continue its review of policy in the insurance sector, which is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

On the domestic banking landscape, small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, are the lifeblood of the Irish economy. They comprise the majority of businesses in Ireland and account for approximately seven in every ten jobs. Data indicate that there is an upward trend in lending application numbers and new money lending by both banks. Approval rates also continue to rise, averaging at 89%. The Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, was incorporated in September 2014. Its goal is to ensure access to flexible and lower cost funding for SMEs. The SBCI has a total of six on-lending partners and is in advanced discussions with a number of other potential on-lenders. The increased number of on-lenders is a key step in creating greater competition for SME lending in the Irish market.

In the mortgage lending space, there has been a continuing increase in the level of new lending for residential purposes. Recent data show that almost €4.9 billion in new residential mortgage lending was drawn down in 2015. This represented an increase of 26% on the previous year and was the highest level of mortgage lending since 2009. This upward trend continued in the first quarter of 2016 when more than €1 billion in new mortgages was provided. First-time buyers remain the largest single segment of mortgage borrowers, accounting for almost 46% of the first quarter 2016 mortgage borrowing.

It is important to support prudent new lending to help people to meet their desired housing needs and to support overall economic development. The new programme for a partnership Government recognises this and sets out a number of initiatives to promote and protect home ownership.

Following an extended period of increasing mortgage arrears as a consequence of the financial crisis, the trend since late 2013 has been downwards. The most recent Central Bank bulletin - for the first quarter of 2016 - shows that the number of mortgage accounts in arrears for principal dwelling houses fell for the past 11 consecutive quarters and stood at 85,989 accounts, representing a decline of almost 18% since the first quarter of 2015. The number of accounts in arrears declined for all maturity categories. The programme for Government contains some additional commitments in respect of supporting those borrowers who are in arrears and further details on the implementation of these measures are being developed.

Following a difficult period, the public finances are continuing to move in the right direction. I am pleased to state that significant progress has been made in this regard, given that an underlying deficit of 1.3% was recorded last year. This has resulted in the public finances being placed on a sustainable footing, which enabled Ireland to exit the excessive deficit procedure successfully and in a timely manner.

Growth of 7.8% was recorded in 2015, with growth of 5% forecast this year. Importantly, the expansion in economic activity, initially led by the exporting sectors, has broadened. Increasingly, growth is driven by domestic factors, as both consumer and business confidence continue to recover. While economic growth is not an end in itself, it is an enabler and is therefore important. The economic recovery is perhaps more clearly evident in the labour market.

Almost 47,000 jobs have been added in the first quarter of 2016 and CSO statistics show that gains have been recorded in virtually all sectors. This labour market growth is expected to continue and we are forecasting that employment will exceed the 2 million mark this year, for the first time since 2008. I am also greatly encouraged by the latest Exchequer returns. After the first five months of 2016, tax revenues were €750 million, or 4.3 %, above expectation, which represents an annual increase of 9%, or just over €1.5 billion, when compared to the same period in 2015. I should point out that the Revenue Commissioners have assessed that not all of this additional tax revenue is of a recurring nature. Nonetheless, this solid performance provides confidence.

As committee members are aware, from this year the Irish public finances will be subject to the rules of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. The summer economic statement sets out the fiscal parameters under which the programme for Government objectives will be achieved, while simultaneously ensuring our fiscal obligations under the Stability and Growth Pact are met. These rules are designed to ensure that increases in public expenditure will be sustainably financed and safeguarded from dependence on cyclical revenues. With this in mind, the summer economic statement also sets out our intention to establish a contingency, or rainy day, fund to cushion our open economy against unforeseen events that might occur.

Revenues from taxation are key to the funding of our public services. To this end, the Department remains committed to conducting ongoing reviews of tax incentives and tax expenditures. We have also undertaken a number of public consultations and a joint consultation with the Department of Social Protection.

Our report on tax expenditure, which was published at the same time as budget 2016, listed all tax expenditures that had taken effect in the previous 12 months. It also incorporated the outcomes, in full or in summary, of eight reviews and public consultations carried out between October 2014 and September 2015. It is the Department’s intention that this will become an annual publication.

Turning briefly to the decision of the British electorate to leave the European Union, the process must now take its course, which will commence with a formal application from Britain under Article 50 of the treaty. This will be followed by the drawing up of an exit agreement. As such, there will be no immediate change to the free flow of people, goods and services between our islands. The Government has, to the greatest extent possible, prepared for this eventuality. We have published a summary of the key actions we will now take to address the contingencies arising from the UK’s decision. Our primary objective remains to protect and advance this country's interests.

In terms of budgetary impact, the 2017 fiscal space is not expected to change very much because the factors used to calculate it are largely fixed at this stage. Over the medium term, there could be implications for the general government deficit, the structural balance and, potentially, for the level of fiscal space that could be used. We remain committed to adhering to the fiscal rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and we will monitor developments closely.

Turning to the business of the committee today, the funding allocation sought for the Finance group of Votes for 2016 totals €379 million which compares to a 2015 Vote group total of €368 million. This represents an increase of €11 million or 3%. The primary driver of this increase is the provision of €10 million for the new service of a fuel grant scheme for disabled drivers.

Leaving this scheme aside, the allocation sought for the Department of Finance Vote in 2016 is €29.479 million, a reduction of just over €1 million compared to 2015. This allocation provides for the administrative and non-administrative costs of the Department. The vast majority of this, 62%, is provided to cover salaries and allowances, with a further €6 million, or 20%, to cover facilities and non-pay administrative costs. The remaining €5 million is provided to cover the legal, advisory and committee costs necessary to support the Department in the delivery of its remit.

The allocation for Vote 8, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, is applied towards a single programme with the following outputs: auditing the financial statements of 300 Departments and State bodies; control of issues from the Central Fund; and examining and reporting on financial management arrangements in public bodies and the value for money of public services. As committee members know, the Comptroller and Auditor General also assists the Committee of Public Accounts in its scrutiny of the public finances. The allocation for this office in 2016 is €6.761 million, which is broadly unchanged from 2015.

On Vote 9, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners have requested a budget allocation of €331 million, an increase of €2 million or 0.6% on the 2015 net Estimate. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners plays a vital role in our economy by collecting taxes and duties due to the State. Nearly three quarters of the budget is related to payroll for an employment ceiling of 5,924. In its statement of strategy, Revenue is committed to two key strategic priorities, which are to make it easier and less costly to be tax compliant and to identify and confront non-compliance. Under the first strategy, Revenue's service for compliance approach in 2015 provided more user-friendly and digital ways of doing business with them, making it easy for customers to pay the right amount of taxes and duties at the right time. This approach included the initiation of a comprehensive customer engagement strategy.

Proof of the success of the strategy is evident in the numbers. In 2015, almost 1.9 million payments were made through the Revenue Online Service, ROS, an increase of 11.2% on 2014. The number of transactions through the PAYE anytime service increased by 16%, and more than 1.3 million customs declarations were processed by the automated entry processing system, 96% of which were cleared immediately. This focus on service for compliance is paying clear dividends, with the majority of customers filing and paying on time and the number of phased payment requests in decline, down to almost 50% of the numbers at the peak of the economic downturn.

For those who choose not to comply with their tax and duty obligations, Revenue, under its second core strategy, operates a range of intervention approaches. In 2015, the yield from Revenue’s audit and compliance interventions grew by 5.3% to €642.5 million. To underpin this commitment to tackling non-compliance, the 2016 Estimates provides for an increase of 50 full-time equivalents to Revenue’s audit and compliance staff resources. Tackling tax evasion is an important element of Revenue’s non-compliance focus. Revenue uses its powers to identify untaxed income and assets held abroad and in 2015 this work yielded just over €60 million. Addressing tax avoidance is another priority for Revenue. In 2015, 160 tax avoidance cases were settled, netting €42 million for the Exchequer. In my budget speech I referenced some additional measures being taken by Revenue to address non-compliance. I am happy to report that significant progress is being made in this area. The introduction of sophisticated analytics and early intervention has been a key part of this success.

In other areas, Revenue continues to assist and support the Department of Finance in the formulation and implementation of tax policy. During 2015, Revenue also continued its active involvement in the OECD base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, project, culminating in publication of the final reports in October 2015.

On Vote 10, the new Tax Appeals Commission, formerly the Office of the Appeals Commissioners, requested a budget allocation of €1.44 million, a net increase of €665,000, or 86%, on the 2015 net Estimate. The increase in the 2016 Estimate is to take account of the establishment of the new Tax Appeals Commission. Specifically, the increase relates largely to a planned addition to staffing numbers and the provision of new ICT equipment, including an electronic case management system. One of the key reforms designed to strengthen the independence of the Tax Appeals Commission is that since 21 March 2016 taxpayers make their appeals directly to it instead of via the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

I thank members for their attention and I commend the Estimates for the Finance group of Votes to the committee.

I thank the Minister and welcome him and his officials. What is the Minister and his Department's assessment of the impact on Ireland's economy of the decision this day last week by the UK to start the process of leaving the EU? Yesterday, the Central Bank said it would revise its forecasts for the growth of the Irish economy. We have immediate uncertainty regarding our economic prospects and I am very anxious to know the Department's reaction. In the Minister's opening remarks, which were somewhat different to what he said last week, he said the 2017 fiscal space is not expected to change very much, given that the factors used to calculate it are largely fixed. Is it expected not to change at all and remain at €1 billion in regard to the 2017 budget or, as I suggest, does the summer economic statement need to be updated and revised to take account of what happened last week? Over July and August, the Department should take the time to consider the impact, revise the statement, publish it in September and make budgetary decisions based on it.

The Deputy knows, from previous experience and discussions that took place around the summer economic statement, that even if there were no Brexit, the figures in the statement are subject to change between now and budget day. As new data comes in, figures are always revised. Therefore, I would not attach too much importance to the phrase the Deputy quoted. There will be changes. Before Brexit, we expected the changes would be positive. The earnings on which we will levy corporation tax have already taken place. Regarding income tax, we do not foresee a decline in employment between now and the end of the year. The tax streams for October and 2017 are relatively fixed. That is why there is very little variation.

We had to take into account the possibility of a vote in favour of Brexit, and there is a section in the summer economic statement that deals with it and gives the expected decline in growth based on it. The data in the forecast was threefold: data produced by the UK Treasury, to which we had access; work the ESRI published last autumn; and work done by the equivalent of the ESRI in the UK. The forecasters in the Department of Finance assessed the data and produced the figures in the summer economic statement.

This is the initial impact. Beyond that, it will depend on what the new arrangement is between the UK and Europe. If the new arrangement is full access to the Single Market and free movement of people, goods and labour, the impact will be low, and may even be to our advantage. If it is very difficult to come to an agreement and it reverts to some sort of World Trade Organisation style relationship, whereby the UK is treated as an economic unit outside the EU without any specific bilateral arrangement, there may be tariffs, border posts and all sorts of inhibitions to trade and the impact will be bigger. While it is impossible to forecast the impact with any accuracy, it would be serious.

The Taoiseach has already commenced positioning us for negotiations. Our position is clear. We would like the UK to continue in the Single Market. When Norway was negotiating with the EU, the "price" of access to the Single Market for a non-member country was that it would respect the four freedoms. One of the primary freedoms is the free movement of people, which seems to have been a crunch issue during the campaign by those who advocated Brexit. It will be very difficult to combine full access to the Single Market with free movement of people. It was around this that the Brexit advocates in the UK seemed to have greatest difficulty. It is an evolving situation and it is very difficult to know who in the UK will be negotiating, what group of people they will primarily represent, what Government will be in place and what the alternative government will be. There is no clarity.

My question was whether the Department of Finance intended to revise the forecast for the Irish economy. Does the Minister intend to update the forecast in the summer economic statement and republish it as the Central Bank is revising its growth forecasts?

No, the summer economic statement is a top-down view of the economy at a point in time. We have done it. We have signalled that there is a down-side risk from Brexit and have tried to quantify it in the forecast. The next step is to revisit all these figures before the budget in September, and in the budget a new set of figures will be published using the most recent data.

But not before then?

We are not in a position to do anything before then. The people involved in forecasting are watching all the movements. We see no reason to depart from what we have done in the past. We used to produce a spring economic statement, but for reasons we all know it became the summer economic statement. Given that it is a top-down view, circumstances change and the view changes. We will provide all the data before the budget or in the documents accompanying the budget and there will be new estimates of growth and all the vital statistics of the economy.

What impact will Brexit have on the State's strategy regarding its shareholdings in the banks? The Revised Estimates for Public Services for 2016, under the heading Banking and Financial Services Policy, include the following output target: "Prepare for/execute AIB sale subject to Government decision. Continue to explore further State investment disposals". Could the Minister clarify his strategy regarding the possible sale of a stake in AIB, the 14% we continue to own in Bank of Ireland and his thinking regarding Permanent TSB?

I spoke about this recently. We own 14% of Bank of Ireland and the policy is, in due course when we can get the best price possible, to sell it, either in one tranche or in increments. We did not tie it to any timeline and there is no pressure on us to sell bank shares to reduce our debt. It is a stand-alone decision based on when we can recover the most money for the taxpayer. There has been movement in bank share values all over the world, and particularly in Europe. Bank of Ireland shares had declined by 38% on Monday compared to the day before the Brexit vote. A week previously, in anticipation of a remain vote, Bank of Ireland shares had increased in value by 19%. Yesterday, they fluctuated again. It is volatile. While the volatility remains, I am not planning to sell Bank of Ireland shares.

While Permanent TSB is recovering well, its balance sheet is significantly repaired and it is doing much additional business, it is not ready for market yet. There is no active consideration of selling Permanent TSB shares. I set out the position regarding AIB in the Dáil recently in response to questions from Deputies Michael McGrath and Pearse Doherty, and the position has not changed. The programme for Government states that we will not sell more than 25% of any bank for a certain period of time. Our intention was always to sell 25% of AIB during the last quarter of the year.

However, before ever there was Brexit, it was quite clear there was volatility emerging in the value of bank shares in different parts of Europe. We said we would not go to the back end of this year but, more likely, do it in the first six months of next year. That is the position as stated. I am not stating a new position today. Everybody knows, however, that as circumstances change, strategy changes.

The underlying policy is that it is our intention to sell a tranche of AIB shares, up to 25%, at a time when best value for the taxpayer can be achieved. Again, we are not under any pressure from any other consideration. If we were still in the position that obtained three years ago, we would be saying we would have to sell the shares because our national debt is too high and we need to get the yield to bring it down. Matters have moved on because the national debt at the end of 2015 - having peaked at over 120% - is down to 94% of gross domestic product. The estimate for the end of 2016 is for it to be down to 88%. The estimate for the end of the forecasting period to 2021 indicates that it will be down to 72%. We are ahead of the European average at this stage, and certainly ahead of the Eurogroup average. We are not constrained by considerations of debt reduction to sell bank shares or any State assets at a time other than when it suits in order to get the best return for the taxpayer.

I, too, welcome the Ministers. My question also relates to Brexit. From his wisdom and experience, what does the Minister see as the potential impact of Brexit on foreign direct investment in this country? The programme for Government has clear targets for job creation over the lifetime of the Government’s mandate. If the UK tax position becomes more competitive, particularly regarding financial services and the lowering of VAT rates or even corporation tax rates, does the Minister have a sense of the potential impact that will have on job creation in this country, as well as the ability to attract foreign direct investment?

While there might be an early boost of foreign direct investment into Ireland, the UK still remains the largest attractor of foreign direct investment in Europe. In the context of the financial services sector, there is a concern that Ireland may not be sufficiently diversified in access to markets and exports of financial services. Is there an over-reliance on exports of financial services to the UK? Has there been a significant diversification of exports to the Asian and North American markets?

The Minister stated that there are still 85,998 mortgage accounts in arrears. While this represents an 18% decline, there is a commitment in the programme for Government to examine further measures to support borrowers. Have any of those measures been advanced at this juncture?

The figure for arrears is the number of outstanding arrears, taking all files into account. The other side of that coin is that arrangements have been made in respect of 120,000 mortgages. It is well beyond the tipping point or the average now. Up to 89% of the arrangements being made are sticking. The definition of "sticking" is that they are still in place and the borrowers are compliant with the new arrangement 12 months after the event. If one was to take a pen picture of the number of mortgages in resolved arrangements today, it would be more than the 120,000 figure because it does not go into the statistics until the arrangement sticks for 12 months.

There are several commitments in the programme for Government in respect of this matter. There are issues around consultancy legislation and the courts. The Department of Justice and Equality has commenced work on delivering that particular commitment. Then there are services to people in arrears, which is within the remit of the Department of Social Protection, which is advancing work as well. Some work has been done and it is moving forward in line with the commitments in the programme for Government.

As for the consequences of Brexit on foreign direct investment, the best way to examine that is to look at what has happened in the markets. As we all know, the markets move in response to people who have the task of managing billions in finance all over the world. One will see that the movements have been adverse to the UK, both with the exchange rate and stock exchange values. The international expectation is that the UK will be a less strong economy than it was before Brexit. That is from simply looking at market trends and where people are deciding to put their money. That would mean it would be a less attractive location for foreign direct investment.

If one considers the current set of policies in the UK and Ireland, there is an advantage towards Ireland. How one would quantify it is not possible yet. An incoming UK Government may, after the country exits the European Union, change the suite of policies, particularly the tax offering. If it does so, there are new relativities then. For example, the UK may no longer have to be compliant with certain EU regulations around issues such as climate change, although it would still be bound by parallel international agreements. It is not possible to give an accurate forecast until we see how it develops.

By way of information, the UK Chancellor, George Osborne, two budgets back outlined a policy of reducing corporation tax in the UK over several years, with a destination of 18% by 2020. That is not too far above our 12.5% rate in terms of the attractiveness of London as against the attractiveness of Limerick. The UK was already moving into a place to be competitive in any event. It was also one of the first European countries which moved to having a patent box with a tax rate of 10% for the development of intellectual property, which is below our 12.5% rate. We tried to match that with our own patent box, for which the top-line tax rate is 6.25%. We are under the UK on that.

Foreign direct investment is a competitive business. While the relative strength of the economy and the opportunities it affords to a foreign direct investor is one factor, the other is the suite of measures on offer. It was in the process of change anyway before Brexit. Obviously, if an incoming UK Government sees a significant movement of foreign direct investment out of its jurisdiction or if its pipeline for foreign direct investment dries up, in the normal political process, it will probably adjust policy to forestall that.

Again, we have to keep watching and assessing it and using the best information possible to protect our interests.

I will pick up on the point relating to financial services because there are some possible gains in this area. We complement and compete with London in a range of areas, so there are going to be challenges and opportunities for us.

There is a strategy for financial services job creation. It is not simply about the IFSC; there is a whole-of-Ireland approach. The aim is to create 10,000 extra jobs by 2020. The data shows we are a little ahead of profile in that regard. That is a good thing, but IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland are in a state of perpetual motion working on the job creation targets and selling the brand abroad. Considerable work is being undertaken by the agencies although perhaps it is not being seen publicly - it is happening behind the scenes. The quarterly joint committee of industry and the public sector met on 20 June ahead of the vote. Since then there have been several contacts between industry and the relevant agencies. The public sector co-ordination group is meeting again next week. In so far as the strategy is concerned we are keeping our eye on the job creation targets in the light of Brexit and a special communications sub-committee was set up. It is meeting today. It will look to see how we sweat the existing action plan for 2016 in light of what has happened. For example, it will consider the plans for our missions abroad and what new missions need to be undertaken, promotional material to sell the brand in light of the new reality and what needs to go into the action plan for 2017.

The second European financial forum will be held in January. Through this, Ireland tries to position itself, similar to the process for the Asian financial forum. Of course, we are the gateway. Ireland is the way in and that will present a major opportunity for the country in light of what has happened. By that point, perhaps, we will have a little more certainty on what direction the UK is going.

Reference was made to Enterprise Ireland. I was with some Enterprise Ireland exporting companies on Friday. Those involved had spent the entire day dealing with the currency fluctuations and the associated difficulties. EI has a number of strategies and contingencies in place. These are outlined in the summary contingency framework that was published recently. I spoke with those involved yesterday on some of the actions that might need to be taken and the new trade missions that may need to be put in place quickly.

My question was in respect of financial services and the IFSC. Let us suppose the UK departs from EU taxation legislation or case law in respect of VAT. Is the financial services sector in this country sufficiently diversified such that there is no over-reliance on the UK market? I have in mind exports of financial goods and services, the financial technology industry and everything that sails in that ship. This includes exports of services from Ireland to the UK. Have we diversified sufficiently into Asian markets, EU markets and North American markets? That is really the question.

Is there contingency planning in place? I am asking the question insofar as it is possible because we are in a state of flux politically and economically and it is impossible to predict what is going to happen in terms of the effect on the Irish economy, the UK economy and the European economy no matter how much contingency planning we put in place. All we can do is go by the ESRI and the Department of Finance predictors in so far as that is possible.

Can I get a sense from the Department of Finance or the Government of whether there is contingency planning under way? Is the Department seeking to ensure that the gains made by the financial services sector will not be lost and that we will continue to grow? That is an important message and signal.

Many of the meetings and contacts are happening daily and hourly, even if they are not happening publicly. However, the public roll-out of that is about to commence. EI is diversifying all the time and that is important. Right now, it is dealing with protecting companies that export to the UK which have not hedged against currency fluctuations. EI is working on that strategy. At the same time there are schemes and strategies as part of the contingency framework in terms of upping the ante in new markets. In so far as Asia and America are concerned, I will be in Asia twice in the coming six months at least and the Taoiseach will follow there as well. All that work is being done and the committee members will hear more about it publicly in the coming weeks.

I welcome the Minister. The budget for the Tax Appeals Commission is €1.5 million versus the Revenue budget of €330 million. It is less than 0.5%. From memory, the predecessor to the Tax Appeals Commission overturned a significant number of cases. Is the budget sufficient for that office at €1.5 million?

We brought in legislation last year to revamp the Office of the Appeal Commissioners. Provision was made for a third appeals commissioner to be appointed. Historically, there were two commissioners. We changed the process of appeal as well. Historically, appeals had to be channelled through the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Now, appeals can go directly to the appeals commission. There was significant debate in the Dáil about it, including whether the appeals would be public or in camera and so on. The estimate from the Tax Appeals Commission was that it needed extra money. Committee members will see from my initial statement that the extra money is being provided. The increase will be sufficient.

The Tax Appeals Commission was established as an independent statutory body on 21 March 2016 by the commencement of the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015. Since then, the commission has put in place new rules and procedures reflecting the legislative changes introduced by the Act. It has commenced managing hearings and determining appeals in accordance therewith. The commission has also established a new website, which, later this year, will allow the electronic submission of appeals directly to the commission, on which written determinations are now available to the public and tax professionals. The commission is in the process of putting in place a new electronic case management system for the better management of its caseload.

There is a significant increase in the allocation. The increase is largely for the planned addition to staffing numbers and the provision of new ICT equipment, including the electronic case management system to which I referred. The short answer is "Yes", we believe the commission is sufficiently resourced to carry out the new job it has been asked to do.

In the Department, the banking and financial services policy group has €11 million according to page 9 of the document we received. The output to the end of May is €2.5 million. The output for consultancy services is €162,000 but the Estimate for the year is €5 million. It seems very low given the importance of the banking and financial services sector and given that it includes the shareholder management unit section along with others.

I am concerned that it smacks a little of the bad old days in the Central Bank when there were only a few people looking after the banks. The Department output is €2.5 million to date, almost half way through the year but the budget is €11 million. Have we enough people in place? Have we enough people keeping an eye on the SMU? Have we enough staff engaged to ensure no lacunae develop or that there will be no slip-ups in a period that is now far more unstable than previously?

First, consultancy costs are lower than anticipated.

They are almost zero from the budget of €5 million.

Yes, but consultancy and legal costs do not come in on a month-by-month basis. They are expected to rise as the year goes on. There may be some money left over at the end of the year. It is difficult to estimate what legal or consultancy costs would be required in any particular year. Moreover, there are a number of payment dates in the year for the pay bill. There are 26 payment dates in the year but because of the way it runs only ten have been reached to date. From a payments point of view, we are not halfway or anything like it.

How many staff are within the SMU?

My officials will come back to Deputy D'Arcy on that.

On the shareholder management unit, SMU, the Minister does not have the number of full-time staff. Is there a figure for consultancy in regard to the SMU?

As I said, there is a provision for consultancy, but it is drawn down as required. Thus far, very few consultancy bills have come in.

The SMU has such a huge brief, involving the banks, NAMA, IBRC and the credit unions. Multiple billions of euros are overseen in terms of the policy. Nearly half the members of the banking inquiry are in this room. We were concerned that the Central Bank was not on top of its brief. Is the SMU on top of its brief?

There are 20 to 25 people in it and I believe they do a pretty good job. They do not run the Central Bank. The Central Bank has a huge staff and budget. The NTMA and NAMA have big staffs. It is a question of the relationship with the Department of Finance and these organisations in terms of oversight and advising the Minister. They are not directly running any of the operations.

I am aware of that but I am referring to the importance of the staff being completely on top their brief to ensure the NTMA and the other agencies do their job appropriately in advising the Minister.

Yes, I believe the unit does a good job. As need arises, and if anything happens now as a result of Brexit, there is no reason we cannot add to the numbers. At present, my advice is that there are sufficient numbers and that the unit is resourced sufficiently to carry out adequately the job it is supposed to carry out.

The Minister is satisfied it is doing so.

On miscellaneous and incidental items, while I do not mean to be picky in this regard, there is a bill under Vote 7 for hospitality and official entertainment amounting to €35,000 and a bill for water for €40,000. Has the Minister a breakdown of this expenditure?

I will have to revert to the Deputy with a breakdown on those.

With regard to banking and financial services, there was some conversation on splitting the section into domestic and non-domestic categories. Has there been any further conversation on that prospect?

Nothing has crossed my desk. We have an EU services division, which represents the international aspect. It is headed by a principal officer. There is that differentiation internally.

I could not find a breakdown anywhere within the documentation we received. The International Financial Services Centre has a staff of tens of thousands. Could we get a note on the oversight available for the non-domestic sector of financial services?

We will do that.

On cherished licence plate numbers, 177 people paid the extra €1,000 to get a certain number. They have little to be doing. In any case, we will move on to other matters.

There has been a lot of talk about Brexit. Deputy McGrath referred to the fiscal space this year. The Minister suggested that, in regard to Brexit, it will not alter anyway. It may alter because of the new data but there will be no significant alteration as a result of the Brexit vote. The Minister mentioned it is unlikely to alter until the medium term. While we hold the view that there will be no alteration this year as a result of the decision by the English and Welsh to withdraw from the European Union, what about next year? Could there be an alteration in regard to the net fiscal space available for 2018?

Yes, it is likely there will be some reduction in 2018, but I could not go beyond making that kind of general comment until we see what the new arrangement is likely to be. If it plays towards us rather than against us, there may be a very marginal effect on the fiscal space. It is another moving part that has to be taken into account in forecasts. However, even if there were never a Brexit, forecasts are less definite for times further out in the forecasting period. They are not estimates; they are forecasts.

I appreciate that. With the Minister, we have been dealing with the arrangements to set up the budget oversight committee. The difficulty is that data can sometimes become outdated the following day or sometimes the following week. As the Minister implied, a portion of the summer economic statement was dedicated to the impact of Brexit, and it covered the extreme scenario of a reduction in GDP in Britain of approximately 6% and the impact of this on our economy. We are well used to documents showing risks that may or may not materialise. It is prudent to show what could happen if a risk materialises. The risks have now materialised, although we do not know how this will play out. Brexit is no longer a risk. It has happened and the decision has been taken. Therefore, in estimating our GDP and fiscal space over the coming years, would it not be prudent to say that our most up-to-date data allow us to say that GDP, for example, will not grow by a certain percentage because we have already identified that a vote in favour of Brexit could reduce GDP by approximately 1%? Is it not important for the Department of Finance to think like this? I cannot see how this would be a major issue for it given that it has already done the analysis. The Minister has referred to the ESRI, what the British Government has done and what the Department of Finance has done to update the data available in order that we can have the most up-to-date data given the decision on Brexit.

The way it was approached was that the work was done in the spring economic statement on the basis of the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union. Then there were forecast data available as to the downside if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union. As the Deputy knows, there is a page in the summer economic statement setting out the risk and how it would diminish growth and the consequences of that. Now that this has happened, it is a fact. The potential risk in the summer economic statement has become an actual risk. Beyond that, we are not in a position at present to refine the forecast further, except to say that, depending on the result, there will obviously be consequences. However, there are still some people in the system who say this will play to Ireland’s advantage because of a stronger run of direct investment or activity from London being transferred to Dublin. We simply do not know. Forecasts are made on estimates. New stability programme update, SPU, figures will be generated that will have to go to Brussels in the autumn. There will be many people making forecasts and I presume the movement will be downward. The Central Bank said yesterday it will revisit its forecasts. The IMF is running numbers as we speak and will probably have data out at the end of July. It normally has a very cautious attitude so I would be surprised if it improved our figures. It is more likely to be marking down. That is what is happening everywhere now as a result of Brexit.

We do not know the full impact of Brexit yet. The damage in Ireland so far has not been significant and has been contained. We know there is movement on the currency and on sterling against the dollar. We can predict some of the effects of this on exporting to the United States. We know sterling has declined in value against the euro, but we know the euro has declined in value also, so the relative trading positions are not far from where they were for the past six months.

These things must be factored in. It will settle with about 10% taken off the value of the Irish Stock Exchange. One can see that Irish companies quoted on the UK stock market, where there are many UK and international investors like Bank of Ireland and Ryanair, took big hits early on but we are not sure where it will settle. In terms of our core economic activity, there is no serious economic hit yet. We have often talked about economic instability following political instability. There is great political instability in the UK about who governs and who the alternative Government is. There is political instability about Scotland. There is less political stability about Northern Ireland but the vote there raised some serious and interesting questions. The big issue in Northern Ireland is the question about whether people are serious about having a land Border of 60 km north of Dublin cutting across the island and making it an international border. I do not believe that is a runner but we will not be able to do a bilateral arrangement on that. The EU must be involved in it. In respect of controlling the movement of people, we have all gone through various airports. When a person comes through Dublin Airport, he or she shows his or her passport if he or she is an EU citizen. People are in a different queue if they are a non-EU citizen. I cannot see why an arrangement could not be made whereby the control points are at Larne, Belfast Airport, Liverpool or Southampton - the access ports to the UK - rather than having some kind of cut across the middle of our island. I think that is an impossible proposition. I do not think it is a runner but the solutions must be negotiated. What those solutions might be will have an impact on economic activity on this island and one cannot yet factor it in regarding a forecast.

From the point of view of someone who has to travel across the Border on two occasions to get back to my constituency and has a deep conviction regarding the reunification of this country, I would hope that the Minister would talk to the Taoiseach so that along with arguing for the Scottish people's vote to remain within the EU to be respected, he would make the same arguments for people in the northern part of this island.

Returning to the economics of this, the summer economic statement showed the potential impact it could have on our economy. Would it not be a fair assessment to say that even the adverse position, a 6% drop in GDP in Great Britain translating into a drop of about 1% here, is very much containable given the level of growth that is expected in the Irish economy over the next number of years?

The answer in terms of economic activity and achieving full employment and a balanced budget and resources even for a rainy day fund is "Yes" but that is not to say that the fiscal space for future budgets, apart from the forthcoming one, might narrow. It is difficult to predict because it is only one of a number of what I would call moving parts. I have great respect for my forecasting unit in the Department but it is usually conservative in its forecasts so maybe we will grow stronger in future years if the domestic economy can pick up. One of the big factors driving the Irish economy is domestic demand. Domestic demand is largely based on consumer sentiment or, to put it simply, confidence. If Brexit affects confidence, it is very hard to measure what the knock-on effect of that is in terms of consumer demand and economic activity domestically.

There is no point in us running a set of figures if we cannot stand over them. What I am saying is that we are fairly certain regarding what we have. We have put in the data about the adverse effect of Brexit and we will have a new set of figures in the autumn to inform our budgetary position. Things should have been clarified, at least politically in the UK, the negotiations with the EU will have commenced and we may have some shape of it.

I am not sure they will be commenced by that stage in terms of budget dates but we will leave that for another day.

I want to pick up on the issue of the rainy day fund. Is it still the Minister's intention to commit the level of funding that has been laid out in the summer economic statement given the likelihood that the net fiscal space in the coming years will reduce? Can the Minister tell us when he expects to bring forward concrete proposals for the rainy day fund? There has been a lot of talk, including from the Government side, that the rainy day fund can be deployed for this, that and the other. The reality is that we are governed by the expenditure benchmark so the fiscal space for any given year is the fiscal space. If the fiscal space is €1 billion and we have €5 billion in the rainy day fund, we cannot use the €5 billion. We can only use €1 billion of it. There is an issue here about how the rainy day fund can be used and for what purposes, so can the Minister give us an indication as to when we will see some real proposals about how the rainy day fund will operate and whether he is still committed to that level of money being set aside given the likelihood of the net fiscal space being contracted?

First of all, it is a contingency fund and a contingency fund is unallocated resources that are to be deployed if the unexpected happens. The unexpected has happened and we are lucky we had not allocated all of this for spending purposes because we would be into reversal very quickly. The principle of establishing a rainy day fund remains but on current information, it will be a figure of about €1 billion from 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it is within the fiscal space. It is not additional money outside of the fiscal space. That position remains but I am sure that with Brexit, future Ministers for Finance will have a view regarding how much to assign. Do members remember the phrase "If I have it, I'll spend it" uttered by one of my predecessors? This is to say that we have a lot now but we will not allocate it all for spending. We will put some of it aside for unexpected events in the future that will adversely affect our economy and it can then be deployed as the Government and Minister of the day see fit. That is the idea.

In terms of getting into the detail of it, I said in the Dáil that we would develop a paper on it at the back end of this year or the start of 2017 and that I would welcome input. It will be hard to peg the magnitude of it and move from the principle to an actual figure but the indicative figure is €1 billion. I would like to hear Deputies' opinions on the circumstances and events that would trigger the drawdown of this and turn the contingency fund into budgetary expenditure in an individual year. What are the circumstances that would lead to that decision in Government and what advice can we give to future Governments on that issue? As well as the trigger for drawing down and converting the rainy day fund into budgetary expenditure, what should the nature of that expenditure be? Would it be more current expenditure for services, should we deploy it totally into capital as a kind of Keynesian counter-cyclical investment to stimulate demand in a declining economy or should we approach it through the tax side and put more money in people's pockets by increasing the minimum wage or cutting income tax? I have not made up my mind on this but I am putting it formally to the committee that either as individuals or collectively, I would like their input into the preparation of the paper I am talking about dealing specifically with the triggers which would lead to drawdown and then the nature of the expenditure which they think might be more advantageous.

We will take the Minister up on that in the context of the joint committee.

Let me just-----

Deputy Paul Murphy has indicated and we are working against time.

I am sorry but that was not clear. Could I ask a couple of quick questions?

No, because Deputy Doherty already had 16 minutes and I must allow Deputy Paul Murphy to contribute because we must close the meeting shortly. If we have time at the end, then I will allow the Deputy in.

I wish to pick up on the rainy day fund. The first point is an obvious one in that for lots of people out there the rain is already pouring in terms of the crisis of homelessness, especially when 2,000 children are sleeping in hotels. The questions I have relate to, first, the recognition of that reality and, second, the fact that we already have what one could call a rainy day fund in terms of the Strategic Investment Fund. My point is the same one as Deputy Doherty made, namely, that we are constrained from spending such a fund because of the expenditure benchmark. What is the point of accruing a further rainy day fund into which one puts as much money as one wants but the expenditure benchmark will still apply so down the line we will have a problem in terms of spending it? It depends on what the medium-term potential economic growth in the future is, as to whether we could spend it, but the worry is that we will end up doing to the rainy day fund what we did to our previous rainy day fund, the National Pensions Reserve Fund, where more than €20 billion was used to bail out the banks. Is that the intention? In the summer economic statement it was said that the purpose behind the fund is to ensure that liquid assets are available to be deployed in a timely and countercyclical manner to help smooth the business cycle. Is that a reference to having an amount of money set aside for a future bailout because we raided the existing bailout fund?

Another question relates to the Apple tax case. When does the Minister expect to receive a decision from the Commission on that? The Government has been very eager to welcome the response to the question posed by Marian Harkin, MEP, on water charges but it seems less willing to accept a decision to the effect that a major multinational corporation owes the country an amount of tax and let us see how much that is. Is it the case that the State has spent €670,000 to date defending the case? If the Commission rules against the State and therefore the State continues to fight it and the case goes to the European Court of Justice, has the Minister set aside money to fight that and how much in terms of legal costs would he expect that to be? At any level does he see the deep irony for people that we are going to spend taxpayers’ money to defend a court case that is about a multinational giving us money? We are saying we do not want the money and we do not want tax that the European Commission is saying is owed to the State.

Yes, first of all it is not a case that is being pursued on tax grounds. It is being pursued on state aid grounds and that is why the Competition Commissioner is driving the process. Other cases were taken against companies in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium and in all cases adverse conclusions were drawn and an amount of arrears was described in the adjudication, and I think they are all under appeal.

The Apple case is different. It is not the same type of case as the other cases. We thought it would have been adjudicated on long before now. The rumour from Brussels before Brexit was that there would be an adjudication in July; we were not formally notified of that but I believe the rumour is probably correct. I cannot say whether the cases will proceed or if Brexit has changed the timetable. Brexit has given a blow to economic confidence in Europe already and an adverse finding with large arrears against a major American company operating in Europe might not be a road that is travelled in July. There will be an adjudication in due course and when we find out what that is, if it is adverse, it will be accompanied by a suggestion of payment of arrears by the company or a recommendation. We will see what happens when the time comes.

I put the amount of money that was spent into the public domain in reply to a parliamentary question during the week so the figure Deputy Murphy quoted is correct. We are not assigning particular moneys because it is very hard to do so. One must operate internationally with the best legal advice when vital national interests are being threatened, so we will do that. What was the Deputy’s second question?

Fundamentally, whether the Minister is going to use the rainy day fund for future bank bailouts or-----

Many members present were involved in the banking inquiry, and there were several other third party inquiries, and all of them came to the conclusion that if we had operated countercyclical economic policies it would have been of great benefit during the crisis. In their simplest terms, countercyclical policies, as Deputies are aware-----

One does not overheat an economy that is growing very strongly and one does not tax and cut in an economy that is in decline. Everybody knew the theory. It was not because they did not understand the theory, it was because they had no resources. What I am saying now is let us have a fund for the first time where there are resources for countercyclical intervention. The thinking has gone as far as saying we are looking at the Estimates and until we balance the budget in 2018, money is going in three directions; it is going to spend extra on public expenditure; it is going on the tax side – either tax increases or tax reductions; and it is going to reduce the deficit. When we balance the budget the tranche that was going to reduce the deficit will no longer be required for deficit reduction purposes so it gives us scope. If we allocated all the money that was available in the fiscal space, that would run into departmental budgets immediately and by the time the annual budget would arrive there would be no discretion because it is pegged in that we are going to spend X amount. What I am saying is that we put a fund aside, and it is either allocated for expenditure or it is not by the Government of the day depending on the circumstances. It is an instrument of macroeconomic policy to be deployed by the Government of the day. That is not to say it will never be spent. That is not the issue.

I think the problem there-----

The issue is not to spend everything upfront just because we have it, but to get away from the boom and bust and if I have it I will spend it theories. The way the world is changing so fast, Deputy Murphy could very well be the man deploying it so he should not paint himself into a corner now.

The problem we have is the fiscal rules and the fact that countercyclical policies, Keynesian policies, are pretty much made illegal by the fiscal rules. That is the fundamental problem.

I will move on to more detailed questions. There is no increase in the Estimate for the Revenue Commissioners compared with what was outlined in the budget. A significant event happened in terms of tax internationally in that space, namely, the Panama papers, which did detail a number of members of the Irish economic elite being connected to Mossack Fonseca. We know Ireland is a bit of a centre in terms of tax avoidance and that can shade over into tax evasion. Are the Revenue Commissioners sufficiently resourced to deal with tax evasion? Would they like more resources to deal with the issue? If they had more resources, could they do more?

The budget for the Comptroller and Auditor General is very small considering the extent of responsibility for auditing that it has. It is responsible for all the money that goes to the HSE and that money is then effectively outsourced to the likes of Console. We see the impact of outsourcing public services in that way at the moment but that is a broader discussion.

The main question I would pose is that it is responsible, in particular, for NAMA, and given that NAMA is entering into a crucial period as it will write off €40 billion to developers in the next couple of years, surely it needs more resources to be able to properly monitor that situation.

First, the Revenue discusses these matters with the Department of Finance and, usually, unless there are extravagant demands, it gets what it looks for. It needed funding on this occasion to hire extra staff and it has been hiring extra staff. In 2015, for example, it got 126 extra staff made up of 56 in compliance, 50 on local property tax and 20 for the international tax. There is an increase of 50 staff in 2016 and it is for compliance.

This represents good value for money. When Revenue looks for funding for extra staff then taking into account the fiscal space and all the other matters, if each extra member of staff is able to collect more of tax forgone than his or her salary then it is a fairly good decision to hire him or her. One should think of it in those terms. It is not unlimited; Revenue is happy with its allocation.

On the Panama papers, I understand that Revenue is accessing specific data to ascertain the extent of the involvement of Irish taxpayers and what significance that has to the Irish tax position, and that it has sufficient resources to do that. Beyond that general remark, I do not know the specifics. If the Deputy puts down a written question, we will get some more information for him. Revenue has sought access to the Panama papers, both from the media outlets and directly from Panama under our double taxation agreement. The Department has since reacted to international developments, including agreeing to the pilot initiative on the exchange of information on beneficial ownership at informal ECOFIN meetings. The Dutch Presidency got the tax directive through the ECOFIN two weeks ago and it will go on to the European Parliament now for trilogues, etc. The speed at which that was processed was a direct response to the Panama paper revelations.

I asked about the Comptroller and Auditor General, in terms of NAMA.

The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has the resource that it requests. The former Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts would have a view on that. I am not adverse to considering a submission because I am aware that there are commentators who think that the range of powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be widened somewhat.

If I may take up that point, the Minister made mention of the Revenue Commissioners and the collection of taxes. They do a good job and do it with great care and diligence. When one looks at the Comptroller and Auditor General's report for as long as I have been a Member - the Minister is a former Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts - it does not appear as if all of the Departments and agencies of the State spend that money with the same care and diligence used to collect it. As a result, there are issues, such as Console and Project Eagle. I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor General is conducting an investigation into a number of transactions within NAMA. If the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and the Committee of Public Accounts had been empowered to act and had the requisite funding it is quite possible that we would have had greater scrutiny with a better outcome in terms of Console and others.

The Comptroller and Auditor General cannot forensically examine every account. My experience of the office has been that it is difficult for it to get down to the ultimate expenditure of taxpayers' money allocated to different agencies. Until such time as the Government brings about a change in that regard, we will still be in the same difficulty in five years' time without the necessary reform. I say this, as the Minister said, from my experience as former Chairman of the Public Accounts. The Minister, too, chaired that committee. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has never been substantially reformed to do the business that the State and the citizens expect it to do.

It is similar to this process here. Earlier, each of the speakers had roughly between ten and 12 minutes to make their contribution. We are dealing with a budget here of €379 million and we have not got into the detail of it. Standing Orders do not allow us. Standing Order 90 provides that we can consider this but we cannot vote against it, nor can we vote for it. We cannot comment on it. On the issue of a comment on this, the comment is already preordained; it is already established. We cannot even change that. There is not time within what we do in the committees to deal with these issues. It becomes something of a farce and a little misleading for the public which believes that we are examining its accounts. I will use my few minutes by asking the questions, of which that is one.

Returning to the committees, I note that at least two previous Finance committees and two previous Committees of Public Accounts made reference to a single case of an individual in terms of return of tax and it has never been completely dealt with. The cross-party committees decided that an individual should be repaid the full tax amount and Revenue refused to do it. The Minister is aware of it. The Taoiseach is aware of it. The same applies to previous members of Government. Revenue just ignores the recommendations of Oireachtas committees, not just of one, that were made up of different individuals over time.

I will take the Minister up on some of the comments in his opening remarks. Unfortunately, we are out of time to deal with them. The Minister mentions, for example, domestic banking and the SME credit and personal debt. I do not know who said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". While these statistics look good, the experience of the SME sector in dealing with the banks is nothing short of horrific. It is extremely difficult to get to grips with what the banks require and extremely difficult to get funding for the SME sector out of those banks. In fact, when there is an attempt to access the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, fund through a bank, mainly AIB, the SBCI can decide not to give the funding but it does not necessarily explain why. In one case, in terms of the Credit Review Office, even if the SBCI supports the application, that bank can still say "No" and still not give the reasons for that negative response. That needs to be addressed.

In terms of mortgage arrears, merely to put it on record because we do not have time to deal with it in detail, I accept that there are 85,989 accounts in difficulty but the Minister should visit the eviction courts to see what happens there. It is incredible how badly those in mortgage arrears, in the main, Irish citizens and families, are being treated in those eviction courts. With the county registrar present, they attempt in their own way, because they cannot afford legal representation, to fight their cases. Often the decision of a previous court and judge is not even followed up. No one knows what is going on within those courts except the individual at the end of the day, who may get a negative response. I believe that we are now down to a situation where families in this country will be evicted from their own homes simply because the due process that they have entered into is not functioning for them and it is up to the Government to provide the appropriate legislation to keep them in their homes.

There is another point with regard to Brexit, an issue to which the Minister has referred and on which members have raised questions. I am a supporter of Europe and our future is in Europe, but if we lose this opportunity to question Europe and where it is going then the SME sector and businesses across the board will not be able to deal with the amount of legislation and regulation that is due to be issued and that will affect them directly.

Europe, therefore, must be for the citizens of each member state and not necessarily and totally for the institutions of that state. We should perhaps use this opportunity to insist on bringing some humanity and compassion to an organisation that needs reform and seems cold to the citizens of the member states.

The other issues are insurance, which the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, and the financial services division of his Department. Insurance is having an impact on businesses and individuals because their insurance costs, be they for a car, property or whatever else, have increased substantially. Whereas the Minister's Department and its financial services division may say that they will continue to review policy on the insurance sector, while we wait SMEs are under extreme pressure and individuals are under pressure. Again, the time it has taken the Government to react - it is the same for government of any kind - to matters affecting people's lives has been at a bureaucratic snail's pace, and something must be done about it. I know the Minister cannot respond to these few points while the Taoiseach is waiting to come before us now, but perhaps after the summer we will have the opportunity to consider all these issues again in the context of the Estimates or the budget for 2017, unless he wants to comment before we close.

I thank all the members of the committee. We had a pretty good discussion this morning. Shortage of time is always an enemy of discussion, but I am not averse to coming back whenever the committee decides to discuss any of the issues.

The SME position is improving. The data in my speech come from the surveys carried out by RED C, the polling organisation. A total of 1,500 SMEs were accessed, and that is the result.

The Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland was asked to make additional funding available to SMEs. It has lent almost €172 million to 4,600 Irish SMEs at lower costs than would be received from the banks. It will publish its half-year review in July, so there will be more data in that input. We are constantly trying to ensure that there are alternatives to bank finance available to SMEs, preferably at lower interest rates than in the banking system, but that is not to say that one cannot find individual cases where there is a problem. The Revenue Commissioners state that they have communicated with the committee. I presume that is on foot of the case referred to by the Chairman, but I do not know the details of that. Could the committee contact the Revenue Commissioners again or copy the correspondence to the former chairman?

We will do as we are asked and state that we have considered the Estimates - not very well, may I add - so I ask members to accept that on the basis that the information has been promised to them-----

We have the option not to consider them and finish our consideration next week.

Whatever members want.

There are a number of questions, unfortunately, that I would like to have asked regarding NAMA and other areas that we did not get an opportunity to consider, given the Minister's willingness to come in.

Depending on the Minister's availability, I am quite happy to accept that.

We have a funding problem. We need decisions so that money can be drawn down.

What do members wish to do? Will we dispose of these instruments or request a further meeting?

It depends on the consequences of not disposing of them.

What would be the consequence of meeting next week?

If members really want a session next week, that can be facilitated, but there is the rule that one cannot spend more than 80% of the Estimate, unless the Parliament has endorsed it, and we are running very close to the line.

Through the Chair, how much extra time is required? Does Deputy Doherty have a few more questions?

Maybe we will dispose of the Estimates and then, as we intend to meet in September anyway, we will have a longer meeting and deal with the questions to which Deputy Doherty has not got answers, if that is agreeable.

I can offer a private briefing by officials to anybody who has questions.

I may take the Minister up on that.

Take me up on that.

Top
Share