Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Sub-Committee on Finance debate -
Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Vote 10 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners (Revised)

I now call the meeting to order as we have a quorum. Apologies have been received from Deputy Pearse Doherty. Given the date, I will be quoting Marx but it will be Groucho Marx on this occasion and given that my birthday is next month, I will probably refer the comments to myself but as Groucho Marx once said, when the candles cost more than the cake, it is time to stop counting. On behalf of the committee, I wish the Minister a happy birthday.

We now move on to consideration of the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2013 - Department of Finance group of Votes. The Dáil ordered that the following Revised Estimates for Public Services be referred to the committee for consideration. The Votes in question are Vote 7 - Office of the Minister for Finance, Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners, and Vote 10 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners.

I welcome the Minister for Finance and his officials to the meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the supplementary performance information regarding outputs and impacts of programme expenditure. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I now call on the Minister to make his opening statement.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the select committee today in connection with the 2013 Estimates for my Department and for the offices under the ambit of my Department, including the Revenue Commissioners, the appeals commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I will begin by making some general comments in respect of the outputs of my Department during 2012 and to date in 2013.

The year 2012 was another demanding year for both this Department and for the economy. We continue to operate in a very demanding and fast changing economic and financial environment and staff continue to respond unstintingly to the demands placed on them. This was very evident in both the successful conclusion of the promissory note renegotiations and the special liquidation of IBRC. The Deputies will have seen at first hand the dedication of and contribution made by staff in the Department where the very thorough pre-planning and delicate negotiation and diplomacy brought to these complicated issues resulted in very real value to the taxpayer. The successful sale of Irish Life, Bank of Ireland contingent capital notes and the efficient management of our EU Presidency programme were also key features of a particularly busy schedule for the Department. Delivery on these issues does not happen without the continued support, often late into the night and indeed through the night, from the staff of the Department. There are high stakes involved and we continue to make steady progress towards achieving our strategic goals.

I am pleased to report that 2012 represented another significant stage on our road to economic recovery. Following a return to growth in 2011, Ireland achieved a second successive year of growth in 2012, with GDP, in volume terms, having recorded growth of 0.9% in the year. As would be expected from a small open economy such as Ireland's, the exporting sectors continue to drive our economic recovery. While product-specific developments in the pharma-chem sector have impacted on goods exports, Ireland's services exports continue to perform strongly, having increased by 8.9% in 2012. This continued success owes much to the significant competitiveness improvements that have taken place in recent years - a reflection of the flexibility of the Irish economy.

While this in itself is encouraging, perhaps of more immediate relevance to the people of Ireland have been the signs of stabilisation in the domestic economy over the past year. For the first time since the onset of the recession, households saw an increase in their disposable income during the year, while quarter 4 saw the first annual increase in employment since mid-2008. On foot of this, personal consumption stabilised over the second half of 2012, recording modest growth over the last two quarters. Last year also saw investment contribute positively to growth, recording the first year-on-year increase since 2007. While Government consumption continues to decline - reflecting the necessary fiscal rebalancing - my Department now expects domestic demand to return to growth this year. The importance of a vibrant domestic economy cannot be understated. Domestic activity drives employment and its recovery is a vital precondition to tackling our high unemployment levels.

Ireland's public finances have gone through an exceptionally difficult period in recent times. After a sustained period of balanced budgets, the economic downturn caused the emergence of large deficits in each of the years since 2008. In addition, the very significant level of support the State has been required to provide to our banking sector has contributed significantly to the deterioration in our public finances and is a large part of the reason for the extremely sharp, steep increase in our debt level. As recently as 2007, our debt-to-GDP ratio was just 25%. This year we expect it to peak at approximately 123%, a very substantial level of increase by any standards and in such a relatively short space of time.

Notwithstanding this, the public finances are moving in the right direction. Ireland has continued to demonstrate signs that the recovery is on track. The latest figures show that our economy is growing, with GDP increasing by 0.9% in 2012. Encouragingly, this was the second consecutive year of recorded economic growth and this positive trend is projected to continue throughout 2013. This year's budget is based on real GDP growth of 1.3%. Stabilising the debt ratio through a reduction in our annual deficit or borrowing requirement continues to be the backdrop that frames our fiscal policy. The fiscal consolidation process has been under way since mid-2008 and all told, measures designed to yield or save approximately €28 billion, or close to 17% of estimated 2013 GDP, have so far been implemented.

However, we know that restoring our public finances to a sustainable path in the coming years cannot come from consolidation alone. Economic growth is a key contributor and in designing economic and budgetary policy, we must be mindful of this. Getting people back to work is at the top of this Government's agenda. In light of this, one of the main focuses of budget 2013 was on small and medium-sized industries, SMEs. We announced a ten point tax reform plan which included measures that will make a real difference to SMEs by assisting their cash position and supporting their creation of jobs.

Turning to the labour market, 2012 saw the first real signs of stabilisation following the crisis. Seasonally adjusted employment increased over each of the last two quarters, resulting in the first annual increase in the number of people in employment since mid-2008 in the fourth quarter. On foot of this, it is encouraging to note that my Department is now forecasting a return to full-year employment growth for this year. The unemployment rate meanwhile stood at 14% in April, having fallen from a peak of 15% in February 2012. The Government remains committed to tackling the unacceptably high level of unemployment by creating an environment which supports enterprise and job creation. Reflecting this, the Action Plan for Jobs 2013 set out over 333 actions to be undertaken in the coming year to support job creation and complement measures already undertaken in the jobs initiative and the pathways to work. The scope of the plan reflects not just the ambition of this Government but a determination to get Ireland's unemployed back to work again.

However, in assessing the economic outlook for Ireland, it is important to recognise that we are in a time of heightened uncertainty and considerable risk. Given the export-orientated nature of our economy, our fortunes are indelibly intertwined with those of our trading partners. Ireland cannot prosper in isolation and any re-ignition of the sovereign debt crisis in the euro area would clearly pose a significant threat to our recovery.

We successfully concluded the ninth review of the programme of financial support with the EU Commission, the ECB and the IMF in April. The tenth review process began recently with the review mission running from 23 April to 2 May 2013. During this and previous reviews we have emphasised that our focus now is on our exit strategy from the programme, our re-entry into the financial markets and improving our debt sustainability. Our programme compliance is recognised as being uniquely strong, and as at the end of 2013 we have completed over 240 actions, and close to 85% of the available external funding has been drawn down as at the end of March 2013.

Importantly, the Government continues to meet each of the quantitative fiscal targets set out as part of the EU-IMF programme, the most recent being for the end of March. In addition, we are on track to meet the annual deficit target for this year, as we did in 2012. Compliance with these targets has helped a great deal in restoring Ireland's reputation as we seek to return our public finances to a more sustainable path. However, we remain cognisant of the fact that a very challenging road lies ahead. The gap between spending and revenues still remains too large. We are determined to continue to reduce this gap in a phased manner over the coming years, to allow the economic recovery take hold. The budgetary adjustments that are required present many challenges for policy makers but we remain steadfast in our commitment to reducing the deficit below 3% by 2015.

Ireland's Presidency of the European Union is now moving into its final stages. The Irish Presidency has been focused on stability, jobs and growth and we have focused on working with our European partners to introduce measures to support this agenda. We have pursued specific objectives and focused resources on the most significant dossiers. This has been a successful strategy and we have made significant progress in a number of policy areas.

First and importantly, we achieved agreement on the extension of maturities of European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF, and European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, EFSM, loans for Ireland and Portugal. In financial services, we have focused on the legislative dossiers necessary to help complete the banking union. The banking union has been a high priority of the Irish Presidency because of its importance in breaking the link between the sovereign and the banks.

We have gained agreement on the capital requirements directive IV which is important for the stability of the banking sector. We have also achieved agreement on the single supervisory mechanism and adapted the rules of the European Banking Authority to this new framework. This is a fundamental element of the structure of banking union. There was significant progress on the bank resolution and recovery directive at the May ECOFIN and we are working on progressing this with a view to reaching agreement on key political issues at the June ECOFIN.

In the consumer area we have achieved agreement on the mortgage credit directive. Work is also advancing on other important financial services dossiers such as the markets in financial instruments directive and regulation, MiFID-MiFIR. We achieved agreement on the two pack set of economic regulations aimed at improving economic governance in the euro area. We have been moving the European semester economic governance process to its final conclusion at the June European Council.

In taxation, the Presidency achieved agreement to allow those member states who wished to introduce a financial transaction tax to commence work on the proposal. More recently, agreement was achieved on a mandate to allow the Commission to enter into negotiations with third countries on amendments to savings taxation agreements. Agreement was also achieved at the May ECOFIN on a set of Council conclusions on tax fraud and tax evasion. This is part of wider work on combating tax fraud and tax evasion.

We have been engaged with the EU budget, including achieving political agreement on a draft amending budget to the 2013 budget to allow for discussions on the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, with the European Parliament. We have contributed to advancing discussions in the development of European Council President Herman Von Rompuy's roadmap for economic and monetary union for the June European Council.

These are just some of the achievements during an EU Presidency calendar that included not only the very successful ECOFIN meeting, but more than 60 working parties, 50 trilogues and associated bilateral meetings.

I will touch briefly on initiatives in the banking sector. In June 2011 the Central Bank of Ireland, together with my Department, was asked to take a lead role in preparing a national payments plan. The overriding vision for the national payments plan is for Ireland to double the number of e-payments per capita by 2015, leading to a reduction in our cash and cheque usage to the EU average. The national payment plan is the result of extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders and all stakeholders will play a role in implementing the recommendations of the plan.

Ireland is in the unique position of not only being able to catch up to others but even to become a leader in this area. We have one of the youngest populations in Europe and have shown ourselves to be very fast adaptors of new technology. The national payments plan is designed to ensure that the payments environment here facilitates increased adoption of more efficient payment methods. In addition to targeting increased e-payments usage, the national payments plan will target improved consumer payments systems and modernised business payments. In doing so we will ensure that Ireland meets its commitments under the single European payments area regulation but our primary driver is increased competitiveness and efficiency.

One of the key priorities of the programme for Government is to ensure that an adequate pool of credit is available to fund SMEs in the real economy during the bank restructuring and downsizing programme. It is vital that the banks continue to make credit available to support economic recovery. However, it is not in the interest of the banks, businesses or the economy for finance to be provided unless the business is viable and has the capacity to meet the interest payments and repay the sum borrowed. The Government has imposed SME lending targets on the two domestic pillar banks - AIB and Bank of Ireland - for the three calendar years 2011 to 2013. Each bank was required to sanction lending of at least €3 billion in 2011, €3.5 billion in 2012 and €4 billion in 2013 for new or increased credit facilities to SMEs. The credit reviewer said in his most recent quarterly report, "Both banks have achieved their €3.5 billion SME loan sanction targets. Over €8 billion was sanctioned in 2012."

The Action Plan for Jobs 2013 contains a section dedicated to access to finance for micro, small and medium enterprises. There are 24 specific actions aimed at improving access to finance to be undertaken in 2013 by various organisations. The State bodies group was established in 2012 to develop and oversee the implementation of key policy initiatives to support SME access to credit and other forms of finance.

With over 16% of mortgages in arrears and household debt stabilising but still high compared with European peers, the area of mortgage arrears and personal insolvency remains one of our key issues. Following the publication of the 2011 inter-departmental working group report on mortgage arrears, a comprehensive strategy has been put in place across Government to address the problem of mortgage difficulty. It encompasses personal insolvency reform, a mortgage information and advice service, and the development of the mortgage to rent scheme. Much progress was made on this in 2012 which culminated in the enactment of the Personal Insolvency Act. The Insolvency Service of Ireland, ISI, is putting in place the necessary arrangements to make the Act operational and it is hoped it will be in a position to accept applications this summer.

The Central Bank has had intensive engagement with regulated mortgage lenders and required them to develop and implement mortgage arrears resolution strategies. Arising from this, the Central Bank, as regulator, published performance targets for the main mortgage lenders which will require banks to offer and conclude sustainable solutions for their customers in arrears.

These targets will be backed by new and rigorous provisioning requirements and the possible imposition on the banks of higher capital requirements if these performance targets are not met. The Department is also engaging with the main lenders on a regular basis regarding the lenders' mortgage arrears resolution strategies and their progress in meeting the targets set by the Central Bank.

In terms of the operations of the Department, we continue to pursue an ambitious reform agenda which includes a realignment of our Estimate across five programmes, providing greater focus on key deliverables including EU, financial services, fiscal and economic policy together with provision of certain shared services. We are committed to increasing transparency and openness, including regular reporting against targets and outreach to strategic partners and expert groups to better inform our policy development. We are publishing a greater amount of information for as wide an audience as possible. For example, the recent Exchequer statement was published on our website with an accompanying explanatory video. To this end, I have distributed today our recently published annual review and our most recent report card. These publications provide an update on the wide range of issues addressed, and actions taken, by the Department over the past 18 months.

Turning to the business of the committee today, the funding allocation sought for the Department of Finance group of Votes for 2013 totals €362 million and compares to a 2012 Vote group total of €351 million. Of this, some €33 million relates to Vote 7, which provides for the administrative and non-administrative costs of the Department of Finance, an increase of €1 million compared to 2012, arising largely because of the costs of the EU Presidency. This is a temporary increase for the duration of the Presidency and costs in this area will cease in the latter part of this year.

We continue to pursue economies of scale and improved productivity through the expansion of the shared service function to other Departments, agencies and bodies. We have also progressed a number of initiatives, such as the abolition of payable orders and the reorganisation of accommodation arrangements, which will secure long-term administrative budget savings.

The Estimate also contains a significant provision for banking-related consultancy and other costs, including the cost of financial inclusion projects which I referred to earlier. The Department will continue to seek to minimise these costs but we must be equipped to address issues as they arise, in pursuit of the best return for the taxpayer and in the interest of securing a robust banking system and economic climate. We are dealing in billion euro transactions and the results will impact for the long-term for everybody. We must not seek to achieve short-term savings on costs at the expense of long-term failure on a macro level.

As for Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Estimate of €322.705 million is up by €14.579 million, or 5%, on the 2012 net outturn. Of that, 73% is related to pay for an employment control framework ceiling of 5,874 staff. The main reason for the increase is the implementation of the local property tax scheme.

In 2012, net tax and duty receipts increased by 7.3% to €36.7 billion, the second successive year-on-year increase in returns to the Exchequer since 2007. Continued investment in information and communications technology, as well as providing better services for the tax paying public, has been a major driver of productivity growth in Revenue. It continues assisting the organisation to deliver services in these more difficult economic circumstances.

Encouraging voluntary compliance is a cornerstone of Revenue's business strategy. Revenue does this by making it as easy as possible for taxpayers and businesses to be compliant on a voluntary basis. In addition to providing quality customer service, Revenue supports compliance by simplifying its procedures and practices and reducing the costs associated with meeting tax and duty obligations. Throughout 2012, despite the difficult economic circumstances and financial difficulties experienced by many taxpayers, high levels of compliance were maintained.

In 2012, Revenue deployed significant resources to the early detection of highest risk evasion, shadow economy and smuggling activities through the greater use of intelligence, data matching and analytics, and an intensified range of risk focused compliance and audit interventions. Revenue continues to develop sophisticated systems to monitor and manage risk in its pursuit of those who fail to meet their tax and duty obligations. Revenue's role extends beyond the administration of the tax system and they have continued to contribute to Ireland's economic development by providing high quality legislation and advice and promoting Ireland's agenda in various national and international fora.

This year Revenue will make an important contribution to national objectives of fiscal consolidation and economic recovery. Revenue will administer the taxes and duties which are placed in its care and management as efficiently as possible, and will strive to maintain, and where possible grow, compliance levels. In 2013, the introduction of local property tax is a significant part of that contribution. Other key priorities include making a tangible impact on the level of shadow economy activities by devoting resources to target and intervene against shadow economy and smuggling activities.

With, regard to Vote 8, the budget of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is applied towards a single programme with the following outputs: auditing the financial statements of public bodies and issuing audit opinions; control of issues from the Central Fund; examining and reporting on financial management arrangements in public bodies; and the value for money of public services. The Comptroller and Auditor General also assists the PAC in it scrutiny of the public finances.

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

I will try to be brief to allow as much time to examine the Estimates as possible. I join the Minister in acknowledging the commitment of his staff. They have impressed me over the course of the year with the commitment they have shown to their duties. Many of them have gone beyond the call of duty on many occasions and I readily acknowledge that and thank them for all of their work.

The Minister pointed out in his opening statement what he regards as evidence of a recovery in the economy. There is evidence of a recovery in some sectors and I believe we should make the next budget about SMEs. We should build on the package of measures the Minister announced in December to give SMEs even more support. When we talk to people who are in business, they refer to the same issues again and again: rent, rates, energy costs, waste disposal, red tape and compliance. If we can free up the entrepreneurial spirit around the country, we will secure a recovery in the domestic economy far more quickly than will otherwise be the case.

The approach to date has been to rely on an export-led recovery. Exports have been doing well generally but as the Minister acknowledged in his own contribution, the exports of goods has declined, it is now the export of services that is leading the recovery. There is a major threat for Ireland because we export 90% of everything we produce and we need demand from our trading partners. We returned to modest growth in 2011 and 2012 because of exports. When we look at the economic data that continue to come out of the eurozone, they are extremely weak. It is still in recession and many countries that should not be continuing with fiscal consolidation and that have scope to invest further in their economies are continuing blindly down the road of austerity which is hampering demand across Europe.

These are issues we discussed during the Private Member's debate last night. It would be very helpful for Ireland and other peripheral countries if many of the triple A countries in Europe, for example, allowed their own economies to breathe and grow again. That would certainly help our recovery very significantly.

The issue of the banks is still looming very large. The Minister said that the lending targets for the SME sector have been met but the evidence on the ground is quite different. We have had representatives of the banks in here on a number of occasions. We have drilled down into the detail of the data and found that the level of new lending is only a fraction of the €7 billion that the banks claimed they had lent last year. When one examines the detail, one finds that there was actually a reduction in the overall amount of credit for SMEs in circulation because many SMEs paid back debt in the last year. The total pool of funding that has been lent is actually contracting.

There is no doubt but that a key element of our recovery will be dealing with the overhang of debt that people are dealing with, whether that is personal, mortgage or SME debt, as well as, of course, the national debt that the country is carrying. My party has set out its own analysis and criticism of the steps that have been taken with regard to mortgage arrears and personal debt. I genuinely hope that the measures that have been announced will work and that the mortgage arrears targets are met by the banks. I have my doubts but I hope I am wrong. I hope the measures work because the reality is that unless we confront that issue and engage in a genuine way with people who want a fresh start and who are facing up to their responsibilities, we will find it very difficult to get any recovery at all in the domestic economy.

There is scope and a need for greater investment in the economy. The Government announced in the autumn of 2011 that it would set up a strategic investment fund, which would require legislation, and that some of the remaining moneys in the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, would be invested in commercial projects in the economy. We are still waiting for that legislation almost two years later. We all acknowledge that unemployment is the single biggest crisis the country is facing. In the context of the almost total collapse of the construction industry, in particular, the length of time it is taking to advance initiatives like that is unforgivable, given that they would definitely have a positive impact on the economy. The reality is that, except for the safety valve of emigration, Ireland's unemployment rate, which is completely unacceptable as it is, would be far higher. I urge the Minister and his colleagues in government to initiate the investment we want to see. The capital spending programme has been butchered. The money that is provided is not even being fully spent, as was evident last year and, indeed, so far this year. We need to go far beyond that and do much better.

We acknowledge the absolute need to reduce our deficit. The Minister indicated in his opening remarks that €28 billion of fiscal consolidation has been put through already, equating to approximately 17% of GDP. I know of no other country that has managed to achieve, or rather, implement fiscal consolidation on that scale. It has come at a very high price for the people in our communities and we are seeing that on a daily basis. We need to get to the end point of austerity budgets and, hopefully, we are nearly there. The Minister is planning a further adjustment of €5 billion but he might reduce that by up to €1 billion, depending on how he uses the yield from the promissory note deal. We must get to a point, as quickly as possible, where we are no longer implementing tax increases and spending cuts because they are hampering the recovery of the economy.

There has been progress on the bank debt issue. I acknowledge that the deal on the promissory note was certainly an improvement. The extension of the loan maturities of the European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF, and European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, EFSM, money is certainly helping our debt profile. The next step in that area, of course, is to improve the overall stock of debt and to reduce that. In that context, I ask the Minister to redouble his efforts during the Presidency and beyond, to get what I would regard as justice for Ireland, in terms of the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, dealing with the €30 billion that was injected into the pillar banks and Permanent TSB. In my view, it will become increasingly important for us to reduce our stock of debt, which will be 123% of GDP this year. In reality, if the economy remains relatively static and we have growth levels of between 0% and 1% for the next few years, that debt level will be, unquestionably, unsustainable. We need growth but in its absence we will run into serious difficulty in terms of debt levels.

Finally, I wish to refer to NAMA. I am of the opinion that we do not pay enough attention to the work that is going on within NAMA. It is an economic giant and has a footprint in Ireland, and beyond, which is second to none. I genuinely believe that we need to strengthen the political oversight of the workings of NAMA. Representatives of the agency appear before this committee and the Committee of Public Accounts occasionally but I am not sure that any politician fully understands the operations of NAMA and what it is doing on a day-to-day basis. The Minister mentioned yesterday, in response to parliamentary questions in the House, that he has ongoing communication with NAMA. He referred to a quarterly meeting with the agency but said that NAMA makes its decisions independently and on a commercial basis. That is all very fine but it requires a big leap of faith to allow the agency to operate completely independently with, in my view, insufficient political oversight. I would like to have representatives of the agency appear before this committee and the Committee of Public Accounts more often. We should be examining NAMA's annual and interim reports in far more detail. The oversight needs to be strengthened. Personally, I would like to get a better handle on the decisions that NAMA is making, which have very serious consequences for the Irish economy.

I look forward to getting into the detail of the Estimates.

In the context of Deputy McGrath's comments on NAMA, I understand that the agency will be coming under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. While that is not a panacea in terms of all of the issues the Deputy raised, it will certainly provide an additional vehicle through which information can be obtained. I now ask Deputy Boyd Barrett to make his opening remarks and then we will commence with the schedule of Votes.

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. In terms of his assessment of the economy and where it is at, the Minister paints a relatively positive picture of the Government's success, as he would see it, in fixing the economy and preparing it for economic growth, improved employment rates and so forth. However, I would put it to the Minister that when we look at the question of jobs, which is the priority, the balance sheet does not really look that positive. The Government is claiming that it has delivered 92% of its commitments in the programme for Government related to the fostering employment. With 92% of what the Government promised already delivered, in terms of various initiatives, schemes and legislation, the net impact on the chronic level of unemployment is 1%. The unemployment rate has dropped from 15% to 14%. That is not a success story. Indeed, emigration probably accounts for most of that reduction. Whatever about the arguments concerning what we have done to date, from now on we must have a much more focused plan for dealing with unemployment, to offer some hope to the hundreds of thousands of people who are without jobs. I said in the Dáil recently that I do not see why we would not have targets that are as specific for reducing unemployment as the ones the Minister and the troika have for deficit and debt reduction. There are very specific targets set for the amount that will be taken out of the economy and how that will impact on our deficit. Why can we not have targets which chart a course towards reducing unemployment to reasonable levels or, indeed, to as close to 0% as possible? Should that not be a priority and a target for the Government?

I do not see in anything that the Minister has presented the likelihood of that happening, especially because the European economy is in recession through the impact of austerity being imposed elsewhere, and that is to a considerable degree choking off our hopes of export-led growth.

The Minister says service is growing. It has already been pointed out that the export of manufactured goods is declining and the Minister points to some improvement in the domestic economy but in reality it is very flat. Demand is very depressed. The Minister needs to be far more proactive in putting forward a plan to deal with mass unemployment. I do not see anything in what he has said that gives us any hope for a substantial reduction in unemployment in the foreseeable future. He needs to address that matter. It comes down to investment rather than continuing to suck money out of the economy as he is committed to doing by making cuts worth a further €5 billion to meet deficit targets.

Given that the Minister is committed to continuing with these cuts, where does he hope to get this €5 billion? He has just about, perhaps, managed to convince the trade union leadership to accept another €250 million or €300 million worth of cuts but it is pretty clear, regardless of whether he succeeds in getting that deal over the line, that he has reached the bottom of that particular barrel. He cannot expect people to take any more. He cannot expect people who are unemployed or those on low or middle incomes or public services to take any further cuts. Where will that €5 billion come from? Is it not obvious that if he continues to take it from people who are already at the end of the their tether, it will do extreme damage to the economy and society? Given the events of recent days and the revelations about Apple and other companies paying negligible levels of corporation tax, should the Minister not consider this as an alternative source of revenue for the State to pay off deficits and, more importantly, to make the investment the economy so desperately needs? If the reports we hear are correct for just one company, albeit a very big one, making €22 billion in profit in one year and paying only €10 million in tax, 0.5%, one could say that if it paid only 10% tax on those profits, that would be €2.2 billion of revenue.

I am giving the Deputy latitude but we must stick to the subject of the Votes. I will not allow the Minister to respond to those questions because I will tie him to our programme for the afternoon.

That is where the Minister should look if he is talking about raising extra taxes or wants to bridge deficit gaps or is trying to find revenue for the investment we so desperately need to create employment and kick-start economic growth.

We should highlight the fact that we are now approaching the situation of having a primary budget surplus. Our primary deficit is much smaller than the very large deficit which is regularly mentioned, most of which consists of interest payments on a massive debt the State has incurred as a result of the crash, and the unloading of the bank debt on the State to a point where if the Minister's growth projections and hopes do not materialise, it may be unsustainable. This year we will pay out €8 billion in interest on a debt most of which is not our citizens' debt. Do we not have to deal with that because we are close to the point of taking in as much in tax revenue as we spend but we are still in this deficit position which requires further attacks on incomes and so on, with the likelihood of further damage to the economy because of a massive interest bill?

I note, and the Minister noted in respect of the Estimates, that a significant sum is being paid out for consultancy advice to the Government on dealing with the banking crisis. The sum for 2013 is estimated at €6.5 million and the same for 2012. Will the Minister name the consultants who receive that money to advise him on the banking sector? It is a lot of money and some would say that they are not doing a very good job in dealing with some of the key concerns that citizens have about the banks.

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett. We have now taken the opening statements of the Opposition members and we will move on to the programme in hand. We will deal with Vote 7, Office of the Minister for Finance. Members should refer to pages 4 to 18 in the briefing document from the Department. The administrative subheads are I to VIII. Do members have any comments or questions?

I note in Vote 7 that the outturn for last year was approximately €5.5 million below the Estimate for last year, which would be an underspend in the region of 15% or so. Can the Minister rationalise that for us? Are we dealing with all the administrative subheads together?

We will take them in sequence, if possible. Otherwise we will be moving back and forth. The next one will be programme A, European Union and international policy. We are on administration subheads I to VIII.

Thank you. I am not petty-minded about travel and subsistence but I have to ask why there is an increase of 18% pencilled into the Estimate for 2013. I assume it is related to the EU Presidency. Will the Minister confirm if that is the case? He indicated in respect of salaries, wages and allowances, which account for a significant part of the outturn for last year coming in well below the Estimate, that there were savings from the Croke Park deal and that 40 administrative officers were recruited. Will the Minister please explain what is going on behind those numbers? Have senior people who were receiving higher salaries retired and are others coming in on lower salaries? Is that why there is a reduction in the Estimate for remuneration in 2013?

I thank the Deputy. Are there any more questions on these subheads? I will take all the questions together.

Obviously as the Department with ministerial responsibility for running the bailout programme and the budgets that underpin it, we are very prudent on expenditure. We had significant savings in 2012 because of the very tight management of budgets. This year we are looking for €1 million more than the outturn in 2012, despite the fact that we have the Presidency. The Deputy is right in saying that the travel and subsistence is due principally to the Presidency. For example in subhead (ii) it was additional staff, outward focus on increasing numbers of EU meetings. In subhead (iii) the increase is entirely due to a training budget as we increased the in-house skill base and in subhead (v) the additional provision for document management and PQ systems will lead to more efficiencies. We had 237 parliamentary questions yesterday between oral and written. We want to provide a very good service to Members of the House and resources are needed to do that. Subhead (vi) covers an additional premises cost for EU and the provision of temporary staff. In regard to the numbers involved, we brought in many people at AO level for the purpose of upskilling the Department particularly in economics and accountancy and people with tax expertise. Many young staff have been recruited, most of whom are at graduate level with these skills. That is in response to many requests over a number of years from Members of the House to upskill the Department in terms of professional qualification to deal with the very intricate work that is now being conducted in the Department.

There is one follow-on. The Estimate for 2012 overall for Vote 7 was €32 million, give or take. Some €24.6 million was spent which the Minister said was due to tight management but the Estimate for 2013 is more than €33 million, therefore the Estimate is going back up beyond the Estimate for 2012. Is that Presidency related? I do not need the minutiae of it.

Some of it is Presidency related but the monitoring of the banking sector and the various things we had to do in banking is costly as well and there are some expected consultancy costs. The gains for the promissory note are huge. One is dealing with sums of €40 billion and obviously one needs the best possible expertise, both legal and financial. One does not have it in-house all the time. We cannot gear-up inhouse for every eventuality.

Bearing in mind that we have agreed to ten minutes per section, I will keep things going or we will be tight on time.

I have a straight question for the Minister. A large amount of the overall programme expenditure which has increased is the area of financial services policy. It is one of the biggest items for 2012 at €10 million and it is to increase to €14.6 million in 2013. As that is a very large chunk of the overall Estimate, will the Minister tell the committee a little more about what this expenditure involves?

In the consultancy for this year there are three financial inclusion projects: the CPA, the national bank and the e-payments to which I referred in my contribution. Quite a chunk of it on the financial side is there but, of course, there are also the extra staff and the extra expenditure associated with the Presidency.

I wish to make that very point.

We move on to programme A - European Union and international policy. On subhead A1 - administration pay, are there any comments or questions? I take it there are no comments or questions. On subhead A1 - administration - non-pay, are there any comments or questions?

How is subhead A2 broken down?

I will get that for the Deputy.

Are we dealing with the subhead on travel and subsistence?

The headings are repeated because they run through every Department. This one is on page 49.

I am working from the briefing notes and there are selected subheads from the programmes there.

I think it is on page 10 which is in front of the Deputy.

No, those are the administrative subheads. The only A subhead is A3 which is on page 13 of 40.

Give me a second.

It is in that book.

Do we have a second copy?

Some subheads within the programmes were selected and brought into the briefing. They are the big ticket items generally.

I have dealt with subhead A1. I am now dealing with subhead A2 - administration - non-pay. Are there any comments or questions? No. On subhead A3 - consultancy and other services, are there any comments or questions?

Why in the economic planning and reform project which relates to Ireland's exit from the programme is there a total cost of €1.4 million pencilled in across a number of the divisions within the Department? Will the Minister explain that, please? It is €350,000 under subhead A3 and there are four such figures of €350,000.

A total of €1.4 million has been requested on the Vote to fund the economic planning and reform initiative aimed at equipping Ireland for an exit from the EU-IMF support programme. This €1.4 million has been distributed in four equal amounts of €350,000 to each of the four strategic programmes. We will investigate what reforms are needed across the economic sectors as well as policies relating to banking, taxation and broader financial services that may boost Ireland's economic capacity. This work will assist in the Department's efforts to build on the Action Plan for Jobs as we seek to create the additional jobs that are required in the economy by 2016 and reduce the unemployment rate from the current unacceptably high levels.

A project of this scale will require substantial resources. Work to deliver this initiative will incur costs in the following areas: commissioning of high quality research and analysis from leading research institutes and consultancies; costs of seconding experts to work on specific issues under the general direction of the Department; costs associated with co-ordinating and organising a major consultancy effort to include workshops and seminars by regional and sectoral interests; and travel costs associated with visits to city regions in Europe and North America where innovative and successful economic planning initiatives are evident. I think I spoke about this here before.

We will exit the programme at the back-end of this year. We have lived by the programme as have our civil servants before and since we entered Government. Members will be aware of how the programme works where so many aspects of work have to be done against a firm timeline. When we leave the programme we will not have that kind of discipline within our system any more. I want to ensure that because of more loose arrangements we do not lose impetus. We want to bring forward an economic plan to take us from 2014 to 2020 which will be quite specific in the early years where different tasks will have to be done, perhaps, against a looser deadline than the bailout programme involves.

Anyway, in developing that economic plan there are some costs and we are building them in this year. We have started the work on it already.

Is it a troika requirement or an initiative of the Government?

No. It is an initiative of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform at the moment but we will be going to Government with it shortly.

It is not a fiscal plan; it is a broader economic plan. Is that the case?

Obviously, there is a fiscal element to it because Europe is pretty well developed as a fiscal union now between the two-pack, the six-pack, the European semester and the treaty that we passed. All the fiscal measures that require fiscal co-ordination are in place. We will build in the fiscal targets but we will have a wider economic plan that will touch on the various sectors that will help to grow the economy. Of course all Departments and agencies will be involved in their area of competence.

That deals with comments and questions on subhead A3, consultancy and other services. We will now move on to key outputs, context and impact indicators. Are there any comments or questions? No. We will move on to programme B - financial services policy. Are there any comments or questions on subhead B1 on administration and pay? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead B2, administration and non-pay?

What accounts for the increase from €1.1 million to €2.2 million in subhead B2?

I understand it is the EU Presidency.

Are there any comments or questions on subhead B3, committees and commissions? No. Are the any comments or questions on subhead B4, consultancy and other services?

There is a figure under this heading that I mentioned at the outset in my opening statement. Some €6.5 million in consultancy and other services represents a good deal of money. Who are we consulting with or hiring as consultants and for what purpose?

A sum of €165,000 for PricewaterhouseCoopers fees for one secondee.

Will the Minister repeat that, please?

I am going down through the distribution of costs across the division about which Deputy Boyd Barrett has asked. A sum of €165,000 is provided for the salary of someone who was seconded from PricewaterhouseCoopers in the financial securities risk area. There is a figure of €850,000 in the SEPA standard bank account for provision of legal advice.

It is the single euro payments area. It is one of the projects. There was another figure of €1.36 million, €1.190 million of which was for credit surveys on small and medium sized enterprises, which we reported on previously. A sum of €0.120 million was for work on mortgage arrears and €0.050 million was for the Credit Review Office. Index No. 207601 was in respect of outside legal services. A further amount with index No. 207722 was for €350,000 on the economic planning project, another with index No. 207608 is €3.8 million for legal costs. The total is €6.875 million and that is the breakdown.

I can give Deputy Boyd Barrett more information if he wishes. SEPA is the singe euro payments area and the project is being implemented by Departments. It is a contractual commitment to the Commission under the terms of the Bank of Ireland's recapitalisation programme. This is a constituent part of the national payments plan which is the responsibility of the Department of Finance in the first instance. We, therefore, need to budget as if we were rolling it out fully. We will, of course, endeavour to get a good deal of help from the stakeholders on all aspects of the plan, including the budget. That is as much as I have.

The figure of €165,000 for a PricewaterhouseCoopers salary was to do with financial security. Is that the case?

No, it was for a person who came from PwC and was no longer being paid by PwC and, in lieu, was being paid by the Department of Finance. It was someone with a particular expertise that we seconded for one year and having seconded him we took over responsibility for his salary.

He was doing what exactly for €165,000?

He was in the financial risk area of the Department assessing financial risk, an important function in the Department.

One hundred and sixty five thousand euro is a good deal of money to pay someone, is it not?

It is whatever the pay for the grade would be. The Deputy will know the way public service pay goes. One progresses from executive officer, to higher executive officer, to assistant principal, to principal officer and then assistant secretary. The figure is approximately the gross pay for assistant secretary, including pay and pension contributions. There is no additionality. It is simply in line with the rate in the Department and with what the payee would have received from PwC. One cannot get expert people in and not pay them.

The Minister stated the figure for SEPA was €850,000. Who exactly are we paying that to? How many people are involved in that? Will the Minister elaborate a little?

According to my note it includes several projects some of which are condition-linked to the bank recapitalisation programme. I will see if I can get a figure for how far over the staff it would be.

I have another note here. EU Regulation No. 26/2012 established technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and entered into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union on 30 March 2012. The regulation specifies an update on 1 February 2014 for the migration of all credit transfers and direct debit payment to SEPA credit transfer, SCT, and SEPA direct debit, SDD, data formats. However, as part of the approval by the European Commission in July 2010 of the restructuring plan for the Bank of Ireland a commitment was made that the State would migrate credit transfers and direct debit payments of Departments to SEPA standards by 31 March 2013.

SEPA stands for the single euro payments area standards. The commitment was conditional on banks and software vendors being in a position to provide the necessary solutions in time. Neither the banks nor the software providers were in a position to fully meet the accelerated SEPA deadline. However, we will endeavour that Departments will migrate to SEPA standards as soon as their suppliers can facilitate it. In any event, it will be in advance of the required date of 1 February 2014. Therefore, it does not relate to staffing costs, I am informed, but to the advertising and communications costs to ensure that people are aware of their responsibilities to move across to single euro payments area standards for payments.

I have been generous with time but I will have to tighten up a little.

The old rule is that if you do not know the answer to the question, do not ask it.

That is the cynical take.

It is the professional take. The next item is key outputs, contexts and impact indicators. Are there any comments or questions? No. We will move on to programme C - fiscal policy. Are there any comments or questions on subhead C1, administration, pay? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead C2, administration, non-pay? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead C3, committees and commissions? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead C4, consultancy and other services?

There is a big jump there again.

It has increased from an estimate of €75,000 in 2012 to €425,000 in 2013. This relates to consultancy again.

I covered that in reply to a previous question. It is part of the economic-----

I am keeping my eyes on the Minister.

I know that. I would say the Deputy still has his first communion money.

If the Deputy had it and received compound interest on it, he would be a wealthy man now. We have dealt with subhead C4, consultancy and other services. Are there any comments or questions on the key outputs, context and impact indicators under this programme? No.

We will move on to programme D - economic policy. Are there any comments or questions on subhead D1 - pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead D2 - non-pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead D3 - consultancy and other services? No. Are there any comments or questions on the key outputs, context and impact indicators under this programme? No.

We will move on to programme E - provision of shared services. Are there any comments or questions on subhead E1 - pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead E2 - non-pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead E3 - consultancy and other services? No. Are there any comments or questions on the key outputs, context and impact indicators under this programme? No.

We will move on to the appropriations-in-aid. Are there any comments or questions in this regard? No.

We will move on to Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is covered on pages 20 to 25 of the Department's briefing document. The administration subheads are (i) to (ix). Do members have any comments or questions?

I would like to ask the Minister about the overall figures in this area. Last year's Estimate was approximately €6.6 million and the outturn was approximately €5 million. The Estimate before us provides for approximately €6 million. What accounted for the large saving last year? Why is it going back up this year?

The provision for the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been maintained at 2012 levels because the office has assumed new NAMA responsibilities. We want to make sure the costs are covered.

We will move on to programme A - audit and reporting. Are there any comments or questions on subhead A1 - pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead A2 - non-pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on the key outputs, context and impact indicators under this programme? No. Are there any comments or questions regarding the appropriations-in-aid section as a whole? No. We will move on to Vote 9.

Have we finished dealing with the outputs under Vote 8?

Yes. We are moving on to Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners. This is covered on pages 26 to 36 of the Department's briefing document. The administration subheads are (i) to (xi). Do members have any comments or questions?

I will leave it until we come to the outputs.

Very good. We will move on to programme A - administration and collections of taxes, duties and frontier management. Are there any comments or questions on subhead A1 - pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on subhead A2 - non-pay administration? No. Are there any comments or questions on the key outputs, context and impact indicators under this programme?

I would like to ask the Minister about the implications of the local property tax for Revenue. It has had to take on additional staff. I understand the change in overall salary payments is quite modest. Can the Minister give us some information on the number of additional staff who were taken on? I am aware that Revenue has outsourced work to a call centre. Where does that appear under Vote 9? I would appreciate it if the Minister could give us some information on that.

We will get that for the Deputy in a moment.

That is fine. I will refer briefly to the outputs in the meantime. I note there is an objective in 2013 to devote at least 25% of compliance resources to target and intervene in cash and shadow economies and smuggling activities. Has the Revenue identified the targeting of the black economy as a particular priority in the current year?

There is the black economy but there is also the smuggling of diesel, cigarettes and other excisable items. Obviously, Revenue is focusing on that. The black economy always increases as the economy starts to grow, particularly in the early stages of the stabilisation of the home economy. I suppose it is better to have people working. We need them to work in the white economy, if I can describe it like that. There is no great particular emphasis on it. Revenue does this work all the time.

I understand that Revenue reached 1 million local property tax files last night or early this morning. The overall level must be close to 60%. I have seen some interesting information. I think they are doing pretty well. As of today, 22 May 2013, over 1 million local property tax returns have been filed. Some 70% of the returns received have been filed electronically and some 30% have involved paper returns. Revenue is on target to reach the expected compliance level of 80% before it has to take any other measures. When I was dealing with a question on this issue at 9.45 a.m. yesterday, it had reached a level of 57%. Now that it has reached 1 million, one can do the maths oneself. It is in or around 60% now. I would think it is slightly below that level. It is coming up to 60%.

I know these are early days, but has any preliminary analysis of the returns been done to ascertain whether people have generally accepted the valuation bands they were given in the guidance documents? Are more people coming in under the valuation guide or above it? Is any information on the profile of the returns available yet?

I had a conversation with the chairperson of Revenue at a very early stage, when approximately 20,000 returns had been received. I would not think the indicators at that time were accurate.

It was as one would expect. I do not know whether any more recent information is available. I think they are waiting until the 80% mark is reached before they run the numbers. It was clear that most people were agreeing to pay. The level of deferrals, which we had expected to be 15% or 16%, was coming in at less than 2%. Files have to be returned in respect of exempt properties as well. We will not know until we are near the end whether we will receive the return of €250 million for this year and double that for next year.

When does Revenue expect to initiate enforcement activity in respect of people who do not file returns? I refer to activity regarding social welfare payments, bank accounts, salary deductions, etc.

Although the compliance date for filing on paper has passed, if somebody files a paper return now it will still be accepted. The compliance date for electronic filing is the end of May. Once we get into June, it will be up to Revenue to organise the next phase, which will involve looking at non-compliance. Revenue will have to decide which of the powers available to it should be used to deal with non-compliance. It has been very successful, in terms of compliance, so far. I do not want to give the impression that Revenue is waving big sticks or anything like that. It would not be fair to the people who pay if a group of people were to get away with not paying. That is not going to happen.

What proportion of the 1 million registrations claimed by the Minister is accounted for by declarations made by multiple property owners? What proportion is accounted for by declarations made by local authorities in respect of the liability of their housing stock for this tax?

As I said, we do not yet have an analysis but since multiple property owners have to register electronically they would be back-loaded rather than front-loaded because the electronic compliance date is the end of this month. In theory, the preponderance of people who are filing these days are those with multiple properties because that is the requirement under the Act.

They are filing electronically.

Yes. The advice note stated that those with one property could file by returning a form or, alternatively, electronically. That choice was not given to people with multiple properties.

When the Minister says 1 million people have filed, not all of them are paper returns.

I told the Deputy that of the 1 million returns filed, 70% were done so electronically and 30% were paper.

In the advice note, the requirement on people with multiple properties was to file electronically. They have another period of time to comply. My assumption is that the bulk of those filing until the end of the month will be multiple property owners. Local authorities are not due to pay until 1 January 2014. The second Bill we introduced made a series of concessions and that was one of them. Local authorities are not included in the returns filed to date.

I believe the Minister is dodging the question slightly. Of the 1 million returns filed, 700,000 are paper-----

It is the other way around.

Some 300,000 paper returns and 700,000 electronic returns have been filed. The Minister said multiple property owners were likely to file electronically.

No, the Deputy misunderstands me. He asked two questions. First, he asked for the breakdown, which I gave him. Second, he asked whether local authorities were included in the figures. The answer is that they are not because they do not have to pay until 2014.

Do they have to register?

They will register in due course in bulk when they register all their properties. They are not included in the figures. There were two requirements. One could file on paper or electronically. If one had multiple properties-----

One had to file electronically.

-----there was a requirement to file electronically. However, one was given extra time to do so.

I understand that; the date is 28 May. There is no reason to believe that many of the 700,000 people who filed electronically are not multiple property owners.

I want to finish this section and Deputy McGrath wishes to speak. We are going around in circles.

That is not the point I am making. Many of those outstanding will be multiple property owners because they were given extra time to file electronically.

So was everybody else who wanted to file electronically.

Anybody who wants to file electronically has until 28 May.

Deputy, we will not deal with conspiracy theories, just with facts.

Under output targets, I wish to raise the issue of multinationals in Ireland and corporation tax. Is it an area which the Revenue intends to target? Is the Minister satisfied that Revenue has the resources and, perhaps more importantly, the expertise it needs to examine the complex tax avoidance structures that are already in place by these companies? Does he have any comments in that regard?

There is a very high level of compliance with corporation tax. A small number of companies pay large amounts of tax. The current controversy is very unfair to the tax situation in Ireland. Every company in Ireland which is liable to pay 12.5% on the profits they earn in Ireland is paying it. It is a very tax compliant country. Many of the profits made by multinational companies are not subject to Irish taxation, and if that is the case we cannot collect money from the parts of their profitability which are somebody else's responsibility. That is from where the extraordinary figures arise.

Apple is being talked about. It paid 12.5% on all the profits it made in Ireland, and that is the only liability it has in Ireland. It might pay less elsewhere. Companies registered in the Deputy's constituency are not obliged to pay tax in Ireland because they are not registered for tax in Ireland.

Today's Financial Times refers to a figure of $1.2 trillion overseas dollars from the United States which is not repatriated because the United States makes a distinction between profits generated domestically and profits generated abroad. We are not in a position to remediate that. Today the Wall Street Journal states:

The Apple units are registered in Ireland so US law does not consider them to be US corporations subject to US corporate tax. But since they are managed and controlled by Apple in the US, Irish law does not consider them to be Irish companies and thus they are also not subject to the 12.5% Irish corporate tax. This isn't alchemy, it's accountancy.

It supports the Irish position. The Financial Times stated:

But the senators would do better to look closer to home. An over complicated US tax code has allowed the principle of no double taxation to degenerate into one of double no taxation ... But to be fair, there is no evidence that Ireland struck preferential deals with Apple ... Much of the avoidance cited is routinely used by US multinationals thanks to a tax code which invites this through differing treatment of foreign and domestic earnings. At the last count US companies held $1.7 trillion in remission profits. Rather than bash companies in foreign countries, the Apple example should encourage Congress to move on corporate tax reform.

Any of us who have jobs in our constituencies in companies like Apple, which employs about 4,000 people in Cork, should remember about 100,000 people are employed in US multinationals in Ireland. We would want to be very careful that we do not join in this clack of criticism when the Irish taxation system is totally transparent.

The rate of 12.5% applies to all profits from multinational companies in Ireland. There are no arrangements made between Revenue and multinationals operating in Ireland. Irish tax is not a matter of administrative arrangement, as are tax systems in some other European countries. Irish tax is governed by law passed here and in the Seanad. The Revenue Commissioners must abide by that law and must apply the law fairly and evenly, and does so.

A spokesperson for Apple testified to the US Senate that it paid 2% tax in Ireland and had negotiated that with the Irish Government. I find the explanation on ASI extraordinary. A company that made €22 billion in profit in one year and which is registered in this country only paid €10 million, or 0.5%, in tax. The Minister claimed it can do that because it is nothing to do with him, and it is paying tax on its business in Ireland and everything is fine and dandy. That is unacceptable and ludicrous.

This is a company, which as a result of us facilitating it, is getting away with paying virtually no tax at all. As the Minister rightly says, it has big operations here. How, therefore, is it getting away with paying so little tax if it is registered here? The Minister says this is just an accountancy procedure and not alchemy. However, it is difficult to tell the difference between these two things because what the company is managing to do to avoid paying tax is bordering on magic. The Minister seems to be advising that we should not look into this because it might endanger jobs.

I am not saying anything of the sort. I advise the Deputy to be careful. He does not understand this and he is displaying the fact that he does not understand it. In the course of displaying the fact he does not understand it, he is making charges that could be quite damaging to the jobs of people in this country because what he is saying is in error. If I am permitted, I will explain it to the Deputy.

In that explanation I ask if the Minister might clarify that the current international debate has no connection whatsoever with the 12.5% corporation tax rate in this country. Even if we had a corporation tax rate of 51% it would not have any connection with the current debate about international taxation measures.

This bears much more serious debate and scrutiny. The Minister has his position and it is slightly condescending to suggest that I do not understand. The problem is that this issue lacks transparency and there is a deep reluctance to have a serious debate. Instead we are warned by the Minister that jobs will be endangered if we dare to even look at this issue. I refer to statements from people around the world who are not of the radical left persuasion such as in the United States and Britain. For example, Chatham House is saying that Ireland is a tax haven and that we are facilitating a situation where multinational companies making extraordinary levels of profits are managing to avoid paying any serious amount of tax.

Deputy, we have a ten-minute schedule for this discussion. I will ask the Deputy to conclude. I note that the UK has Jersey, the Isle of Man and Guernsey so there are more tax havens in the United Kingdom than I can count.

Our tax system is very transparent. I do not wish us to have an argument about it but I will explain the 2% rate. This is international tax planning which works on the basis of people looking at two different tax jurisdictions and finding a gap in which they can take an advantage. It is not to do with the Irish tax code which is completely transparent. On profits generated in Ireland and on profits liable to tax in Ireland, the 12.5% rate applies universally. The central point established by the sub-committee is that the principal Apple companies concerned which are registered in Cork are neither tax-resident in the US nor tax-resident in Ireland. Maybe there was a magician but the magician was not living down in Cork.

Because they are not tax-resident in Ireland they are not liable to Irish tax. They are not liable to Irish tax - neither under Irish law nor international law. They are not resident in Ireland because they are not managed and controlled here. They are not resident in the US because they were not incorporated or organised there. Notwithstanding this, the central point is that the committee proceeded to speak of an Irish special tax rate of 2% or less, as if the companies concerned were, in fact, Irish tax-resident, which they are not. The 2% and lower rates which were claimed are got by dividing the tax charged on branches in Ireland by the entire profit of the companies concerned.

Which are registered in Ireland.

No. This is clearly wrong and misleading. It ignores and contradicts the initial premise that the companies concerned are neither tax-resident in Ireland nor in the US. Because they are not tax-resident in Ireland-----

It is not semantics. They are not liable for Irish tax. We did not control that. Our law applies to tax-resident companies at a rate of 12.5%. If one divides Apple's world-wide profits, the amounts of tax paid legitimately on its profits in Ireland is 2%, but we cannot tax its world-wide profits; we can only tax the profits which are in Ireland, which are tax-resident in Ireland. That is where the 2% comes from. That is why I say the Deputy does not understand it.

No, I understand it.

Neither did the people in the committee who got up on their high horse-----

I understand perfectly. It is registered in Ireland and our legal definition conveniently suits them. It was probably negotiated with them.

There is no negotiation. The Revenue did not do any deals. We will work internationally through the OECD and with any other international body. I actually sent a letter to Commissioner Semeta who is in charge of tax and we then wrote jointly to every colleague in the European Union. We agreed there were six areas of tax avoidance that had to be addressed during the Irish Presidency. We have achieved four of them over the line already. We are a transparent tax-compliant country. The OECD has stated this. All international informed opinion knows this. The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal have said so in their respective editorials today. I do not wish to be the whipping-boy for some misunderstanding in a hearing in the US Congress. That is my only point. The US Congress can do its business as best it may and they are very good at it but we do not want to be the whipping-boy for misunderstandings. That is the position on how the 2% is calculated and it is a flawed calculation.

For the sake of propriety and good parliamentary practice, I ask members to desist from making random value judgments based on speculation. I will desist from using the term, "uninformed speculation". People in employment in this country are very concerned about the current debate and speculation is not positive. This committee has taken on the task of examining this issue. I ask that members ask questions rather than making value judgments so that we have the information before determinations are made.

I have one matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister. I wrote to the Minister last December and I received a response at the end of March. One of the difficulties with the Estimates process is that we are operating on a projected and speculative basis. This is certainly the case with regard to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We must ensure that the projections and targets are available online on a quarterly basis so that we do not end up with balloon payments in quarter four and the type of savings that cause difficulties. The Minister's Department operates on a different basis in that it makes predictions but if those predictions are out of kilter, expenditure difficulties arise. In that regard I ask if the Minister could give the committee an overview of current taxation revenue. Are the VAT returns and other returns on target? Given that the budget will be announced in October and there has always been a distortion of the VAT returns in the December market because the budget has an impact on consumer sentiment over Christmas, is there a potential for better VAT returns in the final quarter of this year?

The most recent figures I have are the end of April figures which are for the first four months of the year. The revenues up to the end of April are up €145 million, 1.3%, year on year. They are broadly on profile. They are €7 million below the budget estimates on the basis of the monthly profiles.

There are variations within those figures. The year-on-year growth was anticipated because a number of once-off considerations arose in the early months of 2012. The PRSI-income tax reclassification, which we dealt with previously, inflated income tax last year by more than €200 million. There was a delayed payment of €251 million in corporation tax receipts from December 2011 into January 2012. The once-off nature of some large capital gains tax payments received in February 2012 also inflated the figures for last year. This explains the fairly small increase in 2013 over 2012.

On the expenditure side, net Voted expenditure for the end of April 2013 was €13.969 million. This represents a year-on-year decrease of €1.42 million, or 7.6%, and was some €262 million better than last year. The four largest Departments recorded year-on-year decreases.

On taxation, the April returns show that VAT was slightly behind, but overall tax is in line with profile. My officials have given me a note which shows there is some shortfall in excise, which seems to be a shortfall across the heads.

Is that because of a cyclical decline at this time of the year or does it reflect an actual decrease in comparison with last year?

We are not quite sure. It is too early to tell. In bringing in a budget, we do the Estimate for the full year and thereafter compile monthly profiles. We are talking large numbers here. Some months are VAT months while other months are not. This means the figures are uneven across the months. A slight error on profiling might explain some of it.

The reason I am asking is that if the VAT intake is more or less in line with where the Minister thinks it should be, given that the budget is being brought forward to October, is there an expectation that the VAT return for the fourth quarter might be up as a consequence of consumer sentiment in the retail sector around the time of the budget?

It is too early to predict that. We will see what happens over the summer. VAT is overall in line with profile, but there are different elements to that. I do not want to speculate too much about it. The difficulty in having an early budget is more to do with the income tax returns of the self-employed. They come in during November and if we have to do the budget in October, we will be guesstimating those returns. I will probably have to bring the filing date forward, but I cannot do so until the second October budget, not this one. We will have to announce the bringing forward of the filing date in the budget this coming October. As to whether we can bring forward the filing date and not also bring forward the payment date, I will have to get agreement with Revenue on that.

Generally speaking, we will have a fairly good idea by mid-October where this is going. It would be possible to put some type of adjustor in when we get the December figures, perhaps some tolerance on what we will do with excise or something like that. That would be for one year only until we reschedule the filing. I do not see it as a major problem. It is something we can manage.

In terms of bringing the budget forward to mid-October, will all of the taxation decisions come into effect on 1 January 2014 or will some for example, excise and the old reliables come into effect immediately? If the latter, I assume this might have a positive impact on revenue in 2013 from the State's point of view.

It is too early to say. We are only planning the profile and scheduling at this point. The Deputy is getting into the detail of a budget which will not be brought forward for months.

I am raising a broad principle here. The issue is whether a budget for 2014 will come into effect at the beginning of that year or sooner.

The Deputy knows that some budget measures come into effect on budget night and others do not.

Deputy McGrath should take it that it is too early to say.

I am not yet in a position to answer his question, but I will do so in due course.

We must conclude at this point as we are already a half an hour over schedule. In regard to Vote 9, subhead A2, administration - pay, are there are any comments or questions? No. Any questions or comments on the key outputs, context and impact indicators and appropriations-in-aid? No.

Vote 10 relates to the Office of the Appeal Commissioners and is detailed on pages 38 to 40 in the briefing document. Are there any questions regarding the administration subheads (i) to (vi), inclusive? No. Under Programme A, facilitation of hearings of tax appeals, are there any comments or questions on subhead A1, administration - pay; A2, administration - non-pay; or the key outputs and context and impact indicators? No. Finally, any comments regarding appropriations-in-aid? No.

That completes our consideration of this group of Votes under the 2013 Revised Estimates for public services. I thank the Minister and his officials for assisting the committee.

Top
Share