asked the Minister for Finance if he will have future Revenue Commissioner circulars in relation to collection of taxes and arrears of taxes submitted to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tax Arrears.
6.
It is not my intention to have future Revenue Commissioner circulars in relation to the collection of taxes and arrears of taxes submitted to my Department.
The issue of circulars of this nature is an administrative matter and arises in the context of the Revenue Commissioners' responsibilities for the care and management of taxes entrusted to them by the various taxing statues passed by the Oireachtas.
Given that the Department of Finance have statutory responsibility for the Revenue Commissioners but that the commissioners are independent in the discharge of their functions, surely the Minister would agree this is a necessary development when one considers that in the interest of greater accountability £800 million of VAT liability was written off recently? Surely the Minister is answerable for that to the House.
I should like to refer to the speculation that has been going on for nearly 18 or 19 years about the amount of outstanding tax. In many instances such speculation has been a load of nonsense. Changing figures occur on any given day. On one day the figure could be X and the next it could be X minus Y or plus Y. I will refer generally to the control of the Minister for Finance. Ministers are bound by the various taxing statutes of the Oireachtas and the commissioners in discharging their duties must act conscientiously and with total integrity within the limits of their staff and resources. These resources must be managed by the Revenue Commissioners as cost effectively and as economically as possible consistent with obtaining and if possible exceeding the tax yield specified in annual budgets. The activities of the Revenue Commissioners are subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts. In order to achieve management objectives, the Revenue Commissioners must be allowed a sufficient measure of freedom of manoeuvre which is a feature of any large undertaking if it is to make the best use of its resources.
Surely it is the Minister for Finance who is accountable to the House and the country for the level of taxation imposed? It causes great upset to people when they hear that there can be write-offs involving millions of pounds without the Minister being answerable to the House for it. In the interest of tax equity and tax reform does the Minister not agree that he should be able to answer for major actions by the Revenue Commissioners?
We are dealing with precedents established before the House came into existence. Perhaps they need to be updated but until they are I have to go by established precedents. Those of us who pay our tax on the button are always concerned when we read this speculation, and rightly so. However, we must be realistic. For nine years from 1969 I had the honour to be a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, an excellent committee, now reformed. Every item of write-off above £100 had to be notified by the Revenue Commissioners to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Subsequently, that would appear in his report and could be examined by the committee, all-party body of this House. I do not have any complaints in regard to any massive write-offs.
Does the Minister not agree that the principle behind Deputy Kennedy's question is a reasonable one? It causes a great deal of concern to the public when they read that company X, Y, or Z has gone into liquidation owing the commissioners, say £600,000. It is fair and reasonable to ask how this could arise. Were checks not carried out? We meet other people who complain very regularly that are being hounded by inspectors from the Revenue Commissioners despite the fact that their taxes are up to date. It appears the Minister for Finance should have some control over the overall running of the Revenue Commissioners and the manner in which they go about their business.
I do not think the Deputy is correct in saying that people whose taxes are up to date are hounded by the Revenue Commissioners.
I corrected myself, I said on a very regular basis.
The Deputy is being misleading when he says people are being hounded where taxes are up to date. On the other hand, he rightly points out the concern we all feel where companies are defaulting mainly through liquidations and how such situations are brought about. A debate could be held on that point alone. I am sure there is no Deputy in this House who is not at present dealing with a case where there is difficulty in meeting demands from the Revenue Commissioners — payment of arrears, interest accumulated on those arrears and so on. It is very easy for the Minister for Finance of the day to go to his office, ring the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and tell him to collect overnight the money from all the cases which are under review. This could close down a very large percentage of industries because for one reason or another they may be in financial difficulties and may be owed money and cannot remit their taxes to the Revenue Commissioners. As I said, we could have a debate on this subject.
Nobody in this House is advocating that the Revenue Commissioners should go easy on anybody. The point is the tax is due and it should be paid as the PAYE sector pay every week, fortnight or month. It is important that the Revenue Commissioners are left to do their job, as they have been doing since the foundation of the State. As regards taxes which are outstanding or which have been assessed, I do not believe anyone would suggest the Minister for Finance should ask why a certain person or firm has not been paid by 11 o'clock this morning or 12 o'clock tomorrow morning or so on. The care and management of the taxes of the State are given to the Revenue Commissioners and they do a very good job.
I am first calling Deputy Noonan. I want to bring this question to a conclusion. We are making very little progress at Questions today and I would be grateful for the co-operation of Members to try to reach a number of other questions. I will allow questions from Deputy Noonan and Deputy McDowell and then I hope we can move to another question. Deputies may not debate this important issue today.
(Limerick East): Will the Minister take steps to ensure that Revenue speak with one voice about these controversial matters? We get the official version from the Minister in the House and the unofficial version from employees of the Revenue Commissioners in the daily newspapers. The fact that the Revenue Commissioners and their staff are at odds is causing great concern. They are saying opposite things about the collection of revenue. The people on the job are saying the money is not being collected and the people with responsibility for collection are saying it is. We must have one version and then we might accept that as the truth.
I agree with everything the Deputy said. Since last Monday I have been carefully considering a point which was discussed in the House this morning in the debate on the Finance Bill, that is, the misinformation given out by Revenue. I have been carefully examining this matter with the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners over the past few months and we have come to the conclusion that it is time to provide a proper press and information office in that Department to ensure the accurate and authoritative supply of information at all times.
Is the Minister aware that in his absence on one occassion the Minister for Foreign Affairs, stepping in for him, conceded it was desirable that the Minister should see these circulars so that the political implications should be brought to the Government's attention and dealt with? I make a wider point. The Minister is responsible on a political basis for all the decisions as to arrears of tax, the manner in which they are implemented, in particular the amount of resources made available to the Revenue Commissioners to follow up arrears of tax, and the employment of staff to carry out that aspect of their work but Deputy Kennedy is asking, Deputy Noonan is backing her and I re-echo that there should be political accountability. I am asking the Minister if he accepts political accountability for the decisions which are made in the administration of the tax system.
Of course I do and that is what I am doing here today. What the Deputy is talking about is administrative detail. I have no doubt that anything my distinguished colleague may have said when representing me was correct. ]When Deputy McDowell occupies this position, I have no doubt he will be delighted to say it is good that he does not have to look at every administrative detail. God knows, there is enough to be done at the moment. I have full confidence in the way the Revenue Commissioners handle their affairs. Deputy Noonan covered the point very realistically. ]We have had difficulties on numerous occasions in recent times, the previous Government, the Government before that as well as the present Government, about inspired leaks from all sorts of agencies, but in particular from the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.
The parliamentary lobbyists are not here today.
I see that but there may be people here doing their job for them in pursuing these questions. In this way their presence is not required. I can assure the Deputy who asked this question that the care and management of taxes are in good hands with the Revenue Commissioners.
I would not say that millions in a VAT write-off is an administrative detail.
That was not the question. There was nothing about write-offs in it.
I am not interested in administrative detail. The Comptroller and Auditor General deals with the appropriation and misappropriation of moneys. I am asking the Minister if he will deal with the policy decisions regarding the collection and arrears of taxes which is a different matter. Just because there has not been legislation forcing the Minister to do this since the State was set up does not mean it cannot be introduced now.
I repeat in case there is any misinterpretation arising from what the Deputy said, that the activities of the Revenue Commissioners are subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is a fact.
He has no policy function.
The issue is the collection of the taxes and write-offs. Anything above £100 has to be notified to the Comptroller and Auditor General and if he is not satisfied then it will be mentioned in his report which will come before the Committee of Public Accounts, a committee on which Deputy Keating and others have had the honour to represent the House. I have no difficulty in standing over the reply I have already given.