Pearse Doherty
Ceist:57. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance his plans to dissolve the Credit Union Restructuring Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42050/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraCredit Union Restructuring
Ceisteanna (57, 58, 62, 63)
Pearse Doherty
Ceist:58. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance his plans for the estimated €230 million that will be available to the Exchequer on the dissolution of the Credit Union Restructuring Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42051/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraPearse Doherty
Ceist:62. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the drawdown to date by the Credit Union Restructuring Board; its estimated final drawdown, and the remaining funds available to it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42136/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraPearse Doherty
Ceist:63. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the funding to date for the Credit Union Restructuring Board; the source of this funding, with each source's contribution specified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42137/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I propose to take Questions Nos. 57, 58, 62 and 63 together.
Section 57 of the Credit Union and Co-Operation with Overseas Regulators Act 2012 (2012 Act) provides for the establishment of the Credit Union Fund as a source of funding for restructuring and to meet the expenses of the Credit Union Restructuring Board (ReBo) in carrying out its functions under the 2012 Act. In December 2012, I contributed €250 million to the Credit Union Fund for the purpose of restructuring the credit union sector. The placing of money in the Fund had no impact on the general Government deficit as it is only when this money is spent that it impacts the deficit. This funding has always been ring-fenced specifically to provide financial support for restructuring credit unions.
To date, ReBo has drawn down €6.38 million from the Credit Union Fund which can be broken down as follows:
- €3.06 million has been used to fund the operational costs of ReBo;
- €2.84 million has been used to provide credit unions with financial assistance incentives; and
- €0.48 million as yet unused.
ReBo conducted a detailed analysis of likely funding requirements and it estimates that its net use of the Credit Union Fund will amount to no more than circa €20 million.
Section 43 of the 2012 Act provides that, when I am satisfied that ReBo has completed the performance of its functions I can by order dissolve ReBo. However, before dissolving ReBo, section 43(2) requires that I must conduct a review of the operation of Part 3 of the 2012 Act no later than 1 January 2016, to determine whether or not ReBo has, in my opinion, completed the performance of its functions. This review was carried out and published in October 2015 and has assisted me in making an informed decision in relation to the restructuring process and the duration of ReBo.
Following the section 43 review, which found that credit union engagement with ReBo has continued to increase in recent months, I announced that credit unions have until 31 March 2016 to receive a letter of offer from ReBo following the submission of a high level restructuring business case to ReBo. ReBo will then be in a position to complete all restructuring projects in a methodical manner during 2016. A further such review will be carried out in line with section 43(2)(b) before October 2016.
The €250m contributed to the Credit Union Fund was provided specifically to support credit unions undergoing restructuring within ReBo's time-bound restructuring programme. With ReBo's net use of the Credit Union Funded estimated to be no more than €20 million, this will in due course enable the return of approximately €230m to the Exchequer. While it was envisaged that significant funding would be required for credit union restructuring, it is commendable that the credit union movement itself has provided funding from within its own resources, thus minimising the requirement for drawing on Exchequer funding.
Pensions Data
Ceisteanna (59)
Seamus Healy
Ceist:59. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons, other than public service occupational pensioners, receiving annual occupational pensions exceeding €12,000 per annum, €24,000 per annum, €36,000 per annum, €48,000 per annum, €60,000 per annum, €80,000 per annum and €100,000 per annum; this group including private sector occupational pensioners and retired employees of commercial State companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42075/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that while social welfare pensions can be separately identified from other sources of income in Revenue records, it is not possible to distinguish income of occupational pensions from those of PAYE employments. Consequently there is no complete or reliable basis available to Revenue on which to provide the breakdown sought by the Deputy of the number of persons in receipt of an annual occupational pension.
Tax Code
Ceisteanna (60)
Jim Daly
Ceist:60. Deputy Jim Daly asked the Minister for Finance if there are any circumstances or precedent whereby retirement relief from capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land holdings can be, or has been, granted to persons who have leased their land for more than the specified 25-year rule; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42117/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that Section 598 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 grants Capital Gains Tax (CGT) retirement relief to individuals aged 55 or over in respect of, among other things, the disposal of land that has been let in certain circumstances. Land that has been let for up to 25 years in total ending with the disposal of that land will qualify for the relief. Land currently let under conacre arrangements which is disposed of on or before 31 December 2016 or which, on or before that date, is instead leased for minimum periods of 5 years (up to a maximum of 25 years) ending with the disposal can also qualify for CGT retirement relief. This condition does not apply where the land is disposed of to a child of the individual. An overriding condition in relation to the retirement relief is that the land must have been owned and used by the individual for farming purposes for a period of not less than 10 years immediately before the land was first let.
I am also advised by the Revenue Commissioners that there are no circumstances or precedents whereby CGT retirement relief on the sale of agricultural land holdings can be or have been granted to individuals who leased the land for more than the specified 25-year period.
Tax Reliefs Availability
Ceisteanna (61)
Derek Nolan
Ceist:61. Deputy Derek Nolan asked the Minister for Finance the current supports, and any potential support mechanisms that are coming onstream, for first-time buyers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42134/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the only available support for first-time buyers is provided by section 266A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 which provides for refunds of deposit interest retention tax (DIRT) to first-time buyers who purchase or self-build a property for occupation as their home. The property must be purchased or self-built between 14 October 2014 and 31 December 2017. A first-time buyer who has either individually or jointly with any other person previously purchased or built a property is not eligible for a DIRT refund. The amount of the refund is capped at the DIRT paid on savings of up to a maximum of 20% of the purchase price or, in the case of a self-built property, up to 20% of the market value of the completed property.
I have no plans at this stage for any additional support mechanisms in this area.
Questions Nos. 62 and 63 answered with Question No. 57.
Credit Unions
Ceisteanna (64)
Pearse Doherty
Ceist:64. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the number of credit unions subject to lending restrictions; the nature of these restrictions, by number; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42167/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
My role as Minister for Finance is to ensure that the legal framework for credit unions is appropriate for the effective operation and supervision of credit unions.
The Registrar of Credit Unions at the Central Bank is the independent regulator for credit unions. Within her independent regulatory discretion, the Registrar acts to support the prudential soundness of individual credit unions, to maintain sector stability and to protect the savings of credit union members. As such the imposition of lending restrictions is a matter for the Registrar who recognises the need for credit unions to grow income as a requirement for sector viability and for the need for credit unions to ensure that they are in a position to grow their income from their traditional lending business.
I have been informed by the Central Bank that it has been necessary to put lending restrictions in place in credit unions where there are regulatory concerns and resultant risk to members' savings.
I have been further informed by the Central Bank that almost all credit unions with a lending restriction in place have a maximum individual loan size restriction. In the majority of cases, the maximum individual loan size is in excess of €10,000 as detailed in the following table.
As at 23 November 2015
|
Maximum Loan Size Restriction |
Number of Credit Unions |
|
€0 - €9,999 |
3 |
|
€10,000 - €19,999 |
29 |
|
€20,000 - €29,999 |
75 |
|
€30,000 - €39,999 |
6 |
|
€40,000 and above |
11 |
|
Total |
124 |
These figures are based on 342 credit unions currently active, registered and not awaiting cancellation.
For those credit unions with an individual loan size restriction, the level at which the limit is imposed ensures that the vast majority of these credit unions can continue to make loans significantly more than the average value for gross loans outstanding for the sector of approximately €6,000 with the majority of restrictions enabling credit unions to lend amounts of between €10,000 and €30,000. Only 3 credit unions have a maximum loan size restriction of less than €10,000. These lending restrictions are reviewed on a regular basis to determine whether or not they are still set at appropriate levels.
In February 2015 the Central Bank commenced a lending restriction review initiative, whereby credit unions that are subject to a lending restriction, but are satisfied that they have made the necessary improvements and have embedded these improvements in robust risk sensitive lending practices, could apply to the Central Bank for a review of their lending restriction. The closing date for receipt of applications to review lending restrictions under this initiative was 30 September 2015. To date the Central Bank has reviewed almost 60% of applications received. Of the applications which have been fully reviewed, 83% have had their lending restriction lifted and are now operating under the board's stated credit risk appetite. Approximately 40% of credit unions that applied, submitted their application in September and these applications are currently under review.
The review has reduced the number of credit unions with lending restrictions as currently approximately 39% of credit unions have a lending restriction compared with 52% a the start of the review.
The Government's priorities remain the protection of members' savings, the financial stability of credit unions and the sector overall and it is absolutely determined to continue to support a strengthened and growing credit union movement.
Property Tax Administration
Ceisteanna (65)
Catherine Murphy
Ceist:65. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 69 of 19 November 2015, why he has come to the conclusion that the Bara judgment case concerned the sharing between two State entities in Romania of data without legislative authority, when in fact, such legislation had been passed by the Parliament of Romania authorising the transfer of data which was subject to the determination of the CJEU in Bara, viz. Article 315 of Law No 95/2006 of the Parliament of Romania on health care reform (details supplied); if, therefore, he will accept that the interpretation of Bara expressed in the former parliamentary question is incorrect, and consequently the premise of that parliamentary question that the data transferred toward the administration of the local property tax was done so illegally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42195/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I am advised by Revenue that the data-sharing at issue in the Bara case arose from the sharing between a Romanian Tax Authority and a Romanian Health Insurance Fund, both State bodies, of information - in breach of Article 10 of Directive 95/46 (paragraph 38 of the judgment). The argument made on behalf of the Romanian agencies, that the data-sharing was grounded in Article 315 of Law No. 95/2006, was rejected by the Court, as set out in paragraphs 36-38 of the judgment.
It was argued on behalf of the Romanian agencies that a protocol or administrative agreement entered into between the two bodies was sufficient to render the exchange lawful under Article 13 of Directive 95/46. As set out in paragraph 40 of the Judgment, the protocol or agreement which was invoked did not enjoy legislative status, was not published in any official journal and was classed by the Court of Justice of the EU as an "administrative act", as opposed to a "legislative act". The Court held that this was insufficient to engage Article 13 of Directive 95/46.
Article 13 of Directive 95/46, states that "Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of obligations and rights under the Directive when such a restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard:
1. national security;
2. defence;
3. public security;
4. the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, or of breaches of ethics for regulated professions;
5. an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters;
6. a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority in cases referred to in (c), (d) and (e);
7. the protection of the data subject or of the rights and freedoms of others."
Revenue is satisfied that data compiled or transferred in the compilation and maintenance of the LPT register has been compiled or transferred in accordance with the provisions of the Directive on the basis of the legislative measures outlined in the reply to Parliamentary Question Number 69 of 19 November, 2015 and consequently is not impugned either by the Directive itself or by the Bara judgment.