Written Answers Nos. 175-96
175. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Finance the number of staff by grade within his Department that received a performance related bonus in each of the past three years; the reason for the bonus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17527/14]
View answerNo employee in my Department has received a performance related bonus in any of the past three years.
176. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Finance if he will clarify a situation regarding the Living City initiative (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17543/14]
View answerThe Deputy will be aware that the Living City Initiative was enacted in Finance Act 2013, in April 2013. I made it clear at that time that this was a pilot scheme that would be subject to an independent ex ante cost benefit analysis, consultation with the relevant local authorities and EU State Aid approval. When the scheme was being launched it was announced that the pilot would only focus on two cities Limerick and Waterford.
The ex ante cost benefit analysis was conducted in the summer of 2013, following a request for tender exercise. The final report was submitted to my Department in October 2013. Following the recommendations of the cost benefit analysis, I announced in my 2014 Budget Statement that I was extending the Living City Initiative to include designated areas of four other cities, namely, Dublin, Cork, Galway and Kilkenny. Following the publication of Finance Bill (No2) 2013 in December 2013, an ad-hoc committee of the relevant personnel from the 6 local authorities and representatives of other Government Departments and Agencies was convened in January 2014. The local authorities were asked to nominate areas within their cities for consideration to be included in the Initiative. When these responses were received, the application for EU State Aid approval was submitted by my Department. It is impossible to be certain how long this approval process might take, but in other cases it has been up to a year. The Initiative will also be subject to a commencement order and the legislation provides that the exact areas to be included will be decided upon by the Minister for Finance.
177. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the number of bidders for the National Asset Management Agency's Project Eagle; the date the bidding process commenced; if he instructed NAMA to dispose of their entire North of Ireland portfolio; the criteria used to establish the successful bidder; and if he will disclose the ultimate price paid for the portfolio. [17549/14]
View answerThe sale of the Project Eagle portfolio of loans related to Northern Ireland debtors was conducted on NAMA's behalf by the corporate finance advisor Lazard. The sales process commenced in January 2014 and the decision to dispose of the portfolio was taken by NAMA in response to an improvement in market conditions. As part of the process, Lazard identified and engaged with those parties which, in its expert view, had the capacity to engage in a transaction of this scale. NAMA recently announced its intention to proceed with the sale of the portfolio, subject to contract, to affiliates of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. The process is, accordingly, on-going and it would be inappropriate to comment any further on the matter given that the transaction has not yet concluded.
178. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance following the reported sale of €800 million of par value loans by the special liquidators of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation to an entity linked to a person (details supplied), if will confirm that the sale price achieved for said loans represented the best price offered; and if he will confirm that the price offered by unsuccessful bidders was less than the price offered by the entity linked to the person concerned. [17562/14]
View answer179. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance the amount of debt that was forgiven by the special liquidators of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation when it sold €800 million of par value loans linked to a person to an entity linked to a person (details supplied). [17563/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 178 and 179 together.
I have been advised by the Special Liquidators that they are not in a position to comment on individual cases. However, it should be noted that the Special Liquidators are managing a sales process for the loans of IBRC with the objective of ensuring that maximum value is extracted from that process for the benefit of all the creditors of IBRC and they are not negotiating levels of debt with Borrowers.
The Special Liquidators have an obligation to ensure that the best possible price is achieved in the sale of loan portfolios to ensure that maximum value is obtained for all creditors of IBRC including the State. The Special Liquidators have informed me that they are confident that the robust and credible sales process which was implemented has achieved this.
180. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 59 of 4 March 2014, the total par value of loans covered by the 33 borrower groups that have or will be offered for sale; the total par value of the loans covered by the 33 borrower groups that have been sold to date; and the total sale proceeds that will be received for the loans sold to date. [17564/14]
View answer181. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 59 of 4 March 2014, the total par value of loans covered by the 33 borrower groups that have now been sold to parties who would have been precluded from purchasing the loans; and if section 172 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 had been adopted for the disposal of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation loans. [17565/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 180 and 181 together.
The Special Liquidators are winding up IBRC in accordance with the IBRC Act, 2013 and the Companies Acts, although the IBRC Act has modified or disapplied some provisions of the Companies Acts. I have been advised by the Special Liquidators that the total par value of the Borrower Groups which were offered for sale on a standalone basis is €5.1bn. The sales process for these particular Groups is now complete and it is expected that 4 of the Borrower Groups, with a par value of €0.64bn, will transfer to NAMA. The Special Liquidators will not be providing information as to the sales proceeds received in respect of the loan sales process as this is commercially sensitive information.
182. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance his views on the amount of revenue forgone to the State, since December 2009, as a result of section 172 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, in view of the recent disposal of €800 million of par value loans, dubbed Project Pebble, by the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation to an entity linked to the borrower. [17566/14]
View answer183. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 59 of 4 March 2014, his plans to amend or revoke section 172 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 in view of its discriminatory effect on borrowers with one State organisation, when another State-controlled organisation, namely the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, is selling loans, at a discount to par values, to parties linked to the borrowers. [17567/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 182 and 183 together.
Section 172 of the NAMA Act prevents the sale of assets to defaulting debtors. Prospective purchasers of assets controlled by NAMA debtors and receivers are required to sign a declaration under Section 172 confirming that they are not a connected party within the meaning of that section and of the NAMA Board's Guidance Note on the Disposal of Real Estate Assets by NAMA Debtors and Insolvency Office Holders. As this declaration, which has been a requirement since NAMA's establishment, precedes the evaluation and possible approval of any potential bids relating to the sale of assets under the control of NAMA debtors and receivers, there is no basis upon which to estimate the hypothetical impact on NAMA transactions arising from this provision. To date, I understand that NAMA has not encountered any difficulties in selling assets as a result of Section 172. As previously stated, the government does not see the requirement for a change to the legislation at this time.
184. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if his Department or the Central Bank of Ireland have made representations to the banks in respect of problems being encountered in respect of SEPA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17610/14]
View answerI have been informed by the Central Bank that as of end-March some 96% of credit transfers and direct debits have migrated from the domestic payment system to the new SEPA credit transfer and SEPA direct debit schemes. Ireland is one of the leading countries in Europe in terms of its compliance with SEPA regulation 260/2012.
During the peak migration period of January to March a number of issues have arisen, mainly in relation to delays in the processing of direct debits to customer accounts by direct debit originators. An originator is a company or organisation that is authorised to collect direct debits directly from bank accounts. Typically originators will be utilities such as electricity, gas and telephone.
The Central Bank has informed me that the majority of incidents related to issues on the part of direct debit originators. According to the Central Bank, issues that occur between originators and their customers are outside the scope of the Central Bank's remit and are governed by the relevant terms and conditions entered into between creditor and debtor and the originator's adherence to the SEPA scheme rules which are administered in Ireland by IPSO.
I have been informed by the Central Bank that in a minority of cases the error has been attributable to issues within the banking sector. The Central Bank is working closely with the banks and the Irish Payment Services Organisation (IPSO) in relation to issues emanating from that sector.
185. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the interest rate that applies to each tranche of bonds issued to replace the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation promissory; the average interest rate; the annual interest bill for 2013 for these bonds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17611/14]
View answerThe National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) issued eight new Floating Rate Treasury Bonds to the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) on 8 February 2013 to replace the Promissory Notes previously held by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC). The bonds have maturities ranging from 25 to 40 years and pay interest every six months, in mid-June and in mid-December, based on the six-month Euribor interest rate plus an interest margin which averages 2.63% across the eight issues. Details of the interest margin applying to each of the eight Treasury Bonds are as follows: Treasury Bond 2038 - interest margin 2.50%; Treasury Bond 2041 - interest margin 2.53%; Treasury Bond 2043 - interest margin 2.57%; Treasury Bond 2045 - interest margin 2.60%; Treasury Bond 2047 - interest margin 2.62%; Treasury Bond 2049 - interest margin 2.65%; Treasury Bond 2051 - interest margin 2.67%; Treasury Bond 2053 - interest margin 2.68%; Total cash interest on the floating rate bonds in 2013 was just under €0.65 billion.
186. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of single debit authority payments for the local property tax which were not completed due to problems with implementation of SEPA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17612/14]
View answerI am advised by Revenue that it received in excess of 380,000 Single Debit Authority (SDA) payment instructions in respect of 2014 Local Property Tax (LPT) liabilities. In the vast majority of cases the SDA deductions took place as scheduled on 21 March 2014 without any difficulties. However in approximately 7,000 cases, which is less than 2% of the total amount of mandates received, the deduction failed to take place. There were a number of reasons why some of the mandates did not activate and deduct the amounts due on 21 March as scheduled. In some instances the IT systems failed to recognise and validate the SEPA formatted numbers, while in other instances the failure was due to customer error rather than anything to do with SEPA. The most common types of customer errors included liable persons quoting deposit account numbers rather than current account numbers, misquoting digits in the account number thereby rendering the mandate invalid, or by quoting account numbers that were subsequently closed down and not providing Revenue with an alternative current account number.
Revenue has acknowledged to me that it did receive notification of some current account number changes in the run-up to the due date but the information arrived too close to the 21 March deadline for it to make the necessary adjustments. Revenue did clarify throughout its communications in regard to LPT payment methods that any SDA bank account amendments would have to be received at least 7 working days in advance of 21 March to be effected. Where SDA mandates failed to deduct the amount due on 21 March, Revenue notified the account holders and advised them to make contact with their financial institution to clarify the situation. Revenue also posted a notice on its website in regard to the issue, again advising people to contact their financial institution. The notice also provided information on alternative payment methods for LPT.
187. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if there is currently a system in place for the audio recording of incoming or outgoing calls in the Revenue Commissioners; if so, which calls are recorded; the way the recording is accessed; the person that controls or authorises such recordings; the steps taken to ensure compliance with data protection legislation; the reason the public are not informed of the recordings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17637/14]
View answerI am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the recording of incoming calls to high volume Revenue call centres (i.e. LoCall 1890 numbers and helpdesks) for security and quality assurance purposes has been a standard feature of Revenue's public telephone service since 2006. Where calls are being recorded the callers are made aware of this fact when they contact Revenue. The recording of outbound calls had to be added for specific areas of Revenue work in 2013 related to certain business financial transactions because of Irish Payment Services requirements. Another requirement for outbound recording is the call back facility to customers, used where telephone lines are particularly busy at peak contact times. The recording of calls shows Revenue's commitment to quality customer service, training of its staff and promoting business by telephone to eliminate unnecessary contact by post. Protocols for recording of calls on Revenue's Call Centre/Helpdesk Telephone services have been in place since the commencement of call recording within Revenue. These have been updated recently to cover the recording of certain outbound calls and the commencement of the roll-out of new technology that has the capability to record outgoing calls. Existing technology has been retained pending completion of the rollout.
The protocols cover the appropriate access and use of call recording. Access is restricted to relevant managers, such as District management, Training Officers and Service Managers. Access is strictly controlled with full audit trails and Revenue Management oversight. All requests to include or remove a particular telephone from call recording arrangements must be approved at Principal Officer level in the relevant Regional/Divisional Office. The protocols also provide for regular checks on all aspects of the call recording facilities to ensure that all Data Protection requirements are being adhered to. This includes the period for which data is retained.
Call recording only applies to certain areas in Revenue such as high volume call centres. The protocols require local management to advise all relevant staff if their telephone is included in the call centre/helpdesk service being recorded and to ensure awareness of call recording protocols. Revenue telephone services that operate call recording have a pre-recorded message for inbound calls putting customers on notice that their call may be recorded. For outbound calls the staff member is required to make the recipient of the call aware that call recording is taking place. I am satisfied that Revenue has appropriate protocols in place for the recording of calls and that such recording is in keeping with good practice and shows their commitment to quality customer service.
188. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce a mandatory practice for agents of the Revenue sheriff whereby copies of an individual's statutory rights are provided to them when they have equipment or assets seized as is the practice in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17668/14]
View answer189. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to any instances where data obtained by the Revenue sheriff on seized equipment was destroyed in a manner inconsistent with data protection legislation; if so, if he will list all such instances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17669/14]
View answer190. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance the way the Revenue sheriff ensures that data it may obtain through the seizure of equipment is retained in accordance with data protection legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17670/14]
View answer191. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if instances where data that is contained on equipment and other items seized by the Revenue sheriff, and then retained and-or sold by same, is in compliance with the Data Protection Acts and the EU Directive 95/46/EC; his views on whether amending legislation is required to ensure that data protection legislation is fully adhered to by the Revenue sheriff in the execution of its functions under the Enforcement of Court Orders 1926 and other Acts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17671/14]
View answer192. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance the number of complaints under the Revenue sheriff's code of practice that have been initiated in each of the past ten years and to date in 2014; the outcome of each such complaint; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17672/14]
View answer193. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether the current complaints procedure under the Revenue sheriff's code of practice provides an appeals process that is fair and independent and in line with modern best practice in other countries; his views on whether the lack of a third party adjudicator in the appeals process undermines the fairness of appeals; if he intends to move amending legislation to ensure that provisions of the 1927 Act under which the Revenue Sheriff operates are modernised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17673/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 188 to 193, inclusive, together.
The Revenue Commissioners are charged with responsibility for collection and recovery of a wide range of taxes and duties. I know that Revenue has a strong focus on making sure that everyone complies with their tax and duty responsibilities by paying the right amount and on time. Revenue expects businesses to continue, notwithstanding the difficult economic circumstances in which they are now operating, to maintain a clear focus and organise their financial affairs to ensure that tax debts are paid as they fall due. However, Revenue is also conscious that the difficult economic and financial climate can impact negatively on businesses being timely compliant. For that reason, Revenue has actively encouraged businesses experiencing particular payment difficulties to work proactively with it when such difficulties start to arise to find an agreed way through the difficulties and quickly restore voluntary timely compliance.
As I have advised the Deputy in reply to previous questions on this issue, I am informed by Revenue that Sheriffs are officers of the Court, holding office under Section 12 of the Court Officers Act, 1945. Their debt collection activities are generally covered by the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926, as amended and the execution of Revenue certificates is specifically provided for in Section 960L of the Taxes Consolidated Act 1997, as amended. When acting in execution of tax certificates, Sheriffs are governed by the general law, which applies to the collection of civil debts of all kinds, and not by the provisions of the Tax Acts. They are not accountable to Revenue as regards the methods and techniques of enforcement but are answerable before the courts for any breach of the civil debt collection law.
The Deputy is aware from previous replies that the Sheriffs have in place a Code of Practice, available from any Sheriff or on Revenue's website, which sets out how they will engage with taxpayers. The Code, which is designed to provide an opportunity to taxpayers to resolve disputes without the necessity to initiate Court proceedings, sets out the process whereby a taxpayer may make a complaint to the Sheriff and how it will be handled. Because the Sheriffs operate independent of Revenue, data is not available to the Commissioners to respond to the Deputy's query in relation to the number of complaints, and the outcome of any such complaints, that were made against the Sheriffs in the last ten years.
The Code also provides for a Joint Standing Committee (JSC), which includes a representative of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as Chair, a representative of the Revenue Commissioners and representatives of the Sheriffs Association to undertake a review of a complaint, where the taxpayer remains dissatisfied with the Sheriff's response to his/her complaint. Such reviews are undertaken by means of an examination of all relevant documentation and correspondence relating to the taxpayer's complaint and the sheriff's response. A total of four complaints have been reviewed by the (JSC) since the introduction of the Sheriffs Code of Practice in 2005. There were a range of issues involved in these four complaints and each taxpayer was notified of the findings of the JSC. The low numbers of complainants that have sought a review of their complaint by the JSC would suggest that there is not a widespread problem in regard to this issue, particularly in the context of an average of in excess of 30,000 certificates issued annually by Revenue to Sheriffs over the last three years.
I want to stress at this point that making a complaint under the Code should not in any way be taken as a diminution or a substitution for a taxpayer's common law rights, which are not impacted upon by availing of the process. In regard to Questions 17669, 17670 and 17671, while the issues raised are primarily for my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to answer, I am informed that Sheriffs are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003. I am also informed that the Minister has already replied to the Deputy on these issues in previous questions.
Finally, I have no plans to propose changes in relation to the provision of the Finance Acts governing tax debt collection and enforcement available to Revenue, as I am satisfied that these are appropriate to the safeguarding of the collection of taxes on behalf of the Exchequer. I am also satisfied that the procedures Revenue has in place with regard to the use of the legislation are appropriate and strike the right balance in terms of fairness between the majority of taxpayers who pay their taxes on a timely basis and those who fail to do so.
194. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide details of the tax implications of a transaction which involves two farmers swapping small parcels of land without any financial compensation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17697/14]
View answerAn exchange of land constitutes a disposal of an asset for capital gains tax purposes. Each party to the exchange is ordinarily liable to capital gains tax on any chargeable gain in respect of the disposal. Land which is exchanged for no financial compensation, is treated as if it has been disposed of for its market value on the date of the disposal. The first €1,270 of chargeable gains in any tax year is exempt from capital gains tax. Where the gains exceed that amount, capital gains tax will only be charged on the amount in excess of €1,270. The current rate of capital gains tax is 33%.
I made provision in Budget 2013 for the following measure designed to assist farmers with consolidation of farm land. This measure followed on from measures in the previous year's Budget which also supported farm expansion and the transfer of land. Section 48 of Finance Act 2013 provides for relief from capital gains tax on disposals of farm land for farm restructuring, subject to a Commencement Order, which I made on 6 June 2013. The relief applies to a sale, purchase or exchange of agricultural land in the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 where Teagasc has certified that a sale and purchase or an exchange of agricultural land was made for farm restructuring purposes. The initial sale or purchase, or the exchange, must occur in the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 and the subsequent sale or purchase must occur within 24 months of that sale or purchase. Full relief from capital gains tax will be given where the consideration for the purchase (or the market value of the land exchanged) is equal to or exceeds the consideration for the sale (or the market value of the other land that is exchanged).
Where the consideration for the purchase (or the market value of the land exchanged) is less than the consideration for the land that is sold (or the market value of the other land that is exchanged), relief will be given in the same proportion that the consideration for the land that is purchased or exchanged bears to the consideration for the land that is sold (or the market value of the other land that is exchanged).
In summary, provided an exchange of agricultural land takes place in the years 2013 to 2015, each parcel of land is of equal value and Teagasc has certified that the exchange was made for farm restructuring purposes, no capital gains tax will arise. Provision is made for the clawback of the relief where qualifying land in respect of which relief has been given is disposed of within 5 years of the date of the purchase or exchange of that land. A clawback does not apply where the disposal arises under a compulsory purchase order. An instrument giving effect to an exchange of land is liable to stamp duty at the rate of 2% on the value of each of the parcels of land exchanged.
195. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether the implementation of increased carbon tax on solid fuels will lead to increases in instances of persons going across the Border to Northern Ireland to buy solid fuels; if the country could be facing a situation of diminishing returns following this measure; if he is concerned that the measure will expose more persons to fuel poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17710/14]
View answer210. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Finance if he will give urgent consideration to the issues raised in correspondence in relation to carbon tax on solid fuel products (details supplied); if his attention has been drawn to the serious concerns in this sector, particularly in the Border area as trade has been severely affected over the past year, taking in to account that there is no carbon tax on solid fuel in Northern Ireland and also a lower rate of VAT and that this is creating a very difficult trading environment for the solid fuel sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18062/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 195 and 210 together.
Although Carbon Tax was introduced in Budget 2010 for fossil fuels, its application to solid fuels was delayed to allow for the development of a robust mechanism to counter the large scale sourcing of coal from Northern Ireland where lower sulphur standards apply. The Department of the Environment undertook to provide such a robust mechanism in conjunction with the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). Such a mechanism is in place since June 2011 and the Air Pollution Act (Marketing, Sale, Distribution and Burning of Specified Fuels) Regulations 2012 specify the environmental standards for coal placed on the market and provide the regulatory framework in relation to the distribution and sale of coal in the State.
In particular, the Regulations require that all bituminous coal sold and used outside smoky coal ban areas for residential use outside those areas must have a sulphur content of no more than 0.7%, which is lower than that in Northern Ireland and therefore bituminous coal supplied to Northern Ireland standards for sale on that market may not be sold in the State. Compliance with the Regulations is be enforced by local authorities. A verification mechanism, SWiFT 7, has been developed by the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) for the verification of sulphur content in coal. This provides for a robust mechanism to verify the sulphur content of coal to national standards.
Suppliers who produce and supply solid fuels in contravention of the Regulations are subject to investigation and prosecution under the Air Pollution Act by local authorities charged with enforcing the regulations and preventing such supply. The application of the carbon tax to solid fuels was further postponed in 2012 given the overall tax increases in Budget 2012 including in the standard rate of VAT. Budget 2013 commenced the application of carbon tax to solid fuels but I chose not to introduce the carbon tax on solid fuels until after the 2012/2103 winter period and opted to introduce the tax in two phases i.e. €10 per tonne of CO2 from 1st May 2013 and a further €10 per tonne of CO2 from 1st May 2014 thus bringing the carbon tax on solid fuels in line with that on all other fossil fuels i.e. at €20 per tonne of CO2.
The introduction of Carbon Tax was about sending a price signal that there is a cost associated with the consumption of fossil fuels to the detriment of the environment. It should also be noted that solid fuels have the highest carbon content of all fossil fuels. As a result they are considered the dirtiest fuels and given the environmental impact it is important that they are taxed.
While tax increases are unpopular, where Member States are under fiscal pressure, it makes sense to increase taxes in areas where some benefits can arise, in this instance a carbon tax promotes energy efficiency, reduces emissions and reduces our dependence on imported fossil fuels. I am concerned about the claim that fuel traders in Border counties have seen their trade decimated. I would ask the Solid Trade Fuel Group to contact my officials with verifiable data to support this claim. However, it should be noted that the provisional yield returned for SFCT from 1st May 2013 to 31 December 2013 was €7.3 million, ahead of the forecast yield for that period of €6 million. Accordingly I do not intend to defer the further increase of €10 per tonne of CO2 emissions from 1 May 2014.
196. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding a tax demand in respect of a nursing home bill query (details supplied) in Dublin 5; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17752/14]
View answerI am advised by Revenue that it acts as the collection agent for the Health Service Executive (HSE) in respect of outstanding liabilities arising from the Ancillary State Support Scheme. This role is provided for by Section 26(2)(b) of the Nursing Home Support Scheme Act 2009. Where the HSE has advanced monies by way of ancillary State support it calculates the amount due in relation to such support and gives notice of that amount and particulars of how it is calculated to the relevant accountable person.
The HSE notifies Revenue of amounts that become due for collection and in all circumstances Revenue makes contact with the relevant person before any collection activity is initiated. Where there are personal or financial difficulties, Revenue will always work with the person, provided there is meaningful engagement. It is only in the absence of meaningful engagement that enforced collection is started. In regard to the specific case to which the Deputy refers Revenue has confirmed to me that it has now been instructed by the HSE to suspend collection activity to allow them further time to examine the issues in question.
