Richard Bruton
Ceist:79 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance his plans to deal with non-compliance with tax obligations in the construction industry. [27017/05]
Priority Questions.
Tax Collection.
Joan Burton
Ceist:80 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance the action he will take arising from the widespread abuse of the relevant contracts tax system; if he will allocate additional staff to the Revenue Commissioners in order that this sector can be adequately policed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26925/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 79 and 80 together.
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that they fully recognise the tax compliance risks that arise in the construction industry and have carried out an extensive programme of checks, audits and investigations in the construction industry in 2005.
The Revenue Commissioners have reorganised along regional lines with each revenue region containing a special compliance district specifically set up to combat evasion. During 2005, both mainstream revenue auditors and special compliance staff have carried out substantial investigations of tax evasion in the construction industry. The extent of these activities is evident from the following brief summary.
Revenue's east and south east region devoted 50% of its available audit resources to a special investigation of the construction industry. In the first half of the year, the region completed almost 500 audits of principal and subcontractors yielding approximately €12 million so far. The region carried out a further 360 compliance checks, 37 site visits and 92 visits to subcontractors newly issued with C2 certificates. By the end of the year, this region alone will have completed over 1,000 construction audits, 800 compliance checks and 70 site visits.
Similar activity is taking place throughout the country. The Dublin region's special compliance staff carried out 35 site visits and 1,650 compliance checks in the first six months of this year. Dublin also has a Revenue district dedicated specifically to dealing with high-risk construction industry cases. That district alone completed 80 audits so far this year with a yield of €4.5 million in tax, interest and penalties. The Dublin region has undertaken intensive investigation of a number of high risk cases, and has developed a national relevant contracts tax monitoring group which tracks the activities of high-risk principal and subcontractors by working closely with every revenue district in the country.
In the other Dublin Revenue districts a high level of construction industry related activity has also taken place in 2005. For example, one district alone,out of a total of six districts, has completed approximately 300 relevant contracts tax field audits in the first half of 2005.
That story is replicated in Revenue's other regions. The south west region has undertaken an extensive programme of RCT audits and checks, and has also had an in-depth look at a range of infrastructure building projects. The Border, midlands and west region has conducted a wide-ranging programme of activity in the first half of the year. For example, its special compliance district completed nearly 70 site visits affecting 250 contractors, as well as over 130 covert surveillance operations aimed at gathering intelligence on possible evasion.
The Revenue Commissioners are now planning how to build on these activities in 2006. The construction industry will form a major part of Revenue's compliance and audit work in 2006. That work will take into account a risk analysis of the sector, which has been conducted recently. The introduction of a computer risk assessment system during 2006, covering all businesses, will help target further the Revenue Commissioners' anti-evasion work. This system will enable them to capitalise on the knowledge already gleaned on this sector.
The Government provided the Revenue Commissioners with additional resources, including 400 staff in the audit and compliance area some few years ago. The Revenue Commissioners are taking steps to police the construction sector within their existing staffing complement by appropriate deployment of resources, effective real time initiatives on the ground and innovative exploitation of technology to assess and contain risk. If the Revenue Commissioners come to the conclusion that additional resources would be of practical benefit, whether in the form of staff or otherwise, they will make a case to me and I will assess it on its merits and respond appropriately.
I am confident, therefore, that the Revenue Commissioners are alert to the emergence of new or increasing tax risks in the construction industry and that their 2006 audit and compliance work will focus on the sector.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Based on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is hard to share the Minister's confidence that this issue is under control. In the report, the Comptroller and Auditor General took a small sample in the large cases division of the Fingal and Cavan/Monaghan districts. The report found that on the RCT system, 49% of contractors had submitted returns late, 12% had made no tax deductions where deductions clearly needed to be made, and returns were not all being examined because of pressure of work. There was also clear evidence of the continuing problem where people are being returned as sub-contractors even though they are employees, which is not an acceptable practice. Only 12 cases of fraud were uncovered and it seems that only person has suffered a penalty and that was a community service order.
It strikes me that there is significant evidence of non-compliance. The building industry would probably raise between €10 billion and €12 billion in tax revenue, so non-compliance has major consequences for the Exchequer. It is not reassuring to find that the risk evaluation ordered by the Comptroller and Auditor General after his report in 2000 has not yet been examined by the Revenue Commissioners. While there are obviously builders and contractors who are abusing the system, there are many who are trying to be compliant. It makes it very hard for compliant builders to compete if others are actively engaged in non-compliance on the scale that the Comptroller and Auditor General's report suggests.
The Revenue Commissioners have been very successful in inculcating a compliance in this country, as tax collection has improved greatly and tax liability is being met responsibly by those who should bear it. The investigations undertaken by the Revenue Commissioners have also been very successful, but if they require further resources then they can put that case to me.
The risk based approach adopted by the Revenue Commissioners to audit and compliance interventions is now focusing on tax-payers that pose the highest risk. They have adopted a targeted sector wide approach to audit investigations and are conducting audits on higher risk cases. They have rebalanced their compliance measures by giving intense scrutiny to certain sectors where there are perceived risks, such as the construction industry. They have written to some tax-payers in the construction industry outlining their past experience of audit settlements in this sector and pointing out areas that give rise to underpayments of taxes, as well as inviting tax-payers to make corrections in advance of audits in that sector. They are not just looking at relevant construction tax issues in isolation, but are looking at cases as a whole, as there are other tax issues involved. This is part of the whole case management approach which they are developing to compliance interventions.
The strategy to maximise identification of tax-payers has been through the setting up of the special compliance districts in the revenue regions, where the Revenue Commissioners have a focused approach to the gathering of intelligence and information on tax-payers at sectoral level. I have full confidence in them. If the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners wishes to speak to me about any further deployment of resources he is free to do so, and I am sure he will do so.
Has the Department attempted to quantify the cost of tax fraud in the building industry, especially in regard to RCT, but also the knock-on consequences for PRSI to which this is intimately linked? Has the Department attempted to quantify the risk? Would the Minister accept independent conservative assessments which suggest the risk and the loss to Revenue is in the region of €200 million to €400 million a year based on the value of the building industry?
In the context of the answer the Minister just gave, does he believe that 35 site visits to contractors in the Dublin area is an adequate investigatory response to the level of non-compliance indicated in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report? The Comptroller and Auditor General stated that last year only 15,000 audits were carried out, of which 1,500 were in the building industry. The Minister indicated in his reply that even with enhanced resources for this year there is no significant increase in that figure. Given the value of the building industry referred to by Deputy Bruton, how is the Minister responding to the failure to protect taxpayers' interests in collecting tax due from everyone in the building industry, and not just compliant builders who are obviously put at severe disadvantage by the fraud and scams that are prevalent?
I do not accept that such practice is prevalent. The Revenue Commissioners have responsibility for administering and operating all taxes in the construction or any other industry and ensuring that all operators within that sector comply with their taxation obligations. They recently advanced a number of key developments that are having a significant impact on tax compliance, which I outlined in my reply.
It is not simply a question of 35 site visits. To suggest that is the level of activity in the Dublin district of the Revenue in regard to the construction industry is to miss the point completely. There has been ongoing monitoring of this sector. For example in 1998 and 1999, in a major resource-intensive project the tax status of some 63,000 subcontractors was reviewed involving approximately 7,000 visits. The results of that exercise indicate that 88% of principal contractors visited had either correctly classified their employees or contractors or agreed to abide by Revenue's ruling as to the correct classification. They undertook a further programme of visits to 142 construction sites during 2001 and 2002 to examine the employer-employee classification. In the sites visited, 2,998 individuals were classified as employees and 984 as subcontractors. Of the 984 subcontractors examined only 65 were found to be misclassified.
On an ongoing basis based on risk assessment, Revenue auditors audit the books and records of a considerable number of contractors and subcontractors. The matter of employee and subcontractor status is always examined as a routine part of such audits. In each case the auditors examine the RCT1 forms that a principal contractor and a subcontractor complete in respect of each contract. These forms contain details of the duration and type of contract and a statement that the contracts are not contracts of employment.
Some 1,500 audits, 10% of all audits, were conducted on building contractors in 2004. There has been a substantial increase in the level of Revenue's activities around the construction industry this year, enhanced by a number of special new compliance initiatives. As I said, in the east and south-east region almost 50% of available audit resources have been devoted to a special investigation of construction industry projects. As part of that, in the first six months of this year, the status of some 500 subcontractors was examined and it was found that only three should properly have been classified as employees.
In the Dublin region, a designated contact officer has been appointed to receive information from trade unions and others where there are suspicions that employees have been misclassified as subcontractors. Similar arrangements are being considered for the other regions. A national RCT monitoring group has been established with contacts in every district. That has proved highly successful in intensely monitoring and tracking suspect principals and subcontractors.
On any fair analysis the Revenue Commissioners are doing everything they possibly can. They are bringing forward very pragmatic proposals which are working on the ground and they are liaising with others to make sure they deal with any misclassification that has taken place.
Question No. 81 will be taken now.
We only spoke once. Surely we have time for a brief supplementary.
The questions are governed by time limits, not the number of times Deputies speak.
A brief supplementary would be in order.
It should be very brief.
If 49% of these submissions are being made late, why are no penalties for late payment being exacted?
Has the Minister attempted to quantify the loss to compliant taxpayers of the level of fraud and tax evasion in the construction industry outlined in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report? Surely the Department of Finance, as the lead economic Department, must have done a risk analysis of the amount of money involved in these scams. That is the question I want answered.
No, I have not conducted such an audit. As I said, the Revenue Commissioners are charged under the law to do that. They are doing it and if there is any problems they come to me, either by way of the regular meetings I have with the Chairman or in the preparation of Finance Bills in the form of any proposals they would have for changes or modifications in the law. That is the normal way it works.
To be frank, I cannot give Deputy Bruton the answer immediately but I will get it for him.
It is the persistent finding of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that penalties for late payments are not being imposed.
Public Finances.
Seamus Healy
Ceist:81 Mr. Healy asked the Minister for Finance the amount of current budget surplus on revenue accounts for each year from 1998 to 2004 in accordance with Irish and European accounting procedures; and the use to which these surpluses were put. [26931/05]
I assume that when the Deputy mentions Irish and European accounting procedures, he is referring to the Exchequer accounts and the general Government accounts, respectively.
The published finance accounts show that the Exchequer current account surpluses for the years 1998 to 2004 inclusive were as follows: 1998, €2,649 million; 1999, €4,367 million; 2000, €6,971 million; 2001, €4,724 million; 2002, €5,400 million; 2003, €4,410 million; and 2004, €5,619 million.
The general Government balance is a broader measure of the fiscal performance of Government. In addition to the Exchequer, it includes local authorities, non-commercial State sponsored bodies, the national pensions reserve fund and the social insurance fund. It also includes elements of accrual accounting while the Exchequer balance is a cash-based measure. On a general Government basis, the current account surplus for each of the years in question was: 1998, €3,471 million; 1999, €6,039 million; 2000, €8,011 million; 2001, €5,828 million, 2002, €4,272 million; 2003, €4,975 million; and 2004, €6,713 million.
The current surpluses on Exchequer account have been used to meet existing and future needs. For example, investment in capital infrastructure has been increased in recent years to around 5% of GNP per annum, twice the EU average. Capital expenditure is funded, in whole or in part, by current surpluses.
The national pensions reserve fund, established in 2001, requires the statutory investment of 1% of GNP annually, to meet part of the escalating costs of social welfare and public service pensions. The current surpluses meet the cost of the 1% contribution. The surpluses are used to reduce the national debt, thereby freeing resources to fund other priority areas. Debt as a percentage of GDP has fallen to below 30%.
The planned budgetary policy stance is to continue with our prudent management of the public finances and keep them in a sustainable position to ensure that room for manoeuvre exists to provide and enhance public services now and in the future.
What the Minister has told us is that in the eight years since the Government is in office there is something like €34 billion of a surplus on day-to-day spending. From what he said it is clear the vast majority of that is being spent on capital projects. Should we not prioritise human need over physical infrastructure? What is, in fact, happening with those large surpluses is that they are going to fund roads, bridges and broadband, and not to fund issues such as health, education and housing. Is it not the case that the most important infrastructure is a healthy and well educated population rather than roads and bridges? Should we not ensure that human needs services, such as health, education and housing services, which have been subject to under funding historically, are funded properly through the surplus? Is it not normal practice in any other European country to fund capital projects through borrowing? The surplus gained in the day-to-day running of the economy should be spent on funding the various human services to which I referred. Should we not stop regarding the funding of health, education and housing services, as distinct from roads, bridges and other forms of infrastructure, as a cost to the Exchequer? Rather, we should consider it as an investment in people.
The considerable budget surplus, amounting to €34 billion since 1998, would go a long way towards bringing us up to international levels. Where the funding of education is concerned, Ireland is 19th out of 26 OECD countries. The figure for second level education in particular is even worse, we are 21st out of 26. There is historic under funding in the health and social services. Should we not use the surplus to fund these services and engage in prudent borrowing to fund capital projects which we would be allowed to do under EU guidelines and legislation?
There needs to be investment in health, education and social welfare and there also needs to be investment in housing, hospitals and roads.
It is a question of how that is done and of where the money comes from.
Exactly. We are doing it more successfully than anybody else. The Deputy will have noted unprecedented rises in current spending on health, education and social welfare under this Administration. These rises are greater than any in the history of the State. Increases to pensioners under this Administration are greater than any others the Deputy will remember. The resources being made available under the current mix of policies are greater than they ever were. The Deputy suggests we should put at risk the ability to continue the economic activity that funds these resources so we can look after all our people. I do not agree with that economic philosophy, which the Deputy obviously holds.
To increase the indebtedness of the country one can go to the people to seek support for doing so. Had the Government borrowed all the money the Deputy said we should have borrowed for capital purposes, or were he holding the reins of power, we would now have an interest bill amounting to approximately €1.3 billion or €1.4 billion more than it amounts to today, and therefore we would not have €1.4 billion per year to spend on improved health, education and social welfare services on a sustainable basis. The Deputy is entitled to his opinions but I am here to defend very strongly the mix of policies the Government has provided over the past seven or eight years, which, on the basis of the figures on both the current and capital sides, led to unprecedented investment in all the areas he mentioned.
We know exactly what we got for being highly indebted in the 1970s and 1980s, namely, high unemployment and high emigration. There are thousands of people in America, Australia and the United Kingdom who prove where that policy leads. It leads nowhere. Now that we have the ability to provide employment for our people, we must also remain prudent fiscally to ensure we can remain competitive, keep people in employment and give them a greater disposable income, and provide greater resources to meet all the social needs to which the Deputy alluded. We can now do so in a sustainable way which would not be possible if we adopted the Deputy's approach. His approach was tried and it failed.
Is it not true that every other European country borrows for capital projects and that those projects serve generations of people, not just a single generation? Therefore, capital projects should be paid for over a number of generations through capital borrowing. Is the Minister saying he is successful in spite of the trolleys and MRSA in hospital wards, the 50,000 families on the waiting list for housing and Ireland's lying 19th out of 26 OECD countries in terms of spending on education? This is hardly a success story.
It has been a great success story. If the Deputy goes to his constituency, he will note the number of schools that have been refurbished. The number has been far greater under this Administration than under any other.
Almost 1,000 people are unemployed in Carrick-on-Suir. The Minister could have done something about it by decentralising a State body to the region. Why did he not do so?
The Deputy's policies, if applied nationally——
He could have done so two years ago. Why did he not do it?
——would lead to an unemployment level of 20%. He knows this well.
Some 20% are unemployed in Carrick-an-Suir.
Tax Yield.
Paul McGrath
Ceist:82 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the extra revenue generated per month for the Exchequer from the surge in energy prices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27016/05]
The tax content on energy products may be made up of two elements, the excise content and the VAT content. Excise does not apply to all energy products although it applies to motor fuels and home heating oils. However, the rate of excise is fixed relative to the volume of fuel sold and therefore there is no increase in yield as the price increases. VAT is fixed as a percentage of price and, assuming consumption levels are maintained, increases in energy prices will result in additional VAT receipts from the energy sector.
It should be borne in mind that to the extent that spending in the economy is reallocated to motor fuels and away from other VAT-liable spending and to the extent that the overall level of economic activity is reduced by higher oil prices, there may be little or no net gain to the Exchequer as a result of any additional revenue that may accrue from motor fuels.
Given those qualifications, I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the estimated additional revenue generated for petrol and diesel for each of the first eight months of 2005 ranged from zero to €5.4 million as the prices increased. This figure relates to petrol and diesel only because monthly data are not available for other energy products.
If I pull in for my petrol on the way home and spend €20 thereon, €13 of that €20 will go to the Exchequer as excise duty or VAT. If I pull in for €20 of diesel, €12 will go to the Exchequer. I do not suppose the Minister is pulling in to the pumps——
I do.
——but those who do, including me, note that the price has increased from approximately 80 cents——
I live beside the pumps.
I know the Minister lives beside them but he does not pull in to them and put his hand in his pocket.
I do.
The price has increased from approximately 80 cent per litre to €1.12 per litre, and even to €1.20 a couple of weeks ago. Is there not a considerable windfall tax accruing to the Exchequer by virtue of the increased cost of fuel? Ireland as an island nation is very susceptible as a consequence, because the freight sector depends on affordable fuel to remain competitive. There is great additional burden on the freight sector involved with exports out of Ireland. Let us not forget that in the past two years during which time Deputy Cowen has been Minister for Finance, the export sector has experienced the two worst years of the past 20. Therefore, is it not important that we keep the sector competitive and do whatever we can to achieve this?
Is it not true that the Minister is collecting from each household €900 more than he had anticipated? Is it not time that he fed back some of the gains he is making to the taxpayer in the interest of competitiveness?
There may be few gains to the Exchequer because additional VAT receipts on energy may be offset by reduced expenditure elsewhere. That is the basic point I make to the Deputy. The unfortunate reality is that higher oil or energy prices can lead to a reduction in economic activity. Therefore, if one gains on one side, one loses on the other. People only have so much disposable income. The Deputy can take it from me that if one must pay more for one item, one cannot buy as much of another product.
The Minister had an extra €1 billion yesterday.
That is a macro-economic fact that is not being challenged by anyone I know of. Reducing excise taxes to help with the current price pressures is not the magic solution that some might think. Excise only applies to motor fuels and home heating oils. It does not apply to natural gas or electricity. Excise rates are subject to an EU framework and the scope for reductions is therefore limited. However, I understand the pressures that these increases have created. This also generates better energy efficiency in terms of what people want to do. It promotes alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, an area which we must continue to explore. These are all issues that arise as a result of the fact that we are in a higher energy regime than was the case in the past. It is not true that we have had the two worst export years of the past 20. The rate of growth has slowed but we continue to export more, year on year, than we did before.
In his opening remarks, the Minister said that increased costs would result in reduced economic activity. That is not borne out by yesterday's returns. The Government has taken €1 billion more in taxes than it anticipated. If the Minister is saying that people are spending less because of additional fuel costs, that is not borne out by the returns and does not stand up. We have lost market share in terms of our exports over the past two years. There has not been the same level of growth. Market share is important to us.
My reply to the Deputy's supplementary question was in reference to energy taxes and fuel prices. Thankfully, due to the way this economy has been managed and people being able to take advantage of the opportunities that arise here and in the international economy, we have increased buoyancy in the economy. I am glad that is the case. I presume everyone welcomes that fact. Other parts of the tax system have not been as buoyant as we would have liked. One must look at the entire picture.
Deputy McGrath emphasises the increase in VAT and the question of higher energy prices. I am explaining that, specifically with regard to higher energy prices, a sustained higher energy environment will impact on competitiveness, cost and world growth. Everyone acknowledges that. We have a mix of taxes and lower income tax. When a customer calls to a filling station and pays for petrol, he or she is also paying into a taxation regime which is much better than some of our competitors. These are realities. There is a mix in the taxation system which must deal with competitiveness in terms of job creation. We have created many jobs again this year. Central Statistics Office figures suggest almost 90,000, which is an extraordinary figure under the circumstances.
If one is paying taxes.
Deputy Boyle obviously knows more than the CSO.
Few of them qualify to pay taxes. That is the reality.
I look forward to answering Deputy Boyle's questions on energy taxes. It will be interesting to see how the three Opposition parties will figure that out in terms of the carbon tax he is calling for. It has not yet been mentioned in the Mullingar accord.
Tax Code.
Joan Burton
Ceist:83 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if he has received a report from the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners on the monitoring the Chairman had been asked to undertake of the application of the current non-residency rules for tax purposes; if not, when he expects to receive the report; if he anticipates any changes in regard to non-residency status in the next Finance Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26620/05]
I have asked the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners to monitor the application of the current non-resident rules through examination of cases handled in the Revenue large cases division and to provide me with a report once this examination is complete. The Chairman has confirmed to me that this work is under way and that he will report to me as soon as possible.
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the procedures adopted with regard to validating a claim to non-residence status depend on the circumstances in each case. The administration of the validation procedures is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners and I am informed by them that these procedures are kept under review. I am, however, informed that the methods used to verify claims to non-residence include a range of tests and an intelligence dimension which for obvious reasons they do not publicise. In addition, the revenue has statutory powers to make all relevant inquiries concerning any aspect of tax returns, including claims to non-residence status. I am further informed that a number of audits are under way into claims to non-residence and that these audits will be a regular feature of the risk-based programmes operated by Revenue. In accordance with normal practice it is not appropriate for the Minister to comment on possible changes to tax in the run up to the annual budget and Finance Bill.
The Minister outlined his request of the Revenue Commissioners to monitor the application of the current non-residency rules. Was there any time limit to that request? From a management point of view, did the Minister ask the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners to report within six months, for example? In most organisations, if a report is requested, an indication is given as to when it will be completed. How many people are we discussing in terms of the large cases division and the intelligence dimension of the examination by Revenue? Could the Minister clarify the Cinderella rule? Is it true that one may leave this jurisdiction just before midnight for an unspecified period which could consist of one day or 30 minutes and at midnight this absence counts as non-residence? The Revenue report referred to in earlier discussions indicates that some people pay no tax because they are non-resident for tax purposes, yet appear to live here.
The Deputy should be aware that the full residency rules were last updated in the Finance Act 1994 when Fianna Fáil and Labour were in Government, following a comprehensive review of the matter by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance. She knows what the rules are and we have discussed them on a number of occasions. The 183-day rule which contributes to determining residence in Ireland is also a key rule in other countries, including Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. The rules we have are in line with international practice. There is nothing unusual about that.
I do not have details of particular cases. As I said in my reply, I spoke to the Chairman concerning the report. He said that they were satisfied with the way matters were progressing. I asked him to monitor the situation and to forward a report to me in due course when he has completed it and he said he would. I can talk to him again about it.
Will the Minister answer the question? If a person who is non-resident for tax purposes departs this jurisdiction at one minute before midnight for an undetermined duration, does that count in terms of non-residency? I understand that to be a critical part of Revenue's intelligence examination of non-residents. The Minister talks about chatting to the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, who will bring forward a report in due course. Does this entail two months or four years? Will the Minister indicate the numbers that Revenue has identified as falling within this category?
I think the Deputy already knows.
I am entitled to the courtesy of an answer.
Of course the Deputy is. If I had the information available, I would give it to her. As I have not, I undertake to provide it if possible. She will understand from previous replies that there is no collation system within Revenue which could provide her with that figure immediately. It is another issue when she asks me a question to which she knows I do not have the answer.
In terms of the Cinderella rule, she is also aware from lengthy discussions on previous occasions that, by leaving before midnight, one is not deemed to have stayed in the country on that day. That is a well known fact which was agreed by Dick Spring in 1994, when Deputy Burton was a Minister of State.
May one return ten minutes later? Is the Minister confirming that one can simply be out of the jurisdiction for a short artificial period, which would mean that a coach and four is being driven through any normal understanding of the non-residency rules?
The Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners never indicated to me that a coach and four is being pushed through the non-residency rules. He makes clear that this matter is being monitored carefully by Revenue's own intelligence systems. I told him that this matter had arisen in the Dáil on previous occasions and asked him to forward me a report on the matter as soon as he possible can. I believe it will take a matter of months rather than years.
I remind Members that a maximum of one minute is allowed for supplementary questions and replies thereto.