Priority Questions.
96 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his views on the apparent difficulties of the Revenue Commissioners in obtaining evidence to prosecute persons who defaulted on the fines of the tax amnesty and to prosecute officials within financial institutions who gave assistance to persons secreting money into bogus non-resident accounts. [4832/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that it has not been possible in any cases examined to date to obtain the evidence necessary to meet the required standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" in amnesty non-compliance offences. It is generally the case also that where a taxpayer agrees to co-operate in an investigation and Revenue cannot otherwise access relevant evidence, the taxpayer's rights against self-incrimination will restrict the potential for a prosecution.
I would, however, also remind the Deputy that apart from the amnesty aspect, Revenue has recently been successful in collecting outstanding tax and interest and in imposing civil penalties on many tax evaders in its ongoing investigations. Individual tax evaders have made considerable retribution for their offences as a direct consequence of the large monetary settlements resulting from these investigations.
Revenue's criminal investigation programmes have been re-focused recently with the establishment of an investigations and prosecutions division. If in the course of investigations, amnesty offences are identified and the necessary evidence is available, they will be investigated with a view to taking a criminal prosecution for such offences. On the matter of the prosecution of officials from financial institutions who may have assisted in placing funds in bogus non-resident accounts, the primary responsibility for ensuring that a tax return is correct rests with the individual making that return. There is a statutory offence in the tax code of knowingly aiding or abetting another person to make an incorrect tax return. However, in the case of third parties generally, the standard of evidence required to incriminate them for an alleged wrongdoing by a taxpayer who has failed to declare correct income or gains is very difficult to meet. I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that while, in their experience, aiding and abetting offences are notoriously difficult to prosecute, it would be their general policy to pursue such cases if such evidence became available.
When this tax amnesty was introduced in 1993 the Minister for Finance of the day, who is now the Taoiseach, said he looked forward to the day when tax cheats would be jailed. We heard absolute guarantees that people who availed of the amnesty and were subsequently found to be in breach of it would face the rigours of the law and be pursued to the ends of the earth until they were captured. The inspector of taxes refused two thirds of the 20 people whom the Revenue Commissioners had pursued to establish what they had submitted under the amnesty. Does that not make a laugh of the amnesty provisions passed? Furthermore, can the Minister say why this should be so given the so-called guarantees given at that time and the very stringent penalties for people who availed of the amnesty and did not come clean then? It seems that if someone makes a voluntary declaration Revenue does not even bother to pursue the powers given to it under that amnesty to pursue those people. Hence my previous question asking how many people had been prosecuted under the different sections of that amnesty legislation.
However, the Minister did not answer that question. He ignored it and gave a global answer to ten questions instead. Will the Minister tell us why people are not being pursued? Why does he now say he will continue to pursue them? Is there a ten-year statute of limitations built into the legislation which prevents the Minister from pursuing people who availed of the amnesty?
As I explained in my reply, the level of proof required to obtain a successful conviction under section 9 of the amnesty is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It has not proved feasible to hear evidence of the standard required to obtain such a conviction. The burden of proof in criminal cases is of the highest standard, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. As regards other aspects of offences where people are convicted, I am sure the Deputy would expect that to be applied by the court. The same applies to criminal prosecutions in tax offences. The tax amnesty legislation in 1993 included an assurance of confidentiality for people dealing with the special collectors. That was enshrined in section 7 of that legislation. As the Revenue auditor or investigator is not permitted access to the declaration made by the person availing of the amnesty, it is not possible to determine whether he or she has been in breach of the amnesty. There are certain exceptions, as the Deputy pointed out, subject to the right of appeal to the appeal commissioners. Less than one third of approximately 20 appeal cases were successful in that regard.
On the question the Deputy asked about this matter, I have seen some newspaper coverage about the ten-year rule. I have been told by the Revenue Commissioners that the legal advice available to them is that there is no time limit on an investigation of indictable offences. The Revenue investigators proceed on that basis. The effect of the passage of time can create evidential difficulties. Until the mid-1990s the Revenue Commissioners did not pursue a specific prosecution strategy. That was left to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That way of doing things was only changed in the mid-1990s.
The Revenue Commissioners got large amounts of money in all the recent investigations. I refer the Deputy to the final report of the sub-committee on DIRT of the Committee of Public Accounts, which referred to the general approach of Revenue in dealing with the role of financial institutions and it was noted that by then the Revenue Commissioners had taken a pragmatic approach.
We have gone over the six minutes for this question. I call Question No. 97.
I did not get an opportunity to ask a second question.
There are six minutes for the question.
You, a Cheann Comhairle, allowed the Minister to continue speaking. This is an important issue. I must be allowed to ask a final question.
In fairness to other Deputies who have submitted questions, there are six minutes for each question.
Yes, but your judgment should protect my rights. I am entitled to ask a second question.
The Chair has no control over the length of a reply. The Deputy wants the facts and figures. The Minister did not take his initial two minutes to reply, but the Deputy took two minutes to ask a supplementary question.
Yes, to which I am entitled.
The Minister took two seconds over the two minutes to conclude. In fairness to other Deputies, if I allow you -——
There should be time left.
It is a matter for the House to change Standing Orders under Dáil reform.
I am disappointed.
I appreciate that.
The Minister indicated that the Revenue Commissioners are not following up tax evasion under this Bill. The commitments given in 1993 amount to nothing. This is important.
I call Question No. 97. In fairness to other Deputies in the House, we must apply the Standing Order to each Deputy.
97 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if a survey has been carried out generally to establish the number of public servants willing to transfer to new locations under his decentralisation proposals; if the move will be voluntary and if no public servant will suffer in regard to career options or promotional opportunities if they do not wish to move to a new location; if an assessment has been made of the potential total cost of the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4831/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI have not undertaken a survey of civil servants or public servants to ascertain the numbers who wish to transfer to each of the locations included in the decentralisation programme. Conducting such a survey in advance of clearer time lines for the sequencing of all the various moves would be of limited value. The decentralisation programme will operate on a voluntary basis. Civil and public servants who do not wish to transfer to a decentralised location will be assigned to alternative posts in Dublin. The exact procedures which will apply will be dealt with as part of the implementation process, which is being driven by the implementation committee and will be discussed with the public service unions.
Decentralisation will change the way in which the public service operates in the future. In the case of promotion prospects, there will continue to be, broadly speaking, the same opportunities across the Civil Service and public service. The new programme will create a wider range of work and career opportunities for individuals working outside Dublin than is currently the case. Public servants who aspire to senior management positions will no longer have to migrate to the capital, although many may continue to do so. Similarly, individuals serving in Dublin will be able to pursue their careers within Dublin, but many may choose to avail of promotion opportunities in decentralised offices.
As regards the cost, the Deputy will be aware that rented offices in Dublin are significantly more expensive than those available outside the capital. By vacating existing leased or State-owned property in Dublin, the costs of new accommodation in the regions can be minimised. The programme will operate on a voluntary basis and, therefore, neither removal expenses nor redundancy will be paid. Some additional costs may arise under headings such as travel and subsistence, staff training and technology. The wider economic benefits, particularly better use of regional infrastructure and reduced demand on infrastructure in Dublin, must also be taken into account. I am confident this programme will serve as a catalyst for further economic benefit in provincial Ireland.
As regards the Minister's statement about clearer time lines for the sequencing of moves and transfers out of Dublin, is that coded language for saying that the decentralisation programme will take longer than the three years advertised in the budget? What are the clearer time lines? Is the Minister talking about the ten year period which has frequently been described as the time required? Is he aware of surveys carried out in a number of Departments that indicate that only approximately 7% to 10% of civil servants in FÁS, the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and other Departments are willing to move out of Dublin? If those surveys are representative or if the Minister wants to challenge them, will he carry out independent surveys? However, if those surveys are a correct reflection of attitudes to decentralisation, will the taxpayer have to foot the bill for the hundreds of civil servants who will be left in Dublin with no clear function? What will the Minister do with those civil servants? Will there be penalties if people fail to transfer? I draw the Minister's attention to the recent advertisement for a senior post in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which stated that the applicant must be willing to serve outside Dublin. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
The time line to complete this programme is 31 December 2006 and I hope that will be met. We chose that date to put pressure on Ministers and Departments to ensure it is done before a certain event occurs in the summer of 2007. I make no apologies for saying that, it will put pressure on Ministers and politicians to ensure it is delivered.
I am aware of newspaper speculation about some surveys of limited numbers of staff in various organisations. It is not my intention to ask the Department of Finance to conduct a staff survey. It took four years to make this decision and we will ensure it happens.
The attitude of some people and commentators since we made the decision is totally at variance with what they said four years prior to the decision, when they were of the view that we would not make the decision, but if we did it would be good. Now that we have made the decision, they are saying it will not succeed and we should not have made it. It is a case of having one's cake and eating it.
As regards Dublin civil servants, there will still be plenty of public servants post-decentralisation in the Dublin region. There will be a large number of civil and public servants in the Dublin region and there will be ample work for them to do. As regards the recent advertisement for a vacancy in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that was the proper and correct thing to do. Anyone now aspiring to higher posts in the Civil Service will have to be aware that eight of the Departments will move outside Dublin and that a large number of public and civil servants will be based outside Dublin. People should be under no illusion of their responsibilities after our decision last December on decentralisation.
As the Minister is aware, St. Valentine's Day has just passed. Does the Minister have any consideration for a couple, both of whom are civil servants, who may have two children with child care costs of between €800 and €1,200 per month? One may be moved to Killarney with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and the other to Wexford with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Will the Minister take into account the impact on families in circumstances such as these? The Tánaiste has spoken of the need for the Government to have family-friendly policies. What will happen to the civil servants who refuse to move for family or other reasons, especially in cases where they provide specific technical expertise, as do many of those in FÁS? How will jobs be found for such people? They cannot all transfer into watching contracts in the Office of Public Works for the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon.
We must move on to the next question as we have exceeded the time for this one.
How does the Minister propose to deal with these issues?
Along with other Ministers, I have repeatedly said this is a voluntary programme. Given that and with the wide decentralisation, it will be possible to meet most people's requirements. Under this programme, full Departments are moving to provincial locations. The map of Ireland after decentralisation will show large clusters of public and civil servants in various regions. It will therefore be possible for people to transfer both within their own Department and to other Departments. While it may not suit everybody to go to the new location of their office or Department, they can transfer to another Department in the region of their choice. The same will apply to the offices in Dublin. It should be possible to accommodate the wishes of everybody. As this is a voluntary programme every endeavour will be made to accommodate every public servant as best we can.
98 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Finance if the amendments contained in section 13 of the Finance Act 2002 were drafted in response to requests from Eircom ESOT for retrospective changes to the tax treatment of the income and capital gains from the preference share offering that the Valentia consortium issued to help secure the takeover of the company; and the estimate of the revenue forgone by the State from tax on income or capital gained from these Eircom preference shares due to the amendment. [5052/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraSection 13 of Finance Act 2002 provides that the transfer and appropriation of securities other than ordinary shares to the beneficiaries of an employee share ownership trust, ESOT, or approved profit sharing scheme, APSS, in the circumstances of certain takeovers may take place in a manner which preserves the tax benefits to the participants. The point at which income tax is forgone is when the shares are passed into the ESOT, which in the case of Eircom took place in 1999, and does not arise from any amendments contained in section 13.
In June 2001, the tax advisers to the ESOT contacted officials in the Revenue Commissioners and my Department to discuss the tax implications for the Eircom ESOT of the proposed takeover of Eircom. Having considered the issues involved, I indicated in June 2001 that I was prepared to propose an amendment, which I duly did in the Finance Act 2002. This was made known in my response to a parliamentary question from the then Deputy and now Senator Derek McDowell on 14 November 2001 on this subject.
Had the change not been made, the ESOT would have had to distribute cash to the beneficiaries as the ESOT would not have been permitted to acquire the preference shares, giving rise to a claw-back of some of the income tax forgone in 1999. However, this revenue would only have arisen had the takeover proceeded.
The legislative changes simply provided the membership of the Eircom ESOT with a level playing field to choose to support whichever bid they wished to support. In the event, two takeovers were in a position to take immediate advantage of these legislative changes. The first was the takeover of the landline business of Eircom by the Valentia consortium and the second was the takeover of ACC Bank by Rabobank.
I have made numerous changes to the ESOT legislation to facilitate ESOTs in changing circumstances to ensure that they retain the benefits available to them. This is because, by their nature, ESOTs are tailor-made to each particular circumstance.
I take issue with the Minister for Finance, who seems to accept that it is in order for the State to involve itself, through changes in the tax code, in sweetening deals in the commercial sector between private entities. To what extent was the public interest served by these changes? It seems the only beneficiaries, apart from the individual shareholders, was the Valentia consortium which subsequently had the benefit of selling on a huge asset having been subsidised through two sales of Eircom. The treatment of shareholders within the ESOT must be contrasted with the 550,000 ordinary Eircom shareholders who were forced to sell their shares at a much-reduced price because of the mechanism the Minister introduced allowing the second sale to the Valentia consortium to proceed.
Every Finance Act since 1997 has included some changes to employee share ownership plans, all of which have been done at the request of the ESOTs which comprise the workers involved and their representatives. Even this year's Finance Bill contains a change to ESOP legislation to accommodate the employees of the former Irish National Petroleum Corporation. The change did not have the effect of favouring one consortium over the other as mentioned by the Deputy. Had I not made this change, I would have been accused of favouring the Denis O'Brien consortium. This change was requested by the Eircom ESOT to level the playing field.
I understand the Eircom ESOT was more inclined to vote for the Valentia consortium which favoured preference shares being offered. If it could not have done that, a tax liability would have been triggered for those represented by the ESOT. In no way would the ESOT have recommended that bid. If this change had not been made, it would have favoured the Denis O'Brien consortium and the Deputy can imagine the hullabaloo that would have caused.
This provision was contained in the Finance Bill 2002 as published and was covered in the explanatory memorandum. It was debated on Committee Stage and there was no secret about it. After the decision was made in June 2001, the Department of Finance received a request under the Freedom of Information Act, to which it decided to accede in September 2001. In September 2001, a third party objected to the release of information and there was an appeal to the Information Commissioner, on which the commissioner made a decision to release in September 2003. There was nothing underhand about this matter. The changes under section 13 of the Finance Act 2002 requested by representatives of the workers were to preserve the tax benefits of the existing ESOT. These changes were non-discriminatory and affected other takeovers such as the takeover of the ACC Bank by Rabobank.
The Minister has still not answered the question as to how the public interest or long-term communications policy was served. Why was this section discussed in private session on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill 2002? If the Minister was confident with this provision, why did the committee feel the need to go into private session? Was this decision the Minister's alone or did he consult the Taoiseach, Tánaiste or the then Minister for Public Enterprise?
On Committee Stage, that was done at the request of the former Deputy and now Senator Derek McDowell. It was done to explain the intricacies of the provision and specifically to explain that the matter was the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which had been appealed. The Deputy can ask Senator McDowell and others who were present to outline what I said about the amendment at the time. I said I could not believe I had become so socialist in my old age that I was giving in to all the requests affecting ESOTs. I took an opposite view to that which people are now trying to imply. There was noting secret or underhand about this.
We must move on now.
This change was made to benefit the employees represented by the ESOT, and all the changes that have been made to legislation affecting ESOTs through the years since Deputy Quinn first introduced ESOT legislation in the Finance Act 1997 have all been done at the request of the workers to preserve the tax benefits for them alone. Nobody from Valentia or the other consortium made any contact — good, bad, or indifferent — with the Department of Finance or me. This was all dealt with between the advisers to the ESOT and the Department and the Revenue Commissioners.
99 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the timescale for the decisions on emissions trading and carbon tax; his plans to avoid adverse impacts on competitiveness and a maximum reduction in carbon emissions associated with these schemes; and his views on the approach of ring-fencing revenue from this tax for the purposes such as reducing employment taxes, compensating those on low incomes and promoting low emission technologies and practices. [5055/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy will be aware, following my Budget Statement regarding carbon energy taxation last December, I published a carbon energy tax consultation paper prepared by my Department on 31 July last year. This consultation paper was designed to facilitate discussions on the introduction and design of the carbon energy tax while recognising that there are divergent views on the issue. Submissions in response to the paper were invited from interested parties to be received in my Department by 30 September 2003 but extra time was given where requested by organisations to complete their submissions. Some 117 submissions have been received by my Department in response to the carbon taxation consultation paper.
As one might expect, the views in the submissions are divided in terms of support for or concerns about the implications of such a tax. The submissions raise diverse concerns such as competitiveness, the impact on employment, the less well-off and rural areas, cross-Border aspects, the scope of the tax, the link with emissions trading, the role of negotiated agreements and alternative energy and the need for revenue recycling and how that should be applied. All relevant issues, therefore, including the effect of carbon energy tax on competitiveness, the question of ring-fencing revenues, the impact on those with low incomes and the promotion of more efficient technologies will be taken into account in the consideration of the proposal. As part of the consultation process, these submissions are now also available publicly on my Department's website.
Is it the case that the Cabinet has already approved the emissions trading aspect of the carbon tax? Is it the case that under the approved system of emissions trading, those responsible for large amounts of carbon emissions will not need to alter their operations significantly over the coming years? Will it be the case, therefore, that small business will be obliged to pay the carbon tax while the larger operators will not?
Does the Minister agree that this carbon tax could raise up to €500 million, according to his own policy paper, and that this will be paid predominantly by poorer families? The typical family on the minimum wage spends 15% of its income on fuel — about €40 per week. If they are using peat and coal, the most polluting fuels, they face a €10 per week increase in fuel costs. What does the Minister propose to do about the implications for different types of business, as envisaged in his proposal, and the implications for families who are struggling to make ends meet?
The allocation of quotas for emissions trading is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen. On 5 February this year the Minister made announcements in this regard. It was envisaged in the consultation paper that those covered by emissions trading would not also be subject to the carbon energy tax.
Precisely.
I am not saying that is what will happen, only that it is envisaged in the consultation paper. The matter of emissions trading has been raised recently by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He is doing this now because we are required under EU law to have our submissions on emissions trading with the Commission before 31 March this year. Other countries are doing the same thing; Ireland is the second country whose Government has made an announcement on this matter. As I said, it was envisaged in the consultation paper that those covered by emissions trading would not also be subject to the proposed carbon energy tax.
What will happen with the carbon energy tax depends on the assumptions one makes about the level of tax per tonne. I announced in the budget of December 2002 that we would consider the introduction of a carbon energy tax by the end of 2004. The consultation process in which we have engaged has resulted in a large number of submissions, which we recently published on the Department's website. Roughly 49% of the submissions are in favour of the tax while 51% are against, although some people are in the middle. I am glad the Deputy mentioned some of the reasons for caution in this regard. If he feels strongly about these matters he should speak to some of his colleagues in his own party — although not many — and his colleagues directly behind him. These are some of the considerations that must be borne in mind before the Government can make a decision. Those who take a simplistic view ignore some of the matters to which the Deputy has referred.
Let us be honest: this is not a race at Cheltenham. We are not trying to forecast what might happen by considering percentages one way or the other.
This day next month.
These decisions will intimately affect people's lives, whether one is poor or is in a business that will be affected. The Minister is saying he will effectively give large companies free trades. They will have coupons which cover 97% of their prospective uses. They will make virtually no adaptation to reduce energy emissions. Is he not proposing a carbon tax that will hit small business and ordinary households, forcing them to make all the reductions in carbon emissions?
I would like to hear the Minister take a view on this. Why does he not publish a White Paper so there can be a serious debate on the options the Government is considering adopting? The Minister is asking what the Labour Party thinks, what the Green Party thinks and what Fine Gael thinks. That is not what he was appointed to do. He is the Minister; he should be leading the way. He should issue proposals and allow people to react to them and tease out the issues before they are finally adopted.
The emissions trading regime has been agreed in Europe.
The percentages are the Minister's.
Each country is obliged to provide a format for its own emissions trading regime. That is what my colleague the Minister, Deputy Cullen, announced just over a week ago. It was envisaged that those covered by the emissions trading regime would not be subject to carbon energy tax. The questions the Deputy raised about the carbon energy tax are all dealt with in the published document and referred to in the consultation process. They will be taken account of. If the Deputy wishes to read about this, the information is on the Department's website.
I have seen it.
If he wants to make a submission I will gladly take it into account. No final decisions have been made in the matter of a carbon energy tax. It is a complicated issue. I am glad the Deputy raised some of these matters because we will be taking his concerns into account.
Is the Minister opposed to the tax?
100 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Finance if he will intervene with insurance companies to ensure that flood cover is provided to householders in areas where remedial measures have been taken to prevent renewed flooding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4978/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am not in a position to intervene with insurance companies about the level of premiums or any risks it is willing or unwilling to underwrite. The appropriate regulatory body for the industry is the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority. In November 2002 I initiated a major review of the State's approach to flooding with the primary objective of developing a cohesive national flooding policy. I met with the Irish Insurance Federation, IIF, on 6 December 2002. The IIF welcomed my decision to initiate the review of policy and outlined its views and concerns about the increasing risks from flooding. I indicated that the State would play its part in risk reduction and that the insurance industry would in turn be expected to act in a responsible manner.
I invited the IIF to make a submission to the review group which I established to carry out the policy review. A submission was received and OPW officials subsequently met with the IIF to clarify certain aspects of that submission. These discussions, along with all others involved in the consultation process carried out as part of the policy review, have contributed to the work of the review group. Its report is currently being considered by Departments before being submitted to Government in the near future. I am confident that the recommendations of the report can lead to a much improved flood management regime in Ireland and will in the long term substantially mitigate the impact of flooding on our society.
One of the key components of future flood management strategy is the development of flood maps. These provide valuable information to assist in numerous decision-making processes such as planning and development, flood works prioritisation and assessment of risk. The OPW has commenced work on a flood mapping programme, the first phase of which will be completed in 2005. I remain confident that the increased availability of flood information arising from the production of flood hazard maps and implementation of the other recommendations contained within the report of the policy review group, will reduce exposure to risk from flooding.
As the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, met with the Irish Insurance Federation and indicated that the industry would be expected to act in a responsible manner, does he believe it has so responded? Is he aware that in areas where the State on behalf of taxpayers has spent large amounts of money on well thought-out and planned anti-flooding measures — I do not wish to add to the stigma or problems of residents by naming the areas — insurance companies continue to double premia, to place a loading in excess of €5,000 for flood cover and to refuse cover to those who move into the area, in effect, preventing residents selling houses as without insurance cover, one cannot get a mortgage? Is the Irish Insurance Federation behaving in a responsible manner when it effectively, making no secret of it, blacklists specific areas? Representatives of residents' associations in these areas meeting with individual insurance companies seem to have more success than the Minister of State and the Department in getting the insurance companies to respond responsibly.
Does the Minister of State believe the insurance industry in behaving as I have outlined is acting responsibly? If not, in areas where the State has worked effectively to prevent future flooding, will the Minister of State ensure the insurance companies behave responsibly and provide insurance at a reasonable price?
My remit extends to the OPW and as the Deputy rightly stated, the OPW has completed a programme of substantial works in that area, mitigating the flood risk substantially. Under the new plan, Dublin City Council has applied to the OPW for further funds to carry out additional work which will mitigate the flood risk. It is not within my remit to intervene with insurance companies as to how the insurance premia are set. That is for the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority but I assume, as I stated in my reply, it would be expected to act in a responsible manner. The IIF was invited to make a submission to the flood review group which it did. In its final report that will go to Government shortly, the flood review group has taken on board many of the IIF suggestions and recommendations. In the light of that and further works, I can see no reason that it should not respond in a favourable manner, but it is outside my remit to force it to do so.
The Minister of State has met with the Irish Insurance Federation in advance of the works being carried out. Will he meet it again to discuss the IIF's response to the works, to ensure that it responds positively, having reflected on the points raised by the Minister of State at the previous meeting, by providing insurance cover to residents?
Certainly, if that were to help the situation. The flood review group report is to be submitted to Government and I hope it will be adopted by Government shortly. Following that, I have no difficulty outlining to the IIF and making a case for the measures to be put in place. My officials and I met with the IIF, one of the approximately 100 interested parties that made recommendations across all Departments.
