Priority Questions.
1 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he has examined the take-up of tax relief for pension contributions across different income categories; if he has satisfied himself with the incentives in the tax code for the provision for old age; and if the maturity of SSIAs offers an opportunity to promote a wider provision for pensions. [7436/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe latest figures published in the 2003 annual report of the Revenue Commissioners indicate that in the short tax year, April to December 2001, the cost of tax relief on pension contributions was tentatively estimated at approximately €2 billion. It is not possible at present to examine the take up of the tax relief for all pension contributions across different income categories. This is because the relevant information is not available to the Revenue Commissioners as the tax relief for pension contributions for employees is normally given at source, that is, the taxable income is the income net of pension contributions by employees.
However, data are available in respect of the tax relief for contributions to retirement annuity contracts, RACs, across different income categories. Retirement annuity contracts are used by the self-employed and by employees who are not in pensionable employment. It is intended to examine these data in the context of the review of pension reliefs which forms part of the review of tax reliefs for high earners.
There are a number of tax measures to make provision for old age. These include capital allowances in respect of nursing homes and housing for the aged and infirm, relief for health expenses which includes relief for approved nursing home fees, a carer's allowance and a home carer's tax credit as well as tax relief for payments to over 65 year olds under deeds of covenant. These provisions clearly indicate that the Government continues to have the best interests and long-term care of the elderly in our society at the top of its agenda.
Regarding the maturity of SSIAs, the use to which the SSIA moneys are put is ultimately a matter for the individual account holder. Any suggestion for further incentives by way of tax concessions to facilitate further savings on pension contributions will have to be judged in the overall context of Government priorities and resource constraints.
I am surprised at the sanguine view the Minister takes of tax relief for pension contributions. More than half of workers do not have pension cover and these are predominantly low income earners. Does the Minister agree that there is a real difficulty with the distribution of pension benefits? At the top end, people have unlimited opportunities if an employer is contributing to a pension for a director. On the other hand, many ordinary workers have no pension cover. Does the Minister not agree that there is a need for action to address this huge gap both in terms of equity and lack of pension cover?
Does he not agree that the SSIAs pose the risk of a considerable increase in consumer spending which could have an inflationary impact? Is there not, therefore, a great opportunity to examine pump priming pension cover, particularly for the lower paid who took the opportunity to participate in the savings scheme?
Tax relief for pension contributions is not unlimited. Relief on contributions to personal pensions and PRSAs is limited to a certain percentage of remuneration which rises with age, 15% to 30% for age 50 years and above. The employer contribution to PRSAs is aggregated with the employee contribution for the purposes of tax relief limits.
With regard to occupational pensions, where relief for employee contributions, including additional voluntary contributions, AVCs, is limited to an age related scale of 15% to 30% of earnings, there is no monetary or percentage limit in respect of relief given for employer contributions. The limitation on the employer contribution is by reference to actuarial guidelines in meeting funding requirements for the maximum pension of two thirds of final salary. This means that, unlike personal pensions where the control is on the relief given, the control here lies in the limitation of benefits paid. Furthermore, relief for employee contributions and contributions to personal pensions is capped at an earnings figure of €254,000.
Pension coverage is an issue that must be kept under review. The policy response must meet the challenge that confronts us. The CSO survey on pension coverage reveals that the coverage rate for persons in employment in the first quarter of 2004 was 52.4%. It has indicated it will complete its full survey of pension coverage towards the end of this year and it expects it to be published in the first half of 2006. The Pensions Board is also doing some work on this which might well be available in the middle of this year.
With regard to SSIA account holders, legislation on PRSAs was introduced in 2002. It would be desirable to monitor the up-take of these accounts before considering the need for incentives such as eliminating exit tax for SSIA funds which are eventually transferred to PRSAs.
The Minister said during the week that Fianna Fáil is the best party for the working man. However, the truth is that many working men do not have pension cover. The Minister must accept that there is an urgent case for enhancing the incentives to ordinary earners to get pension cover. At present, there is almost three times the incentive for people on high income to contribute to pensions than for people on low income. There is no justice in that. Would the Minister not take a more urgent approach than talking about long-term reviews and confirm that this is a priority and that he intends to tackle it?
The Pensions Board is due to report in mid-year on pensions coverage. That is not a long-term review.
The Minister did not indicate that he would act on it.
Obviously, I must wait to see what is in the report. If the Deputy knows what is in the report already, he has an advantage. The Pensions Board, which has a statutory remit in this area, is addressing this issue. It will come forward with ideas and recommendations as a result of the work it is doing.
With regard to what will happen with the SSIA scheme, we are monitoring that situation. I do not wish to indicate at this remove what, if any, response there will be from Government. It is better to monitor the situation. Obviously, I am examining the issue but it is not an issue on which the Government has come to a firm view.
2 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if he has plans to extend the remit of the IFSRA or the Central Bank to regulate companies which advance money from their own resources secured on assets such as property, especially in view of the fact that the advisory group on this sector recommended in 1999 that such businesses be regulated and in view of the reported extensive activities of a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7296/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraAll financial service providers that provide loans secured on a person's principal private residence are subject to the provisions of Part IX of the Consumer Credit Act. This is as a result of an amendment to the Act made last year, following consideration of a recommendation in the 1999 McDowell report.
The Consumer Credit Act is the principal source of protection to personal borrowers. The Act subjects all lenders who provide finance on the security of the family home to a range of obligations. These include: provision of a written loan agreement, quoting the APR and any other fees that will be charged; a requirement to warn the borrower about the risk of losing their home; and an obligation to put mortgage protection insurance in place. Apart from the special case of the family home, the Act does not apply where a loan is given for a commercial purpose.
There is no statutory oversight of interest rates except for the special case of moneylenders who come within the scope of Part VIII of the Consumer Credit Act. This special category of lender typically provides short-term loans to poor credit risks at very high APRs. Such lenders are required to hold a moneylender's licence and the financial regulator can refuse to grant such a licence on the grounds that the cost of credit is excessive. The requirement to hold such a licence and the corresponding oversight of interest rates only applies to this specialist category of lender.
The financial regulator already has the power under the Consumer Credit Act to give directions to a mortgage lender about misleading advertising as well as to prosecute for breaches of the Act. In addition, under the legislation establishing the regulator, its consumer director has responsibility for monitoring the provision of financial services to consumers generally and has the power to require a provider of such services to furnish information relevant to any inquiry or study that the director chooses to undertake.
I am at present consulting the Financial Services Ombudsman Council about the financial service providers not regulated by the financial regulator that should be brought within the scope of the Financial Services Ombudsman, when the ombudsman commences operations on 1 April. The ombudsman has extensive powers to provide redress to consumers who have been unfairly treated by a financial service provider. Subject to the views of the council, I can see merit in including those mortgage lenders who provide loans secured on a person's principal residence.
Criminal activity, including money-laundering, by financial service providers or any other persons is governed by criminal justice legislation. This is enforced by the Garda Síochána and the Criminal Assets Bureau. All entities whose primary business is lending are subject to the know your customer, reporting and other obligations under money-laundering legislation. Their professional advisers, such as accountants and solicitors, are also subject to these reporting requirements. All companies are subject to the enhanced company law regime that has been put in place in recent years, including the oversight role of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. The financial regulator's role regarding compliance by regulated institutions with money laundering, tax and company law is purely supportive.
Does the Minister agree that this type of company should be fully regulated by IFSRA and, therefore, the remit of the authority should be extended to cover this type of company? I do not know if the Minister shares the shock of most people who heard reference to a company, Chesterton Finance, in media reports concerning Garda investigations into money laundering and the Provisional IRA and other paramilitaries. I received the same reply as the Minister from the Director of Consumer Affairs in regard to Part IX of the Consumer Credit Act 1995. Does the Minister think this sufficient? For example, a prominent partner in one of the largest accountancy practices was offering potential investors in this company 10% returns, well above ordinary interest rates and, therefore, attractive in the context of the potential for money lending.
Does the Minister know how many such entities are unregulated? Does he know the amount of lending which may be undertaken by such companies? Such companies have had dubious reputations in the past, particularly where they have lent money on the security of land, generally lending about half the value of the land which they hold as a mortgage. The Minister may be aware that these companies also apply stringent terms and conditions and high interest rates on the loans they provide. Does the Minister share the view of the McDowell committee in 1999 that such entities should be regulated? While the original plan was that regulation of IFSRA was to operate through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, once it came into the ambit of the Central Bank and the Department of Finance, this appears to have been blocked. Will the Minister comment on this matter?
The specific information the Deputy seeks on the amount that can be borrowed and the numbers of institutions involved is not immediately available to me but I will make it available to her. With regard to the point on companies linked to money laundering and the allegations in regard to IRA criminal activity, the main purpose of the financial regulator's supervision of financial services providers is the stability of the financial system and the protection of individuals who entrust financial institutions with their money. While the financial regulator has a general obligation to support other State agencies such as the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners by providing them with reports on relevant matters which come to its attention in the course of its activities, this role is a supportive one.
The Criminal Justice Act 1994, as amended, provides, among other things, for the offence in law of money laundering and includes measures to counteract money laundering, which includes the concealment, disguise, conversion, transfer or removal from the State of any property, including money, which is or represents the proceeds of criminal activity. The obligation of clients of financial institutions in general therefore applies also to non-deposit-taking mortgage lenders. The obligations also apply to auditors, accountants, tax advisers and lawyers. The financial regulator is even obliged to report any suspicions it may form in regard to a body supervised by it to comply with the identification, records and reporting requirements.
The Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman, which commences operation on 1 April, will have extensive powers to investigate complaints and order redress where a customer has been unfairly treated, and such redress could include a direction to change a practice complained of and award financial compensation. This is the avenue we should explore and on which I hope to make decisions before 1 April.
That does not answer the point that this area is not regulated by IFSRA. We have set up an expensive and extensive regulation model. However, a letter in my possession from the Director of Consumer Affairs indicates that the only powers of oversight that exist are in regard to the Consumer Credit Act 1995. Will the Minister agree to extend the powers of IFSRA specifically to cover this area, as recommended in the McDowell report?
The question arises whether we should apply it to those bodies which do not take money deposits as part of their operations. As I stated, the Financial Services Ombudsman Council may well be the best avenue in this regard. We will consider the matter in that context.
3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Finance if he will report on progress to date at EU level to secure the extension of the PEACE II programme until 2006; if he has also pressed for a successor programme or programmes, that is, PEACE III, to build on the achievements of PEACE II; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7385/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Government is aware of the valuable role the PEACE II programme has played in building peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border region and that there continues to be a need for such funding. Therefore, I am glad to report that we have recently secured an extension of the PEACE programme to 2006. The extension has been adopted on foot of the conclusions of the Heads of State meeting in June 2004 which, responding to a joint initiative by the two Prime Ministers concerned, the Taoiseach and British Prime Minister, invited the Commission to examine the possibility of extending the programme to 2006. It was approved by the European Parliament on 14 January 2005 and by Council on 24 January 2005.
The operational programme detailing the priorities and measures for the extended programme was submitted to the Commission on 11 February 2005 jointly by my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel in the North. The submission took account of an extensive public consultation carried out last summer by the special EU programmes body which manages the programme. There was a very good response to this consultation, including more than 70 written responses and a wide attendance at public meetings. This shows the high level of public engagement with the PEACE II programme.
Although the extension of the programme was agreed only five weeks ago, we are already turning our attention to the post-2006 situation. Under the terms of the programme agreed, spending may continue up to 2008. The question of what will happen when the extension runs out is one which will have to be reviewed by the two Governments in consultation with the European Commission. This is under active consideration at present.
I welcome the good progress made and the confirmation that the European Parliament has formally ratified the extension of PEACE II to 2006. The programme is very important for communities in the Border counties and the Six Counties which still experience, as we all recognise, the legacy of partition, conflict and neglect over decades. The previous Minister stated in reply to a question from me on this issue last year that a new programme beyond 2006 would be considered in due course. While I note what the Minister has just stated on the consideration of this matter by the Irish and British Governments, is it also being addressed at EU level? Will the Minister be more specific in this regard?
We addressed the Taoiseach yesterday on the absence of infrastructural investment in the Border counties as part of the overall Border, midlands and west region. Does the Minister accept that the supports under PEACE II should at all times be in addition to and not substitutes for normal State investment in regard to infrastructural development or other initiatives that come under the ambit of the PEACE II programme and, it is to be hoped, a PEACE III programme which will follow?
I understand concerns have been raised that while training for women in the child care sector was funded under PEACE II, this may not be continued under the extension to 2006. I am not privy to the detail of this matter. Is the Minister aware of the concerns raised and can he provide further information in this area?
An extension to the end of 2006 will bring the programme in line with other Structural Funds programmes. Therefore, a new PEACE III programme could not be sought until then. Both Governments wanted to ensure that a gap period did not occur and, therefore, an extension rather than a new programme was sought at that stage. The question of whether there will be a PEACE III programme will be considered in the context of the budget discussions for 2007-13, financial perspectives which are being discussed in respect of all programmes and policies thereafter. What we were doing here was to make sure that this programme which was due to end last year was extended to bring it in line with other structural funds programmes so that one could make the argument thereafter.
Regarding the funding arrangements, the total fund of €707 million, including Exchequer and other matching funds, has been made available to projects in Northern Ireland and the six Border counties in PEACE II between 2000 and the end of 2004. The EU contribution was €531 million, with a ratio of 80:20, four to one respectively between North and South. The Border region has received €106 million in Structural Funds, an average of about €21 million annually, plus additional Exchequer support of €35 million over the five years. Under the terms of the programme, 15% of total funding was allocated for promoting and supporting cross-Border activity. The amount available, including the maximum funding in 2005, totals €80 million. This breaks down to €56 million to Northern Ireland and €24 million to the Border region. These are independent of or in addition to the national development plan programme rolling out the regional development objectives of the BMW region.
As regards the specifics on the opportunities for women, I have not got the information available as to whether that is covered in the child care sector of the extended PEACE II programme.
I would be grateful if the Minister would be good enough to come back to me when he establishes the position because it is a matter of concern whether the extension of the PEACE II programme also covers women in the child care sector in terms of what is applied heretofore.
Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that we are now looking at both Governments addressing what might apply post-2006 and that there is not yet an EU dimension to what might then come into play? Will the Minister be more specific in that area?
Is the Minister familiar with the report entitled Building on Peace: Supporting Peace and Reconciliation after 2006, which was produced by a consortium of cross-Border bodies based at European House in my home town of Monaghan? If the Minister is not familiar with it, I commend it to him. It is an excellent case for a PEACE III programme and I hope it is being factored into the consideration of both administrations in deciding what is to happen from 2007 onwards.
In recognition of the important role that PEACE I and PEACE II have played, I ask the Minister to affirm his commitment and that of the Government to advance to a PEACE III programme. That is very important for those counties.
The extension proposal contains European agricultural guidelines as regards the fund and financial instruments for fisheries guidance funding, increased funding for and focus on reconciliation, more capacity building for groups such as ethnic minorities and Protestant working class communities, continued focus on economic and social projects, specific tourism measures and a continued focus on cross-Border co-operation. This is all as a result of the public consultation process.
My reading of the final part of the draft as recently delivered by Minister Pearson in Northern Ireland on Monday, 7 March, is that it would send a clear signal that the current extension of the PEACE II programme would complete the work and that there might not, therefore, be a successor programme. Our view is that in advance of sending such signals there should first be proper consultations with the stakeholders and given the political aspects of the questions, we imagine these consultations should take the form of Government to Government discussions, and that the views of the European Commission should be sought.
It also highlights the point that successful conclusions to the peace process would be the best way of maintaining the extra goodwill we have had up to now regarding this programme, and everyone should take up that responsibility.
4 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he has satisfied himself that the tax treatment of different categories of parents with children takes proper account of the financial pressures on them; and if he has plans to address this aspect of the tax code. [7437/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraI assume what the Deputy mainly has in mind is support through the tax system for child care. The Government's policy is that child benefit is the main instrument through which support is provided for parents with children. One of the main advantages of this approach is that whereas tax relief would be of little or no benefit to those with low incomes, the provision of support for parents through the child benefit route means equality of treatment for all recipients.
The Government has substantially increased child benefit since coming into office in 1997. Overall expenditure on child benefit has increased by 279% from €506 million when the Government came into office in 1997 to an estimated €1,916 million in 2005. On the supply side, the provision of formal child care places is being stimulated through a programme of investment under the national development plan equal opportunities childcare programme, about which there were further announcements today. Over the next five years, about 17,000 places are expected to be created under this programme. The Government has also undertaken measures to favour the supply of child care by tax incentives to set up facilities and relief from benefit-in-kind taxation for free or subsidised child care where this is provided by employers. Taken together, these represent substantial measures to assist with the cost of child care.
In addition, the tax system treats parents with dependent children more favourably than persons with no dependent children, in recognition of the additional financial burden associated with parenthood. This is done mainly through the one parent family tax credit, the widowed parent tax credit, the incapacitated child tax credit and the home carer tax credit. Persons who qualify for the one parent family tax credit, including widowed parents, qualify for the associated standard rate band cut-off point which is €33,400 in 2005. This is €4,000 greater than that which applies for a single person.
Since the Minister has indicated that child care assistance is through the child benefit system, is he aware that child care costs in the provinces are approaching €150 weekly and €200 weekly in the city, while child benefit is no more than €130 monthly? How can this be a measure to help with child care if the money falls so far short?
The Minister said in his reply that equality of treatment for all is important. How can he say there is equality of treatment? For example, separated parents of a child get four times the tax credit anyone else would get. A married couple living together gets the double allowance, the married couple's allowance, while an unmarried couple living together gets the single allowance. How can the Minister say the system is promoting equality while a separated couple, be they married or a couple who have just separated, gets four times the tax credit given to an unmarried couple living together?
The Minister mentioned the spouse's home carer's allowance. That has not increased in value since it was introduced and remains at €770 per annum. It affects couples where one spouse stays at home. Such couples are severely discriminated against under the tax code. They attract the top rate of tax when their annual income reaches €38,000. If their income is greater than that they pay a lot more in tax than a couple with one spouse going out to work. Does the Minister agree it is time those issues were addressed?
As I said, since this Government came to office in 1997 child care benefit has increased by nine times the rate of inflation during the period. That is a fair indication of the effort being made. It is always a question of resources. Clearly, child benefit does not defray all family child care costs, nor was it designed to do so. It was, however, recognised as being probably the best mechanism by which support would be provided for families. It was not meant to defray the total costs of family requirements but would certainly be of some assistance to them. The fact of the benefit increasing at a rate of nine times more than the consumer price index is a fair indication that the policy of the Government has been to use that benefit as a means of providing some assistance in these circumstances.
The home care tax credit, which is €770 per annum and may be claimed by a jointly assessed married couple where one spouse remains in the home to care for one or more dependants, was not increased in the budget but was the only credit that was not increased. The one-parent family, widowed parent and incapacitated child tax credits were increased. The Deputy is entitled to highlight the only one that was not increased but I am entitled to mention the other increases. The home care tax credit was introduced in the Finance Act 2000 and was designed to recognise the contribution made by a spouse who remains working in the home. The provision is intended to assist in cases where a spouse has forfeited a second income to care for dependants in the home.
The Deputy asked why double income married couples get nothing extra through the tax code in respect of their children. It is a question of targeting resources. Under Government policy, the main instrument through which the State provides support for parents with children is the child benefit system. Expenditure on it is more than €1.9 billion, which is a not inconsiderable amount. I have no plans to move away from that approach but we will keep the issue under review.
The Minister has not delivered.
The focus of the Minister's attention on child care is the child benefit system but that does not provide adequate help to alleviate financial pressure on married couples. Many people pay an amount for child care equivalent to their mortgage repayment each month. It is a significant burden on young working couples who have managed to purchase a house and who are trying to rear children. Does the Minister concede his efforts through the child benefit system are inadequate and do not meet the needs of young couples and that he must refocus his attention on others method to help them with child care costs?
The matter is kept under review. It is a challenge to the system to see what way we can do this but every Member accepts that using a tax credit for child care has a significant discriminatory effect against low income couples.
There are ways around that.
One can devise a range of measures but it is a question of targeting resources. We have trebled that resource since coming into office from €531 million to €1.9 billion, which represents a considerable transfer of funds to this area. An extra €1.3 billion is going into the child benefit system. Progress is being made and those who have problems with it have yet to come up with alternatives.
The Minister is losing thousands of workers.
The Deputy should keep an eye on the four seater. He has enough on his own plate rather than worrying about me.
I am safe enough.
5 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement on his address to the lunch of Financial Services Ireland on 21 February 2005, particularly his reported statement that the compensation bill arising from the Supreme Court decision on the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 would result in lower spending elsewhere; the anticipated amount by which spending will have to be reduced; and if specific areas have been identified for such reduction. [7297/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Supreme Court decision on the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill has significant expenditure implications. The issue of repaying the money has been referred to a special Cabinet sub-committee comprising the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Attorney General and myself.
The Revised Estimates Volume, which I recently published, provides for a 13% increase in estimated health expenditure in 2005. Repayments will be made from the Health Service Executive Vote and, as made clear in the recent Revised Estimates Volume, a Supplementary Estimate will be brought forward for the costs arising in 2005 on foot of the recent Supreme Court decision. There will be no cutbacks in the Estimate for the health services this year or in other departmental Estimates to pay for this Supplementary Estimate.
Given the number of people involved and the complexity in calculating the repayments due, it is likely that the repayment of moneys will take time. Claims falling for payment after 2005 will be a charge on the Vote for subsequent years and the required funding will be accommodated within the overall spending plans for those years.
Is the Minister aware of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children's statement earlier that she has been advised 300,000 people affected by the Supreme Court ruling are likely to claim? Has the Minister estimated the cost of these claims? He commented on 21 February that the cost would be approximately €500 million. However, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children's statement indicates a much higher figure of between €1 billion and €3 billion. Has the Minister had an opportunity to examine the costing? He stated prior to the Financial Services Ireland lunch that the Supreme Court ruling would result in lower spending elsewhere in the health service. He contradicted himself in his reply in regard to 2005 by stating he will introduce a Supplementary Estimate. I would like him to reconcile those statements. Has he identified the areas in which there will be lower spending? When is that likely to occur?
I am glad to clarify that I never made those comments. The Deputy has referred to an inaccurate interpretation of what I said, which related to questions I was asked prior to the lunch referred to by the Deputy. I stated the blindingly obvious. I was asked who pays for it; the taxpayer pays. I was asked what impact this would have on future spending; I replied that the amount to pay for this could have been used in other areas. That was interpreted subsequently as a statement about specific cuts, which were never mentioned. I made four attempts to have it corrected and it was finally reasonably well corrected by the following day. People have the tapes. It was an incorrect interpretation. I was asked a question and I stated the blindingly obvious. I never mentioned a figure on this matter because I do not know what the figure is nor does the Department. That will not be known until one tries to quantify what is involved. People can make guesstimates but I have no intention of doing so.
In addition, a number of families may not claim refunds because they were happy with the service provided and do not have a problem.
There will not be too many.
The Deputy will be surprised.
Few people will look a gift horse in the mouth and turn back.
A number of people commented on radio in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling that they had no intention of claiming. I do not suggest how many will do so but families will come to their own conclusions as to whether they wish to claim. I am not commenting on whether they should but some people are happy with the service and may not claim. I know people who feel that way about it.
I also know people who are happy with the service but I do not know that they will look a gift horse in the mouth.
Those who are entitled to claim will be paid. We will seek to devise as expeditious a way as possible of providing for what is due to them. We are still considering this at Cabinet based on legal advice and decisions must be taken on the logistics involved.
Does the Minister accept the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children's statement earlier that there are 300,000 potential claimants? If so, does he agree the sum involved, regardless of whether everybody claims, will be significantly higher than first estimated? He stated this will have an impact on health spending. Has he identified the areas on which there will be an impact, particularly since a significantly higher number of claimants is involved?
In the context of the trolleys and the accident and emergency disaster, many people are concerned about the implications of the Minister's statement of 21 March for health services.
The purpose of Question Time is to clarify those situations, and despite my clarification, the Deputy is seeking to continue misrepresenting my position. It was stated in this House by the Tánaiste, confirmed by me in an interview when attending the ECOFIN meeting the week before the interview to which the Deputy referred and has been made clear by the Government that we will introduce a Supplementary Estimate regarding that matter this year. A Supplementary Estimate does not impact on the current Revised Estimates Volume which has been published.
For 2005.
That is the position, and when I am asked about this situation, I presume that people have taken on board the clear Government position stated by the Tánaiste in this House last week. I was asked the following week who pays for it; the taxpayer does. I said that the impact would be as follows. Whatever liability the State is deemed to owe families, estates or people who are still alive, we will pay according to the law and the money will be diverted from other purposes. That much is a statement of the blindingly obvious. That was the generality of the statement; no more specifics were involved. It was subsequently interpreted in the way that the Deputy has suggested, and as I have said, that is not my position. Neither did I state that on that occasion or any other.
Regarding the question of Estimates, as I have said, only guesstimates have been mentioned on this matter hitherto. We are not able to estimate accurately what it would mean. Regarding the figure that the Tánaiste mentioned yesterday, if the Deputy counts back over the period, she will see that the numbers of people who have come through the system are estimated, according to the figures that I saw, at approximately 275,000. What amount will be due to any of those people is a matter still to be decided based on legal advice and is being considered by the Government. That is the exact overall situation, and there is no other. Further Supplementary Estimates or payments beyond this year will be taken in the normal course of events based on the resources available. As the Deputy is aware, in my Budget Statement I estimated 5% growth in the economy this year.
