Tuesday, 2 May 2017

Written Answers Nos. 250-266

Tax Collection

Ceisteanna (250, 251)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

250. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the grounds on which a CAT payment could be delayed or paid in instalments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19600/17]

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

251. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the timeframe in which CAT due is payable; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19601/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

I propose to take Questions Nos. 250 and 251 together.

I am advised by Revenue that there are two important dates that are relevant for the taxation of a gift or an inheritance via Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT). These dates are used for different purposes and are mutually exclusive. Firstly, the date of a gift or, in the case of an inheritance, the date of the death of a disponer, is the date by reference to which the CAT Group Thresholds and tax rates are determined. Secondly, the ‘valuation date’, i.e. the date on which the market value of the assets/property comprising the gift or inheritance is established, is generally the date of the gift or, in the case of an inheritance, is generally the date on which probate or administration is granted. This market value is then compared to the relevant Group Threshold and the tax rate applied as appropriate on any excess of the market value over the threshold. This date also determines when any gift or inheritance tax must be paid and a tax return must be submitted to Revenue.

Where the valuation date for a gift or an inheritance is in the period 1 January to 31 August, a CAT return and payment of CAT due must be made by 31 October in that year. Where the valuation date for a gift or an inheritance is in the period 1 September and 31 December, a CAT return and payment of CAT due must be made by 31 October in the following year.

Where a CAT liability is attributable to a gift or an inheritance of ‘real’ property such as land and/or buildings, a beneficiary has a statutory entitlement to pay this liability by monthly instalments over a period of up to five years. Instalments are subject to the payment of interest at an annual rate of 8% on the amount of the outstanding tax. However, Revenue has the discretion to allow payment of CAT by instalments over a longer period of time in exceptional circumstances where the tax cannot be paid without excessive hardship. In cases of hardship, Revenue also has the discretion to allow payment to be postponed for such period and on such terms (including the waiver of interest) as it thinks fit.

Revenue may also exercise discretion in relation to any property or assets by allowing the payment of CAT over a longer instalment period than the statutory five-year period allowed for ‘real’ property. This discretion can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where the taxpayer can show that payment of the CAT liability by the due date would present significant difficulty. Interest is chargeable on any such late payment. Revenue will consider each case on its merits, taking into account both the financial circumstances of the beneficiary and the nature of the inheritance involved.

Disabled Drivers and Passengers Scheme

Ceisteanna (252, 253)

Michael Ring

Ceist:

252. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Finance if changes have been made to the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations 1994 (SI 353 of 1994), as amended, to confine the definition of a "family member" to that which is used for capital acquisitions tax law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19677/17]

Michael Ring

Ceist:

253. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Finance the reason an application under the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations 1994 by a person (details supplied) has been refused; the basis within SI 353 of 1994 for this refusal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19678/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

I propose to take Questions Nos. 252 and 253 together.

There have been no changes made to the Drivers/Passengers with Disabilities Scheme. The term “family member” is not defined in the legislation governing the scheme and, consequently, the CAT legislation is used as a guideline. However, an application by a “family member” not covered under the CAT legislation, who is living with the person with a disability and who has sole responsibility for the care and transportation of that person, may still qualify for relief.

I am advised by Revenue that the application from the person (details supplied) in respect of the transportation of a disabled passenger (her father-in-law) has been reviewed. As it has been confirmed that the applicant is living with her father-in-law in this case and is solely responsible for his care and transportation, it has been decided to allow the tax relief. The application has been processed accordingly.

Tracker Mortgages Examination

Ceisteanna (254)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

254. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the extent of the legal rights of persons who are in the scope of the tracker review to compensation above and beyond redress; the way the scale of such compensation might be arrived at; the person or body responsible for deciding whether to provide compensation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19705/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The Central Bank has advised that it does not have the statutory power to set compensation levels or to compel lenders to implement redress and compensation programmes in respect of failures that occurred prior to the introduction of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.

As part of the Examination framework, where customer detriment is identified, the Central Bank has clearly articulated its expectations of lenders to provide appropriate redress and compensation to impacted customers in line with prescribed Principles for Redress.

As the Examination progresses, the Central Bank will continue to challenge the position a lender has taken in relation to particular groups of customers to ensure the fair treatment of tracker mortgage customers.

Key elements of the Central Bank’s expectations in respect of redress and compensation for impacted customers include:

- any harm is stopped at the earliest possible time after each group of impacted customers is identified;

- the interest rates applied to impacted customers’ accounts revert to the appropriate tracker interest rate or impacted customers are given the opportunity to revert to such a rate where relevant;

- redress will be provided to impacted customers to return them to the position they would have been in had lenders’ failures not occurred;

- reasonable compensation, that reflects the detriment suffered by individual customers, is provided;

- redress and compensation is to be paid to impacted customers up front at the point of offer and compensation cannot be reduced by virtue of a customer lodging an appeal;

- an additional payment is to be provided to impacted customers at the point of offer to enable them to take independent professional advice regarding the redress and compensation offers made to them;

- an independent appeals process is to be established to address complaints from customers who are dissatisfied with any aspect of the redress and compensation package that they receive from lenders; and

- lenders will undertake not to raise any time limit defences that may otherwise apply if impacted customers make complaints to the Financial Services Ombudsman (the “FSO”) or initiate proceedings before the courts.

The Examination framework also provides that lenders should establish an independent appeals process to deal with customers who are dissatisfied with any aspect of the redress and compensation offers that they receive from lenders in respect of these matters. As the Principles for Redress provide that all redress and compensation payments are made to customers on an upfront basis, customers can accept the redress and compensation offered and still make an appeal. In addition, the impacted customer has the option of bringing a complaint to the FSO or initiating court proceedings.

Template to accompany requests to the Central Bank for material for replies to PQs, Topical Interest Debates (TIDs) and any other briefing that, up to now, went to the Press Office in the Bank

It has been agreed with the Central Bank that this template will be used with effect from 24 May 2012.

From that date also, there will be a dedicated email address for requests. Please use instead of the Press email - [e-mail].

-	Name
Department of Finance contact(s)	John Fitzpatrick, Leonard Wall
Contact telephone numbers	01-6045698 076-1007682
Contact email address	[e-mail] [e-mail]
Deputy submitting PQ or TID	Pearse Doherty
PQ reference number	PQ 19705/17
Date for answer, priority, written or oral	Written, 01/05/2017
Deadline time for reply from the Central Bank	24/04/17 (11am)
	To ask the Minister for Finance the extent of the legal right of persons that are in scope of the tracker review to compensation above and beyond redress; the way the scale of such compensation might be arrived at; the person or body responsible for deciding whether to provide compensation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Draft reply or material for inclusion in reply. This material to be completed in Word in the column opposite to facilitate ‘cut and paste’ in D/Finance	The Central Bank does not have the statutory power to set compensation levels or to compel lenders to implement redress and compensation programmes in respect of failures that occurred prior to the introduction of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (the “2013 Act”). As part of the Examination framework, where customer detriment is identified, the Central Bank has clearly articulated its expectations of lenders to provide appropriate redress and compensation to impacted customers in line with prescribed Principles for Redress. As the Examination continues to progress, we will continue to challenge the position a lender has taken in relation to particular groups of customers to ensure the fair treatment of tracker mortgage customers. Key elements of the Central Bank’s expectations in respect of redress and compensation for impacted customers include: - any harm is stopped at the earliest possible time after each group of impacted customers is identified; - the interest rates applied to impacted customers’ accounts revert to the appropriate tracker interest rate or impacted customers are given the opportunity to revert to such a rate where relevant; - redress will be provided to impacted customers to return them to the position they would have been in had lenders’ failures not occurred; - reasonable compensation, that reflects the detriment suffered by individual customers, is provided; - redress and compensation is to be paid to impacted customers up front at the point of offer and compensation cannot be reduced by virtue of a customer lodging an appeal; - an additional payment is to be provided to impacted customers at the point of offer to enable them to take independent professional advice regarding the redress and compensation offers made to them; - an independent appeals process is to be established to address complaints from customers who are dissatisfied with any aspect of the redress and compensation package that they receive from lenders; and - lenders will undertake not to raise any time limit defences that may otherwise apply if impacted customers make complaints to the Financial Services Ombudsman (the “FSO”) or initiate proceedings before the courts. The Examination Framework also provides that lenders should establish an independent appeals process to deal with customers who are dissatisfied with any aspect of the redress and compensation offers that they receive from lenders in respect of these matters. As the Principles for Redress provide that all redress and compensation payments are made to customers on an upfront basis, customers can accept the redress and compensation offered and still make an appeal. In addition, the impacted customer has the option of bringing a complaint to the FSO or initiating court proceedings.

Tracker Mortgages Examination

Ceisteanna (255)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

255. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the options available to those affected by the tracker scandal who received their redress some years ago but now feel they should be entitled to compensation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19706/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The Tracker Mortgage Examination is the largest, most complex and significant supervisory review that the Central Bank has undertaken to date in the context of its consumer protection mandate, involving a review of more than two million mortgage accounts by lenders.

The Central Bank framework for the Tracker Mortgage Examination requires lenders to review all mortgage accounts, including those that have been redeemed, sold or transferred to another entity by the lender, together with mortgage accounts where the customer has lost possession of the secured property for any reason (including by way of voluntary and involuntary sale).

The Central Bank also expects that customer accounts reviewed as part of previous tracker mortgage related reviews and/or investigations and deemed not impacted as part of those previous reviews/investigations will be reviewed again in accordance with the Framework. However, the Central Bank does not have the statutory power to set compensation levels or to compel lenders to implement redress and compensation programmes in respect of failures that occurred prior to the introduction of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.

The Central Bank has indicated that where borrowers have queries or complaints on tracker related matters they should contact their lender through the formal complaints process.

Template to accompany requests to the Central Bank for material for replies to PQs, Topical Interest Debates (TIDs) and any other briefing that, up to now, went to the Press Office in the Bank.

It has been agreed with the Central Bank that this template will be used with effect from 24 May 2012.

From that date also, there will be a dedicated email address for requests. Please use instead [e-mail].

Department of Finance contact(s)	John Fitzpatrick Leonard Wall
Contact telephone numbers	01-6045698 076-1007682
Contact email address	[e-mail] [e-mail]
Deputy submitting PQ or TID	Pearse Doherty
PQ reference number	PQ 19706/17
Date for answer, priority, written or oral	Written, 01/05/2017
Deadline time for reply from the Central Bank	24/04/17 (11am)
	To ask the Minister for Finance the options available to those affected by the tracker scandal that have received their redress some years ago but now feel they should be entitled to compensation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Draft reply or material for inclusion in reply. This material to be completed in Word in the column opposite to facilitate ‘cut and paste’ in D/Finance	The Tracker Mortgage Examination is the largest, most complex and significant supervisory review that the Central Bank has undertaken to date in the context of its consumer protection mandate, involving a review of more than two million mortgage accounts by lenders. The Framework requires lenders to review all mortgage accounts, including those that have been redeemed, sold or transferred to another entity by the lender, together with mortgage accounts where the customer has lost possession of the secured property for any reason (including by way of voluntary and involuntary sale). The Central Bank also expects that customer accounts reviewed as part of previous tracker mortgage related reviews and/or investigations and deemed not impacted as part of those previous reviews/investigations will be reviewed again in accordance with the Framework. The Central Bank does not have the statutory power to set compensation levels or to compel lenders to implement redress and compensation programmes in respect of failures that occurred prior to the introduction of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (the “2013 Act”). Where borrowers have queries or complaints on tracker related matters, they should contact their lender through the formal complaints process.

Note

Any other relevant information e.g. in the case of oral questions, material which the Central Bank considers could be used for supplementary questions and for briefing the Minister

Department of Finance/Central Bank

May 2012

VAT Rate Application

Ceisteanna (256)

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

256. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the reason counselling and psychotherapy services are treated differently from services provided by doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists in terms of VAT; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19790/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

I am advised by Revenue that the VAT Consolidation Act 2010 (as amended) provides that professional medical care services recognised as such by the Department of Health and Children are exempt from Value Added Tax.

Professional medical care services recognised by the Department of Health and Children are generally those medical care services supplied by health professionals who are enrolled, registered, regulated, or designated on the appropriate statutory register provided for under the relevant legislation in force in the State or equivalent legislation applicable in other countries. This includes health professionals registered under the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, the Nurses Act 1985 and those engaged in a regulated profession designated under Section 4 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005.

Psychotherapy and counselling services are not recognised as a regulated profession under the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 and are therefore precluded from coming within the scope of the exemption. They do, however, benefit from the reduced rate of VAT.

Tracker Mortgages Examination

Ceisteanna (257)

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

257. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of appeals that have been made to the customers appeals panel section relating to a bank (details supplied) in view of the tracker mortgage issue; the number which have been fully upheld, partially upheld and totally dismissed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19792/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

PTSB has provided me with the following information in response to the Deputy’s question:

“Two appeals panels were established in 2015 as an integral part of the Mortgage Redress Programme (MRP) which Permanent TSB Group established to address the issue of 1,372 customers who had been impacted by a failure in relation to their mortgage accounts at the Bank or at its subsidiary, Springboard Mortgages.

"With the agreement of the Central Bank, the Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the Customer Appeals Panel (CAP) were established as independent entities under agreed Terms of References. The IRP was established to hear appeals from impacted customers who had lost ownership of the relevant property or who are now/were previously engaged in legal action with the Group over their mortgage. The CAP was established to hear appeals from all other impacted customers.

"The members of the panels include senior independent representatives from the legal and accountancy professions. Members were proposed by Permanent TSB and the Central Bank was informed of the identities of the individual members prior to their appointments. The panels are serviced by a secretariat which is itself independent of the bank.

"Customers bringing an appeal to either of these panels incur no charges for doing so from either Permanent TSB or from the panels themselves. Customers may bring an appeal even after accepting any payments made by the Bank in respect of the issue with no impact on their appeal what-so-ever. Customers who are unhappy with the outcome of the appeal are still entitled to pursue the matter to the Financial Service Ombudsman and/or the Courts.

"These appeal panels offer a reasonable, fast and cost free method for impacted customers to appeal the redress proposals set out by the Bank. Importantly the redress proposals may be appealed even though the customer has accepted the amounts offered. Taking an appeal to these panels does not limit the customer’s ability to appeal the matter further including to the Courts.

"To date appeals have been submitted to these panels in respect of just 20% of eligible cases (i.e. in respect of 273 accounts of the total population of 1,372 accounts). It should be noted that despite the Bank giving a full 12 months for customers to decide whether to appeal to these panels or not, 59 appeals (including 50 from one individual financial advisor) were submitted after the 12 month deadline had expired. Nevertheless, the panel in question reviewed the merits of each appeal and decided in all cases to allow them to be processed despite being outside the permitted time limit.

"The table details the outcome of appeals submitted. It is supplied by the Independent Secretariat which supports the panels.”

As at 24th April	CAP	IRP	Total
Total appeals submitted	231	42	273
Returned as incomplete	4	4	8
Referred from CAP to IRP	(7)	7	-
Currently in progress	37	18	55
Decided to date	183	27	210
Successful	4	10	14
Partly successful	24	17	41
Not successful	155	-	155

Tax Code

Ceisteanna (258)

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

258. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Finance the consultation his Department has had with his counterparts in the UK in respect of the sugar sweetened drinks tax; if his attention has been drawn to recent announcements in the UK that revenues from the UK soft drinks industry levy are to be ring-fenced for a healthy pupils capital programme; if it will be possible to ring-fence some of the funding generated by the tax for specific purposes; if he has given consideration to same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19824/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

As outlined in Budget 2017, it is my intention to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks in April 2018, which will coincide with the introduction of a similar tax in the UK at that time. Officials from my Department are in contact with their UK counterparts to ensure, once introduced, the tax operates efficiently, fairly and effectively.

In general I am opposed to ring-fencing revenues, as it reduces the flexibility of the Government to prioritise and allocate funds as necessary at a particular time. This constrains expenditure decisions and can distort the allocation of resources resulting in reduced value for money and sub-optimal outcomes. Accordingly, I do not intend to hypothecate sugar-sweetened drinks tax receipts.

Motor Insurance Coverage

Ceisteanna (259)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

259. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to situations in which, when applying for insurance, a driver's experience is not taken into account in circumstances in which the person was a named driver for a number of years but has spent time abroad in intervening years; the rationale for the support of this practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19849/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

As Minister for Finance, I am responsible for the development of the legal framework governing financial regulation. Neither I nor the Central Bank of Ireland can interfere in the provision or pricing of insurance products, as these matters are of a commercial nature, and are determined by insurance companies based on an assessment of the risks they are willing to accept. This position is reinforced by the EU framework for insurance which expressly prohibits Member States from adopting rules which require insurance companies to obtain prior approval of the pricing or terms and conditions of insurance products. Consequently, I am not in a position to direct insurance companies as to the pricing level that they should apply to particular categories of individuals.

I am advised that insurers use a combination of rating factors in making their individual decisions on whether to offer cover and what terms to apply. These terms can include the driving experience of the driver, as well as the type and age of car, the age, claims record and penalty points of the driver, the number of drivers, how the car is used, etc. My understanding is that insurers do not all use the same combination of rating factors, and as a result prices and availability of cover varies across the market. In addition, insurance companies will price in accordance with their own past claims experience.

However, I do accept that it is possible for the State to play a role in helping to stabilise the market and deal with factors contributing to the cost of insurance. Consequently, I established the Cost of Insurance Working Group and appointed Minister of State Eoghan Murphy as Chair. The Report on the Cost of Motor Insurance was published in January 2017. It contains 33 recommendations and 71 actions which are detailed in an action plan contained in the Report with agreed timelines for implementation.

My attention has been drawn to the difficulties faced by drivers who have spent time abroad and subsequently lose recognition for previous driving experience. In order to tackle this issue, the Report recommends that a standard protocol be put in place for insurance companies in order to ensure a greater consistency of treatment for returning emigrants. By the second quarter of this year, insurers are to implement policies to accept driver experience from abroad when a person has previous driving experience in Ireland and is coming from a country that drives on the left side of the road (e.g. UK), and take full account of the experience in that country and previous relevant Irish experience when pricing policy. By the end of the year, this protocol is to be extended to take appropriate account of driving experience gained in countries which drive on the right hand side of the road. My Department is working with Insurance Ireland to ensure that these actions are implemented by the deadlines set down in the Report.

Finally, the Deputy should note that Insurance Ireland operates a free Insurance Information Service for those who have queries, complaints or difficulties in relation to obtaining insurance. Insurance Ireland can be contacted at [e-mail] or 01-6761914.

Brexit Issues

Ceisteanna (260)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

260. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance the estimated cost of the reintroduction of border posts along the Border with Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19890/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The Government's headline priorities in response to Brexit are well known – minimising the impact on trade and the economy; protecting the Northern Ireland Peace Process; maintaining the Common Travel Area; and influencing the future of the European Union. It is quite clear that there are major challenges ahead, for the EU, the UK and for Ireland.

The position in relation to the border with Northern Ireland in the context of Brexit is very clear and has been articulated by the Taoiseach on several occasions and again by Government on the triggering of Article 50. Continued freedom of movement, absence of a hard border, and minimal impact on business and trade are key objectives. The Government is clear that any manifestation of a hard border would have very negative consequences. A key priority is to ensure the continued free flow of trade on the island and the need to avoid a hard border. Clearly in this regard the closer the trading relationship between the UK and EU is more generally the better.

My Department has been preparing for the impact of Brexit since well before the referendum on 23 June 2016, with this work now intensified. The primary areas for the Department of Finance relate to the economic and financial sector implications stemming from Brexit. This work is being undertaken within the whole-of-Government framework established by the Department of the Taoiseach.

The acknowledgement of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, the need to protect the Peace Process and the Good Friday Agreement, and the need to avoid a hard border within the Article 50 negotiating guidelines approved at the European Council meeting on 29 April has been the result of a major Government campaign to ensure our specific concerns are fully recognised. The precise arrangements that will apply after Brexit will depend on the outcome of negotiations between the EU and UK that will now take place following formal notification under Article 50. It is not helpful to pre-empt any particular outcome at this early stage of the process.

Brexit Issues

Ceisteanna (261)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

261. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance the number of staff within the Revenue Commissioners tasked with Brexit-related matters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19891/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

I am advised by Revenue that they, like all Government Departments, have a dedicated Brexit Unit headed by an Assistant Secretary. As the issues arising from Brexit involve many areas of Revenue’s work, the role of the dedicated Brexit Unit (currently 9 full-time equivalents) is to draw together the expertise from relevant specialist areas and provide advice for Government, while working closely with the Department of Finance and within the interdepartmental structures which have been established by the Department of the Taoiseach. Support for the Brexit Unit also involves significant input from areas such as information technology, legislation, international relations, customs, tax and statistics. The Board and Management Committee receive a monthly briefing, and are individually involved in strategic issues.

It is not possible to give an accurate assessment of the full-time equivalent number of persons engaged at any time, but it is the case that the Brexit Unit is at the centre of a major organisation-wide effort to contribute to the protection of Ireland’s interests in the Brexit negotiations and to prepare Revenue to manage the implications arising. The present full-time resource is sufficient for the exploration of possible Brexit scenarios. As more certainty emerges about the likely timescale and arrangements for Brexit, related work will absorb an increasing amount of Revenue’s resources, and new resources will be deployed as required.

Interest Rates

Ceisteanna (262)

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

262. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance his Department's current assessment of future likely developments in interest rates during 2017 and 2018 and of the likely impacts on the economy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19907/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The primary objective of the European Central Bank (ECB) is to maintain price stability within the euro area by implementing monetary policy which is consistent with an inflation rate of below, but close to, 2 per cent over the medium term. As part of this mandate, in accordance with Article 127(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the ECB has the sole responsibility for the definition and implementation of monetary policy within the European Union.

In the face of weak inflation dynamics across the Eurozone in recent years, the ECB has maintained an accommodative interest rate position of close to, and in some cases below, the zero bound on its three key interest rates. In its most recent monetary policy decision of April 27th 2017, the ECB Governing Council (GC) maintained these key interest rates at the levels which have been in operation since March of 2016.

Following the April 2017 meeting, the ECB GC also reaffirmed its expectation that its key interest rates will remain at present or lower levels for an extended period of time, and well past the horizon of its Expanded Asset Purchase Programme (i.e. QE), which is scheduled to continue until the end of December 2017 at the earliest, or until a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with the stated aim of the ECB is observed.

In the recently published Stability Programme Update for 2017, the Department of Finance provided estimates of the impact of a 1 percentage point increase in the main ECB interest rate (i.e. main refinancing operations) on a range of economic indicators over the period from 2017 to 2021. Based on this analysis, such an increase would lead to Irish output being 1.3 per cent below the “no interest rate change" baseline forecast by 2018 and unemployment being 0.3 percentage points higher than baseline over the same time horizon.

Tax Data

Ceisteanna (263)

Michael Collins

Ceist:

263. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Finance if the Revenue Commissioners publish the figures for uncollected income tax for each previous year and the total amount written off to date by each year; if so, the location this information can be found; if it is subject to audit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19909/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The total amounts of tax written out each year are documented in Revenue’s Annual Report. For the Deputy’s information the various Annual Reports are available on the Revenue website at http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/annual-reports.html.

The details of tax written out each year are provided to the Comptroller & Auditor General for examination and are also examined internally by Revenue’s own Internal Audit Unit. To ensure full transparency of the internal audit function, the Unit is overseen by Revenue’s Audit Committee, which mainly comprises of non-Revenue personnel, including its chairperson.

For the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, Revenue wrote out amounts totalling €228m, €170m and €211m respectively. The Income Tax element of the overall amounts was €40.95m, €25.26m and €42.85m. These figures should be viewed in the context of net collection amounts of €41.4Bn, €45.79Bn and €47.97Bn.

Vehicle Registration

Ceisteanna (264)

Noel Grealish

Ceist:

264. Deputy Noel Grealish asked the Minister for Finance his views on the impact the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice in a case (details supplied) will have on the issue of vehicle registration tax; the implications for persons here driving borrowed vehicles from Northern Ireland on a short-term basis and persons driving leased vehicles from another jurisdiction for the purpose of their employment; his plans for the recovery of part of the vehicle registration tax that may have been paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19930/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

Firstly, I would like to clarify the background. The EU Commission have purported that Ireland has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 56 (freedom to provide services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union due to the Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) treatment of vehicles that are brought into the State on a temporary basis.

The Case was heard in the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the 22 November 2016. The Court has not given its ruling yet. However, the Advocate General delivered his opinion on the Case on 2 March 2017. In his opinion the Advocate General proposed that the Court should find that the action brought by the Commission was well founded.

However, I must strongly emphasise that the Advocate General's Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court now begin their deliberations in this case and judgment will be given at a later date- normally in 2 to 3 months. In cases such as this it is not exceptional the Court take a different position to the Advocate General.

I do not intend to speculate on implications of the Court judgment in advance of the delivery of the judgment.

Insurance Industry

Ceisteanna (265)

Robert Troy

Ceist:

265. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance when the recommendations in the insurance report will have an effect on insurance premiums in 2017. [19952/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The Cost of Insurance Working Group, chaired by Minister of State Eoghan Murphy T.D., finalised its Report on the Cost of Motor Insurance in December 2016 and it was published on 10 January 2017. The Report makes 33 recommendations with 71 associated actions to be carried out in agreed timeframes, which are set out in an Action Plan.

Work is ongoing on the implementation of the recommendations by the relevant Government Departments and Agencies with the 71 action points due to be implemented by the end of 2018 and 45 scheduled for completion by the end of this year.

There is a commitment within the Report that the Working Group will prepare quarterly reports on its progress and my Department will publish the first report on the implementation of the recommendations in the next week or two. This report will provide an update on the progress to date on the overall implementation of the Report, with a particular focus on action points due for completion in the first quarter of 2017. This update will cover actions such as the establishment of the Personal Injuries Commission in January and the issuing of a key aggregated metrics template to insurance undertakings for completion.

There is no simple or single solution to the problem of increasing insurance prices. However, it is envisaged that the implementation of all the recommendations cumulatively, with the appropriate levels of commitment and cooperation from all relevant stakeholders, should achieve the objective of delivering fairer premiums for consumers. This in turn should lead to greater stability in the pricing of motor insurance and help prevent the volatility that we have seen in the market in the past. It should also better facilitate potential new entrants to the market.

Tax Rebates

Ceisteanna (266)

Brendan Griffin

Ceist:

266. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Finance the annual cost of increasing the rebate under the Med 1 scheme from 20% to 25%, 30% and 33.5%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19956/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

I am informed by Revenue that the cost of claims for tax relief on health expenses to 2014, the most recent tax year for which data are currently available, is located on the Revenue Commissioners’ webpage at http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/costs-expenditures.html. Updates will be published in due course.

On the basis of the cost to the Exchequer in 2014 of €145.9m, it is estimated that the additional cost of increasing the rate of relief available in respect of health expenses from 20% to 25%, 30% and 33.5% would be in the order of €29m, €58m and €79m respectively. This costing is based on the premise that the current provision granting relief due for Nursing Home fees at the taxpayer's highest rate of Income Tax would continue to apply and that relief for all other health expenses would be granted at the respective rates suggested by the Deputy.