Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

The amendment is particularly timely because the potential implications of yesterday's figures for the budget turnaround at the end of the year are truly catastrophic. In just two months we are €500 million off in terms of revenue. If this trend continues for the remainder of the year, we will be €3 billion off in our prediction, which would involve serious borrowing. We will be borrowing €8 billion and straining towards the limit of what is allowed under the stability pact.

The Minister published his monthly tax yield predictions just one month ago. It is truly amazing to find that the prediction is €500 million off within one month. I am amazed that he has not issued any explanation or statement on how he hopes to restore confidence. I warned at budget time that it was being framed in an extremely complacent fashion. I stated the Minister was content to persist with a very sloppy approach to public spending that allowed for considerable waste and that there was no impetus for reform in public services. There is no thrust to change the system so as to obtain value for money.

Unfortunately, there have been four budgets in a row under the Minister, many of which fuelled an overheating economy. They were produced for political reasons in the interests of winning an upcoming election but they have hurt the economy and made it uncompetitive. They have copperfastened the decline in our export market, which has featured for five years in a row, and we are losing market share. The Government must take a considerable amount of the blame for this loss of competitiveness.

There is a need for a serious strategy on the part of the Government because its programme for Government was based on tax revenue expectations that simply could not be met. The Minister is steering without a rudder in that the programme for Government, only six months after publication, is meaningless in terms of tax reform predictions and spending commitments. He needs to indicate how he proposes to bring about reform. I am not seeking knee-jerk responses and I am alarmed to see that the Health Service Executive is already seeking cuts of €300 million. As Deputy Kenny stated, that will inevitably affect discretionary front-line services because the bureaucracy will not be unwound.

Serious structural change is required in respect of how public money is spent and how value for money is obtained. It is a question of being able to live within what the economy is delivering rather than engaging in public spending at a rate 50% higher than the rate of growth of the economy. Such spending is not sustainable. We got used to it because stamp duty and other property taxes were the goose laying golden eggs but the goose is not laying golden eggs any more and the victims are the weakest members of our community.

The amendment is important because it would underline the obligation of the Revenue Commissioners to protect the ordinary tax-paying public. It would require the Office of the Revenue Commissioners to pay back what is due to the ordinary punter with the same determination it demonstrates in pursuing those who fail to honour their tax commitments. The Revenue Commissioners have moved a long way but have not taken this on board fully.

I repeat my request to the Minister to ask the Revenue Commissioners to undertake a study of the overpayment of taxes. Although I know he will complain about and object to what Fine Gael proposes, I have done such a study on the back of an envelope and considered the figures in the CSO household budget survey regarding moneys not compensated for through the drug refund and other schemes. It is a question of determining what is spent by ordinary householders on medical expenses. I estimate that tax relief is not claimed on approximately €500 million spent in this regard.

One will find that the number of rented properties, as reported by the CSO, is approximately two and a half times greater than that reported in the Revenue Commissioners' figures as qualifying for tax relief. This is not a one-way street for the Revenue Commissioners because there is no doubt that if they take seriously the restoration of money to those who are entitled to it, they will also catch landlords or other service providers who may not be honouring their obligations. It can be win-win for them. As Deputy Burton stated, there must be fair play on both sides. We give the Revenue Commissioners great powers to pursue those who are not honouring their tax commitments but we expect them to return to ordinary people what is rightfully theirs in equal measure.

I thanked the Minister last year and thank him again for the concession he made on medical relief. By removing the threshold, he made possible a move towards refunding taxpayers at source. He will argue that there are too many players but, with some ingenuity, we can at least begin to make it very simple to lodge a claim at source, even if the refund is not given at source. In other words, as soon as one enters a doctor's surgery, one could sign a form, obtain a receipt and have the transaction included in one's tax return data. At least, the expense would be on record as an expense and the Revenue Commissioners could process it in due course. With some ingenuity we can discover ways to provide refunds at source, particularly in the health sector, the main sector that does not provide for deductions at source.

Deputy Burton tabled the amendment previously and the Minister rejected it but we must make some progress in this matter. I hope the Minister will reinforce the welcome small change he made last year with a request to the Revenue Commissioners to produce a proper, objective report on the amount of tax overpaid and not, as occurred in the past, state it is a matter for taxpayers. He should also consider new ways to offer deductions at source. Can we now use the new provisions for medical relief to effect real change and allow individuals who are often on low or modest incomes to obtain tax relief on their expenditure?

See this speech in context