Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

The market was segmenting. Citizens could see that some plans were geared to couples in their child bearing years, where maternity benefits were being offered and sports injuries were being included as well as teeth whitening. These products are not of interest to older people, so within a specific plan everybody will have to pay the same rate. However, the manner in which different products were being covered was leading to market segmentation.

This is not about protecting any company, but rather older people. The revenue implications of this are neutral. The money coming in will go back in the form of enhanced tax relief for those aged 50 and over. Obviously, it will be higher for those aged 60 to 70 and higher again for people older than that. The reality is that if one company has 320 times more 80 year olds than another, we know that health insurance costs associated with an 80 year old are twice those for a 40 year old — or a 60 year old will cost twice, on average, what a 30 year old costs. There is no getting away from that.

I do not believe the Government, in the light of the Supreme Court decision, had any alternative but to advance what we have advanced. It requires EU approval and I made it clear there would be no point in bringing the legislation before the House if we have either to change it or cannot proceed with it. As soon as there is a response from the EU, which we expect early in the new year, the intention is to bring the legislation forward if we are in a position to do so.

See this speech in context