Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 17: To ask the Minister for Finance his plans to extend the scope of the tax review currently being undertaken to include additional tax shelters requiring assessment; and if these review studies will be published well ahead of budget 2006 in order that there will be adequate opportunity for the House to consider their implications for tax policy. [18652/05]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I announced in my Budget Statement that my Department and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners are undertaking a detailed review of certain tax incentive schemes and exemptions during the course of this year.

On 9 April I announced the award of two external consultancy contracts for the reviews. One consultancy firm is examining the area-based urban, town and rural renewal schemes and the living-over-the-shop schemes while another is examining various sectoral property tax incentive schemes, namely, multi-storey car parks, park and ride facilities, student accommodation, third-level buildings, hotels, holiday cottages, nursing homes, private hospitals, sports injury clinics, child care facilities and refurbishment of rented residential accommodation.

I made it clear at the time of the budget that the review will also involve the examination by my Department and the Revenue Commissioner of certain other tax reliefs and exemptions and specifically mentioned those of stallions, woodlands, artists and greyhounds. Others which I have decided should be looked at for the budget are the reliefs for interest on loans to invest in companies or partnerships, significant buildings and gardens, donations, patent income and certain pensions reliefs.

These reviews are scheduled to be completed in time to inform the development of the 2006 budget and Finance Bills. I am not in a position to indicate any likely publication date for these studies.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister mentioned at the time of the budget that he would be conducting reviews. Is he reviewing every available concession or tax break? Are they all eligible for review at this time? He indicated that one consultancy firm is examining urban and rural renewal schemes and another is examining other types of schemes. Has the Minister initiated a review of all the schemes that are in place? Are other consultancy firms involved in the review, apart from the two he mentioned?

The Tánaiste recently indicated that she was in favour of extending the tax breaks available in the health sector. How does that knit with the Minister's stated intention to curtail tax breaks available for very rich people? Has he discussed the matter with the Tánaiste or the Cabinet? Perhaps the Minister could indicate who might win that particular battle. If one invests equity of €75,000 in the health sector one is guaranteed a cash profit of €62,760. Does the Minister agree that taxpayers should facilitate such returns to obviously very rich people?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Any Minister of Finance would review the schemes, the way in which they interact with the economic and social priorities of the day and whether he or she wishes to continue with them or change, add to or detract from them. In this case, having taken up office shortly before my budget, I put in place a more structured review system and obtained consultancy help in looking at the schemes which I have outlined. Other schemes are continually under review by the Department and Revenue Commissioners which would be the case going into a budgetary process.

The BES and film relief schemes have been reviewed within the past 18 months and are already subject to caps and limitations. These, together with the seed capital scheme, will be examined during the review in terms of whether potential horizontal measures to limit the ability of high earners to substantially reduce their tax contribution should include these schemes.

With regard to share options, the schemes are considered very important in terms of social partnership and by business in general and are subject to conditions in order to qualify. We have no evidence from data and reports that share options are used by high earners to reduce their income tax liability and therefore it is not considered that they need to be examined in the context of the review. That is the situation with regard to what is being looked at and the reasons for it.

The Tánaiste indicated her interest in the prospect of certain private investment in the provision of health facilities. She was generally well-disposed to the idea and stated that it was ultimately a matter for the Department of Finance and Government in a budgetary context beyond this review to see what, if any, other areas will be considered. I am not restricting tax reliefs. Rather I am reviewing them and not prejudging the outcome of the review. I am waiting to see what comes forward on the evidence available. It is a matter for Government at any time, in preparation of budgets and in pursuance of economic and social policy, to ascertain the priorities it wishes to consider where private capital could play a role in addition to Exchequer commitments. I do not see any discrepancy in that regard. We are awaiting the outcome of the review.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that context, has the Minister placed a timescale on when the consultants will report back to him? As he is conducting a review and perhaps will take action in the upcoming budget in December of this year, will the Minister give a commitment to put the consultants' reports into the public domain prior to the budget so we can all see what is involved, and the benefits, downsides and cost to taxpayers? We should all have a look at the reports in order to have a reasoned debate in the House with regard to the matter.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I stated in my reply, I am not in a position to indicate any likely publication date for those studies at this time. We must first receive and consider them. Tax strategy documents are not published until after the budget and Finance Bills have been considered. I am leaving such matters open and am not prepared to give a commitment on anything until I see the contents of the report. As Minister, I am entitled to prepare budgetary parameters and process and the deliberative process of Government retains that prerogative. However, whatever decisions and assistance which may emanate from the efforts, discussions and consultations undertaken in addition to what we are doing ourselves will inform my budgetary decisions which will be announced on budget day.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister publish it thereafter?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not in a position at this stage to say when it will be published. We will get it first and then decide what I can do with it.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It depends on what it states.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will know all about it on budget day.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 18: To ask the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to a Revenue Commissioners document (details supplied) which states that some persons who claimed to be non-resident for tax purposes were in reality living here; his views on this claim; the procedures in place to monitor whether those who claim to be non-resident for tax purposes are actually resident out of the country for the required period; the proposed nature of the review of the legislation and regulations regarding non-residency status for tax purposes in view of the comments made in Dáil Éireann on 23 and 24 May 2005; the person by whom the review will be undertaken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18472/05]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the report mentioned was an internal report of an organisation review group which led in to the restructuring of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The comment in the report regarding the possibility that people claiming to be non-resident in Ireland might in reality be living here was intended to outline the group's perception of a risk on which Revenue's new structures would need to be able to focus. I am advised that the comment was not based on any research carried out at that time. The new structures that emerged from the report and which were put into place in late 2003 included a specialist high wealth individuals unit within a large cases division and specialist areas in each region, which were capable of focusing on the tax compliance behaviour, including residence patterns, of wealthy people.

I am also informed that the high wealth individuals unit is currently examining a number of claims to non-residence as part of its risk-based audit programme and that this type of audit will be a feature of all future audit programmes in this area.

I am further informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the procedures adopted in regard to validating a claim to non-residence status depend on the circumstances in each case. The administration of these validation procedures is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners and I am informed by them that these procedures are kept under review. The methods used to verify claims to non-residence include a range of tests and an intelligence dimension which for obvious reasons Revenue do not publicise. In addition, Revenue has statutory powers to make relevant inquiries regarding any aspect of tax returns, including claims to non-residence status.

The rules on residency are not a tax relief scheme as such and are therefore not included in the review of tax relief schemes that I announced in the 2005 budget. However, as already outlined to the House, I have asked the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners to monitor the application of the current non-resident rules, through examination of cases handled in the Revenue large cases division and to provide me with a report once this examination is complete.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the Minister had an opportunity to view the RTE "Prime Time" investigation programme in which the report on non-residence was raised? The comment was quoted from the report about non-residents who are non-resident for tax purposes but yet in reality appear to live here. I am aware the Minister was appearing on "Questions & Answers" that night but has he had an opportunity since then to view the programme?

I refer to the two statements the Taoiseach made on successive days in the House last week that this non-residency issue was to be included in the examination of tax incentives and tax exiles to which Deputy Paul McGrath referred earlier. I understand the Minister to say now, contrary to what the Taoiseach said, that it is a review by the high net worth individuals group in the Revenue. Will the Minister tell the House the length of time that review has been going on and when it is likely to be concluded? Will the Minister publish the review and will he tell the House who is undertaking that review?

Will the Minister ask the reviewer if we can clarify the Cinderella rule whereby if a non-resident has left the country by one minute to midnight, it does not qualify as a day of residency? Does the leaving of the State have to be for a minimum period or is it the case, as has been suggested, that someone can take a trip out of the jurisdiction, perhaps by plane or helicopter, for an hour or two from one minute to midnight until, say, 1.10 a.m., return to the State and still qualify? Understandably, the compliant taxpayers view such people as, in effect, living here. Will the Minister clarify if he has been able to firm up the Cinderella rule and the 183 day rule, the way the Revenue Commissioners apply those rules and whether they actively check their operation?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I saw the programme. As I indicated in my initial reply, the comment referred to was not based on any research carried out at that time. It was intended to outline the group's perception of a risk on which Revenue's new structures would need to be able to focus. Subsequently, the new structures I outlined in the reply have been doing that. Revenue have ways and means, which they do not publicise for obvious reasons, of checking and satisfying themselves as to the position. They are the people who do that.

When I outlined the position in regard to the budget last November I spoke about tax relief schemes. It was clear I was talking about tax relief schemes. As I understand it, when the Taoiseach was asked for his view on these matters in the House during the week he said he had no problem with the idea of it being monitored and reviewed. I have confirmed that the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners does that on a continuing basis through the relevant personnel who deal with these cases in the Revenue large cases division and that he will provide me with a report once an examination is complete. That can be done in the course of this tax year.

On the matter regarding the residency rule, that was updated in the 1994 Finance Act, when Fianna Fáil and Labour were in power, following a comprehensive review of the matter by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance. The person is regarded as resident in Ireland for tax purposes in a particular tax year if he or she spends 183 days in the State in that year or 280 days in aggregate in that tax year and the preceding tax year. This aggregation rule does not apply if he or she has been in the country for less than 30 days in the tax year being examined.

The key 183 day rule that contributes to determining residence in Ireland is also a key rule in other countries including Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. The United Kingdom, which still operates rules similar to our pre-1994 rules, published a background paper in 2003 aimed at reviewing its rules, acknowledging that its rules are complex and poorly understood.

As has been said, a person is regarded as having spent a day in the State if he or she is there at midnight. On the changes introduced by the then Government in the 1994 Finance Bill, it was the then Fine Gael spokesperson, Ivan Yates, who on Committee Stage of that Bill pointed out that the provisions as they were then drafted would render a person who stayed overnight in the State present in the State for two days rather than one. Hence the rule was changed to count only a presence at the end of a day.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister reduced it to zero.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. That is the way it is currently.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no day——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are dealing with priority questions.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the current position. Facts sometimes hurt.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is not entitled to interrupt on priority questions.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is prejudicial to a former Member.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am here to give the facts. That was consistent with Revenue practice under the pre-1994 rules. While the 183 day rule is a common rule among other jurisdictions, not every jurisdiction applies it in the same way. For example, the UK ignores the day of arrival and the day of departure regardless of the number of visits that take place in a tax year. In Denmark, an individual would be resident if he or she has lived there for six consecutive months. Those are the full facts.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister confirm whether, under the Cinderella rule, it is possible to leave the State at one minute to midnight and return to the State at perhaps 1.10 a.m., an hour and ten minutes later, and satisfy the rules on exit from the State? Compliant taxpayers are greatly concerned that a single person earning €30,000 will pay some of their tax at 42% while, as the Revenue Commissioners have said, very wealthy individuals who are non-resident for tax purposes but who attend every charity function, ball and race meeting appear, as the programme indicated, to live here full-time. Will the Minister clarify the exit rule under the Cinderella rule?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Non-residence for tax purposes does not mean that people are exempt from paying tax in Ireland. It means that they only pay tax on their Irish sourced income. Non-residency enables them not to be subject to tax on worldwide income.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Almost none of them have Irish sourced income, and the Minister knows that. He is protecting his rich friends again.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must proceed to Question No. 19.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Every time I come into this House there is a theme from the Labour Party spokesperson, based on her acute sense of conspiracy, that I am knowledgeable about the income tax affairs of individuals other than myself. I certainly am not and if she is, she is a better woman than I am. I understand that everyone's tax affairs are confidential between the individual and the Revenue Commissioners. The purpose of Question Time is to give accurate information to the public.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can the Minister clarify the Cinderella rule?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make this clarification.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Be Prince Charming and clarify it for us.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must proceed to Question No. 19.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A serious charge has been made. I must insist on replying.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did the Minister watch the "Prime Time Investigates" programme?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not prepared to allow such unnecessary charges to go unchallenged. They are unnecessary and have no basis in fact.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should clarify the rule and give the House the information.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be far better if the Deputy were to be so gracious as to withdraw such charges. I would never make such misleading charges against a Deputy in this House. It does not become Deputy Burton. If she thinks she can make such charges and that people whose job it is to report to the wider public will publish these charges unchallenged, it suggests there is some foundation to what she alleges. However, what she has said is a total untruth.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The eminent Minister is at every race meeting in this country where people who are non-resident for tax purposes are walking around.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is in possession.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The non-residency rules that apply in this country were agreed under a Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition Government in 1994.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are asking the Minister to review them.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has been suggested that I am seeking to help or protect people. That is not the situation. I am here to provide factual information. The Cinderella rule means that only if one is resident in the State at midnight is one deemed to have been resident in the State for that day. The Deputy can conjure up any number of possibilities, however realistic or precedent-setting, that meet that rule. I cannot verify where the regulation has been used. I can confirm that the Revenue Commissioners, in whom I have full confidence, monitor this situation very closely. In so far as matters stand, they are satisfied that there have been no deviations from the regulations and they will continue to monitor and will report to me in due course. Perhaps Deputy Burton will, upon reflection, withdraw the charge she made, which I find ungracious and unnecessary but not untypical of her style.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must proceed to Question No. 19.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, the Minister is supposed to answer my questions. He earlier said that there was an ongoing review.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not a point of order. The Chair has called Question No. 19. We have spent 14 minutes on a question that should have been limited to six minutes.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is unfortunate, but some things cannot be allowed to pass.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should give us the answer.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My integrity is not going to be challenged under privilege. If the Deputy wants to challenge it outside the House, she should do so. I will gladly sue her.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 19: To ask the Minister for Finance the reason there is still no comprehensive list of tax reliefs that are being reviewed six months after the review of tax reliefs was announced and two months after the deadline for public consultation on tax avoidance measures passed; the further reason tax residency rules have been excluded from the comprehensive review; if it is within the remit of the review group to recommend measures such as a maximum tax relief threshold; if the Revenue Commissioners have been asked to undertake a separate and full review of tax residency rules, the outcome of which will be published; when the Revenue Commissioners were asked by him to undertake this review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18473/05]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, I announced in my Budget Statement that my Department and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners will undertake a detailed review of certain tax incentive schemes and tax exemptions in 2005. I subsequently announced in a press release on 6 January 2005 that my Department had advertised for two external consultancy studies to separately review area-based tax incentive schemes, such as urban, rural and town renewal, as well as the living-over-the-shop scheme, and sectoral property-based schemes, such as multi-storey carparks, park and ride, student accommodation, third level buildings, hotels, holiday cottages, nursing homes, private hospitals, sports injuries clinics, child care facilities and the countrywide refurbishment scheme.

I also made it clear at the time of the budget that the review will involve the examination by my Department and the Revenue Commissioners of certain other tax reliefs and exemptions and I specifically mentioned those for stallion and greyhound stud fees, woodlands and artists. Others which I have decided should be examined in the context of the review are the reliefs for interest on loans to invest in companies or partnerships, for significant buildings and gardens, for donations and patent income as well as some pensions reliefs, especially if these may be used by high earners to reduce their tax bills. Other incentives and reliefs are kept under review in the normal course by my Department.

With regard to the public consultation process, additional time was given where requested to allow social partners and others to finalise their submissions and some of these have been received recently by my Department. It is within the remit of the review to consider options for limiting the extent to which high income individuals can use these reliefs to reduce their tax liability and these were specifically sought in the invitation to submit to the consultation process.

The rules on residency are not a tax relief scheme as such and are therefore not included in the review of tax relief schemes that I announced in the 2005 budget. However, as already outlined to the House, I have asked the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners to monitor the application of the current non-resident rules through examination of cases handled in the Revenue Commissioners large cases division, and to provide me with a report once this examination is complete.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for providing the most comprehensive list to date of what schemes are to be reviewed and how. This process has been clouded in mystery. At his budget speech in December the Minister listed close to two dozen schemes, the advertisement for the public consultation process talked in generalities about property tax reliefs, and the terms of reference for the consultants in the review did not mention generalities of what reviews were to be examined and how. At least the Minister's reply provides us with a list of what is being examined.

Nevertheless there are many other tax reliefs that are not being examined. The Minister needs to state why this is so. In his reply to the first Priority Question he indicated that he is not taking this review as an indication of whether these tax reliefs should be abolished, merely to inform him for the next budget. Why does the Minister need a review when we have the obvious abuses that were seen in the recent "Prime Time Investigates" programme, where bar stools covered with whale's foreskin are subsidised by the Irish taxpayer? Is it not the Minister's political initiative and intuition that his existing powers to do away with these schemes or introduce subsequent legislation, such as a special Finance Bill, do not need to wait for a review?

We are still uncertain of the status of this review and if it will be published. The previous answer seems to indicate that it may not be published in advance of the Finance Bill. As part of this was predated by a public consultation process, not only should the review be published, there should be a date set when it will be published. Otherwise the Minister is engaged in a further act of deceit.

Regarding the residency rules the Minister is being economical with the truth. Not only is he exempting a wide swathe of tax relief schemes that are not examined by the current review, he is failing to treat the residency rules as the obvious tax expenditure they are. If the Minister is undertaking an all-embracing review of tax relief, he cannot ignore and avoid a public examination of the residency rules. Otherwise all we can presume on this side of the House, as many people outside the House presume, is that the Minister is engaged in an academic exercise that will result in no change and, unfortunately, we will see many other "Prime Time" programmes in advance of the next general election. Many of these tax relief schemes will still be in place and the people who benefit from them, while perhaps not in his own circle, are people who have a history of supporting his party and the way in which his party runs its operations. Until the Minister can get rid of those implications by showing firm action on tax relief, they will remain in the public realm.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy makes a presumption he is not entitled to make. There is no basis for such a presumption. He is entitled to the view that there should be no tax relief schemes in the country, if that is his view. As any Minister for Finance would, I review on an ongoing basis the opportunities that exist to raise revenue or economic activity or to create incentives for certain activities. These are judgments that must be made depending on economic and social circumstances.

I have outlined the first comprehensive structured review of the schemes outlined. I am examining those in the context of the consultations that have taken place. As one prepares the budget one can examine any number of tax relief schemes. I am explaining what I am doing. If, as his question suggests, the Deputy does not concede that any benefit has derived from these schemes, then the evidence is against him. I am prepared to await the outcome of the ongoing review. Our own eyes confirm, however, that significant benefits have been derived from these schemes. The issue to which I adverted in my budget speech was that I felt it was appropriate to see in what way we should strike into the balance potential benefits to investors through schemes which bring a wider community benefit, as well as a personal benefit in terms of investment in such schemes. The wider community derives a benefit from them. If the Deputy's ideological position is that he does not believe in them at all, then fine — we will agree to disagree.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not say that.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy did not say that but neither did he suggest that any benefit was to be derived from these schemes. I will cite some benefits, for example. There is a financial services centre in Dublin, with 20,000 of the best paid jobs in the country. There also happens to be an annual revenue take for the Exchequer of €700 million. I suggest to the Deputy that a more balanced reaction to all of this would lead to a more accurate assessment of the benefits — or what he perceives as the problems — of the schemes. That is fair enough and the Deputy is entitled to put that point of view. At no stage in his contribution, however, did he suggest that any benefit derived from them at all. I do not agree with him on that point.

The Deputy asked why I did not introduce a finance (No. 2) Bill on the basis of what he perceives I should do. That underestimates, however, the important economic interaction that occurs because of the existence of these schemes. I will await the outcome of the review before informing myself of that decision and will not pre-empt it, as the Deputy may wish. I will decide what, in my best judgment and based on Government approval, is the best interaction for the continuance, discontinuance, modification or alteration of these schemes, or a change in priorities as to whether private investment should be sought at all. We do live in a market economy and there is much private capital in the country. It may be open to people to consider, at least, whether some public benefit might be derived by the utilisation of that private capital into economic and social priorities that we would identify, in addition to whatever increased Exchequer allocation we are giving to it ourselves. Infrastructural and other deficits are often identified by the Opposition that seemingly require immediate solutions, yet the Opposition is not prepared to examine access to every capital source in order to do so.

With respect to the Deputy, these are the sort of considerations that need to come into play. Throwing old jibes at me because I am a Fianna Fáil man will not work as far as I am concerned. My integrity remains at it always was. The Deputy can throw his jibes and play to his political constituency if that suits him. If it gets him a few votes at my expense, then fair enough. I advise the Deputy, however, to keep using the privilege of the House when he does so, because if he ever does it outside the House I will have a chat with him.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister seems to think I have maligned his personal integrity.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He certainly did.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think anything I said would have done that.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It did.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whom the Minister chooses to mix with is his business and that of his party. I asked why all tax reliefs were not being reviewed but the Minister steadfastly refused to answer that question.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will answer it now.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister can wait until I have finished my supplementary question.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My apologies. I will certainly wait.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In preparing this question, researchers from the Green Party contacted the Department of Finance and sought a comprehensive list of what tax reliefs were being reviewed. They were initially told that such lists could be prepared and would be supplied. They were told subsequently, however, that the information would not be supplied without the Minister's approval. Why is the Minister giving the impression that there is an open examination of all tax reliefs, when it is only a selective review of tax reliefs? The Minister is choosing whether or not that review will determine what reliefs will exist. We can have a wider debate at a time of the Minister's choosing as to which reliefs work and which do not. However, the Minister has chosen not to act. In his last Finance Bill he introduced new tax reliefs and extended the terms of existing tax reliefs without any cost-benefit analysis, so how are we supposed to take him seriously on this issue?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will tell the Deputy why. As Minister for Finance, I am entitled to introduce a budget and the Finance Bill, which, if enacted by the Oireachtas, becomes law. It is called a democratic mandate. The Deputy may have a different opinion on certain issues. When he has a sufficient mandate he can come over to the Government benches and I will challenge him from the Opposition side. It is called democracy. I do not need a doctorate or a Harvard professor of law to tell me what I should do. I derive my mandate from the people and I take my advice wherever I can find it. I will make my judgments accordingly and I will defend those judgments. We should be able to do so and continue our public discourse in a way that does not challenge anyone's integrity. Otherwise, one can become tired of this stereotypical behaviour which does nothing for public discourse.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about my original question?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy majored on the second part of his question. As regards the Deputy's original question, I have just explained that I decide what tax reliefs we will review. I have explained to the Deputy what ones we will review. There are reliefs that are not being reviewed because they were reviewed recently, while others are not subject to formal review in this structured proposal. In budgetary preparations, however, every possible scheme is examined and one makes a judgment on how to shape the budget. That is the position.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister saying, "L'État, c'est moi"?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. It is nonsense to suggest that there is any uisce faoi thalamh. There are issues of confidentiality, systems and a budgetary process which I have a mandate to utilise and protect. I am entitled to do so.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must move on to Question No. 20.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Our mandate is to challenge

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have to tell the Deputy my budget in the month of June.