Shane Ross (Independent)

I am speaking on the need for the Minister for Finance the reassess the decision to cut tax relief on dental treatment from the higher to the standard rate of tax. The Minister of State will be aware what happened in the budget when tax relief was cut by about 50%. There is always a temptation for people to see dentists as earning a great deal of money. In some situations and in certain sectors they do not, however. They have had a pretty tough time, and I raised the issue of dentists only two weeks ago in respect of the refusal of the Health Service Executive to negotiate a contract with them. Now they find themselves in a situation where there is a 50% cut in tax relief for certain dental treatments. In the event, they say it will be very difficult for them to operate in areas such as orthodontics and periodontics, which are specialist areas.

Tax relief on dental treatment was always given at the higher rate and for a very good reason, namely, to encourage people to look after their health. This was effective. The danger now is that the reduction of the relief to the standard rate may result in a person who spent €5,000 on a normal course of orthodontic treatment for one of his or her children receiving only €1,000 in tax relief instead of €2,000, as was the case before the budget.

This situation is bad for the patient, the dentist and the economy, and I do not believe that the revenue raised from this will justify the reduction. There will be a problem with health. Those who must pay large amounts of money for very expensive treatments will simply not have it. This will have an adverse effect not only on health but also on employment in the industry. It is difficult to estimate the numbers employed who will be affected by this, but estimates show that approximately 9,000 are employed in the oral health industry.

If less is spent — I include spending on laboratories — there will be fewer people employed and more people on the dole, seeking work or emigrating. That is not a social effect we would welcome. It has been very easy to make sweeping cuts in the budget which look good in accountancy terms but they do not look so good when they come into effect. They also have some political kudos because it is easy to pick soft targets. Dentists are a soft target as people regard them as earning a large amount of money, but that is not the case in some specialist areas. We must be more sophisticated about the manner in which we address problems such as this. People must make proper returns but this measure is a false economy to the Exchequer.

Another effect, which I addressed recently, is the possibility of dental tourism, of which the Minister of State may be aware. It is an extraordinarily profitable business for people in Newry and Belfast. I returned from Belfast on the train recently and met four people I knew who had travelled to Northern Ireland for dental treatment because it was much cheaper. This measure will send people to Poland and Northern Ireland, which is an additional loss to the Exchequer and is something we must tackle. The differential is significant. It can be five times more expensive to have treatment here than in Northern Ireland. Those with time on their hands, such as older people, will travel across the Border for that and they will bring their children and grandchildren with them.

Dentists have met the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, and the Health Service Executive on this and other matters, and they have said they will settle for a cap rather than a full reversal of the decision. They are not being militant; they understand the political and economic consequences of this problem. They believe a cap on the amount that could be claimed would be helpful and would encourage people to have necessary treatment. They also stated that the State offers grants of €120 million to doctors but nothing to dentists or their patients, and that they are the only health care professionals who received no support for including those over 70 in 2001.

People will be less inclined to go to the dentist or to bring their children for treatment. It may be a good idea for the Minister of State to look at the issue again and consider that it would be good for the economy and health to reverse it.