Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)

The Minister of State talked about ring-fencing money for intergenerational solidarity. I also read Senator Quinn's contribution to this debate, which was very interesting. The levy, however, is not ring-fenced as such. The VHI can use the proceeds from the levy for any other purposes it may choose, including expanding its business. However, section 3 sets out the principal objective of the Minister and the Health Insurance Authority in ensuring intergenerational solidarity. Despite this there is no requirement that the recipient insurer should use the State funds concerned for the direct purpose of bolstering intergenerational solidarity, which is such a key aspect of community rating and the Minister's intentions. It does appear open for the recipient insurers to use this large-scale State support, raised by what we consider to be an inequitable levy, on the provision of other insurance - for example, travel, life or motor cover - at a lower rate. Perhaps the Minister of State can say what he thinks about that in his reply. Surely there should be some ring-fencing, if he is saying he wants the levy to be used to deal with intergenerational solidarity. If there is no ring-fencing of some aspect, does it not defeat the purpose? Perhaps the Minister of State can explain why that is not in the legislation. Should it not be considered?