Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Several elements are involved here. One issue relates to the requirement on insurance companies to compensate the Minister for illness and disability payments due to be refunded. I agreed in the Dáil to examine this issue. If there is a great heap of money available, it would be very attractive to get it. It is worth noting that the level of recovery by the compensation recovery unit which operates the legislation in the UK in 2007-08 and 2008-09 amounted to €142 million and €138 million respectively. The UK is 15 times our size, but even if one takes a factor of ten it would appear to indicate that the reimbursement would be in the range of €13 million or €14 million. Unfortunately, despite what I and many others would have held to be the case, it would appear there is no big honeypot. However, €14 million is not to be sneezed at.

A proposal was put to the previous Minister containing a possible saving of €88 million but it does not appear that any such saving has taken place actually in the UK. It is unclear how this figure was arrived at. We must consider the impact on job retention and creation and establish what costs are estimated to offset against any potential yield. I indicated I would begin to examine this issue to establish if it is worth progressing with. I trust this deals with the issue.

I refer to PRSI and rental income, a complicated issue. This matter goes back to a review of PRSI. We are introducing a universal social contribution to replace employee PRSI. The situation at present is complex. At present, self employed contributors pay PRSI on rental income. It is not the case universally that one does not pay PRSI on rental income. In addition, while employed contributors are not generally subject to PRSI on investment income and rental income, there is a liability where the individual concerned also has a trade, professional or partnership income which is chargeable to PRSI as a self-employed contributor on rental income. I understand the amendment proposes all such income should be subject to PRSI. At the moment some income is subject to PRSI, depending on one's circumstances and whether one is a self-employed trader or subject to PRSI on rental income. We are considering the Commission on Taxation recommendations and this will arise in the budgetary context and the review. It is not off the agenda and it is something I will examine.

I refer to the matter of mortgage interest supplement and the matter of proof provided when a bank has declined a payment free period. As I announced last week, we are examining the 30 hour rule. It has been recommended that we get rid of it. We insist there should be a six month arrangement with a bank before mortgage interest supplement would kick in. We also maintain that if the State is paying the interest, it should get bottom dollar interest rates and not pay inflated interest rates to banks. I am working actively on this. It is my intention to make changes to mortgage interest supplement in the coming weeks.

I refer to PRSI, capital gains and PRSI classes. The same point applies and as part of the review of PRSI, these matters will be examined. The same also applies to the PRSI to share base and the remuneration of share options. Everything on which one pays the PRSI social contribution is being examined in the context of the new social charge.

I take the view that in general the more universal a payment and the less exceptions we make, the lower it will be. In other words, the wider it is, the shallower one can have it. One mistake made in the past relates to the number of exceptions made. At times, budget changes were introduced and then people sought exclusions. The more exclusions there are, the higher the rate must be. All these issues will be considered in the context of changes to the PRSI system, which are overdue and which, as part of the last budget, we announced and we are actively pursuing.