There is no question that this is all about choices. I must contrast the signal the Taoiseach is sending to the parents who are worried about what the Minister for Social and Family Affairs said last night — which is, in essence, that child benefit will now be targeted in the forthcoming budget — with the answer given by the Minister for Finance last week to Deputy Burton when she put to him a different type of choice that he might make. I refer in particular to the treatment of the "golden ten" — the people who were loaned the money by Anglo Irish Bank to purchase shares in order to bail out the bank and bail out an even larger shareholder. We are now stuck with the bulk of that loan, three quarters of which was on a non-recourse basis, that is, supported only by the value of the shares themselves, which are now worthless. As a result, the taxpayer is stuck with a loss of some €300 million on that loan.

Deputy Burton pointed out to the Minister for Finance last week that not only are we stuck with the loss on the loan but that these people can write off the losses on the entire amount against their future capital gains tax liabilities. She pointed out that this did not seem to be a good idea and asked the Minister for Finance if he would do something about it. He replied that he had "no plans at this stage to make a change in this area", that "the current symmetry of treatment between losses and gains would be affected", and that this "would represent a significant change to our capital gains tax legislation".

Such a change is very necessary. We have a situation where the persons who borrowed this money and who contributed to the difficulties in the banking system will be able to claim tax relief on losses the taxpayer is already carrying while, on the other hand, the Government is telling parents to expect reductions in child benefit. There is no similar arrangement for those unfortunate householders who are now in negative equity and who may have to sell their homes because they cannot pay the mortgage or because they have to emigrate. They cannot write off losses against future tax liability as the "golden ten" are being allowed to do. Does the Government seriously propose to do nothing to address this anomaly in the forthcoming budget?

In regard to specific issues that arise regarding the banking situation, they will be dealt with on the basis that whatever debts are due and owing will have to be paid. Mr. Appleby and others are looking at the corporate enforcement side of this. The fact is that anything that is transferred does not exclude the liability people owe to financial institutions in respect of any debts they have. That remains the case.

A further issue has arisen today in regard to repossessions. The idea has been put about that when the six or 12 months are up, depending on the financial institution in question, people will suddenly be subject to legal proceedings and with possible involuntary repossession of their homes imminent. That is not what is envisaged. A code of conduct has been agreed and the announcement today offers a further improvement on the situation. People who engage and come to an arrangement with lenders on a six-monthly review basis can continue to maintain their position and keep their home. That is something to which we all subscribe and expect in the context of a fair and equitable approach until the situation improves for those people. It is important to point out that where there are arrears, arrangements are in place and the advice is for people to engage with their lenders and the Money Advice and Budgeting Service. In regard to the previous matter, as I have said, the liability continues to be owed.

That was an answer to a question about house repossessions I asked the Taoiseach last week. I asked whether the Government will do anything to close a tax loophole, which will cost the taxpayer approximately €80 million on top of the €300 million we are stuck with for the non-recourse element of the loans taken out by these people. The issue is simple. Ten people who belong to the golden circle borrowed this money, three quarters of it on a non-recourse basis, which means we are stuck with this and there is no question of it being repaid. That is €300 million we are caught for as taxpayers. On top of that, those involved will be able to write off the entire losses they make on this arrangement against future capital gains tax liability. This is open-ended and they will be able to do so indefinitely. This is a huge loophole in the arrangements governing capital gains tax.

Deputy Burton put it to the Minister for Finance that this loophole should be closed and he replied that he does not want to do so. Before the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs or any other Minister comes into the House to tell us and the people that parents will have to take a cut in child benefit, pensioners may suffer a cut, the pay of State employees will be cut and God what knows else will be inflicted on people in the budget, will they not first close this loophole? Why should there be one law for these people who are operating a sweetheart arrangement, which will result in a tax write-off for losses that are being borne by the taxpayer? It is madness.

With regard to the point the Minister for Finance made, it is not correct to suggest there is a particular deal with these people; that is not the case.

It is a sweetheart deal with the banks.

How the capital gains tax code operates in respect of gains and losses is a matter of general character. It is a general provision in the Finance Acts. It is predicated on gains being made. In the current declining asset market, the big complaint in the discussion on the NAMA legislation was the level of discount——

They can write the losses off against last year's tax.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

When Deputy Gilmore is given an answer, he does not want to hear it.

The argument he put forward for the past number of weeks on the NAMA legislation related to the discount in the value of assets transferred from financial institutions to the agency.

They are worthless.

Deputy Gilmore's argument now is that gains will be made in respect of those assets but the opposite will be the case.