Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 27, to delete lines 43 to 45 and substitute the following:" "non ring-fenced amount", in relation to a vested PRSA, means the amount or value of assets in the vested PRSA that the PRSA administrator can make available to, or pay to, the PRSA contributor or to any other person;".

Amendments Nos. 26 to 35, inclusive, all relate to section 16(6). As stated in respect of the previous group of amendments, section 16(2) temporarily rescinds, from the date of the passing of the Bill, certain of the provisions included in the Finance Act 2011 relating to the conditions which must be met by an individual before he or she can obtain access to an ARF. Section 16(6) deals with individuals who acted in accordance with the more stringent ARF qualifying conditions which applied from 6 February 2011, the date of the passing of the Finance Act 2011, and effectively allows them to avail retrospectively of the reinstated and less stringent conditions. Essentially, the purpose of subsection (6) is to ensure a level playing field after the passing of the Bill. As a result of its provisions, individuals such as those to whom I refer will be able to access more of their pension savings, via an ARF, much earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Specifically, amendment No. 26 replaces the published definition of the term "non ring-fenced amount" in subsection (6) to make it clearer, while amendments Nos. 27, 29, 33 and 35 are largely technical changes for the purpose of clarifying that the relieving measures in subsection (6) apply whether one, or more than one, ARF option is exercised in the period since 6 February 2011 or whether one, or more than one, PRSA is vested in that period. I commend these amendments to the committee.

Amendments Nos. 28, 30 to 32, inclusive, and 34 proposed by Deputy Doherty follow logically from amendment No. 22 also tabled by the Deputy, and discussed earlier, in which he proposed to delete section 16(2) which, as already mentioned is for the purpose of temporarily rescinding the more stringent ARF access conditions provided for in the 2011 Finance Act. Clearly, if the ARF access conditions provided for in the Finance Act 2011 were not to be rescinded, as advocated by the Deputy, then the relieving measures contained in subsection (6) would be superfluous. When taken together, however, the effect of these amendments and amendment No. 22 would be to deny the transitional provisions I am making for the very valid reasons outlined in the earlier decision. Accordingly, I cannot commend these amendment to the committee.