Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)

The vast majority of workers are in a different ball game anyway. What I do not have any of the detail of are those who have defined pensions, or, the right, because if the CET is crystallised it is already dealt with. The tax has been paid or the individual is in an arrangement to pay the tax. The question is, how many people have a right to a defined pension at this point in time? How many of those have the right to a defined pension that would be in excess of the standard fund threshold? If we are looking at these age related factors, yes they apply to all workers. The change would apply to a nurse in my local hospital or the teacher in my local school but it will not make a difference to them because they will not hit the standard fund threshold anyway and there is no chance of them doing so. How many people would the de Buitléir proposal capture? The vast majority, I assume - and assumptions can be worrying, which is why I am asking the question - will be public sector workers who have defined pensions. I do not know how many in the private sector are still offering defined pensions.

There is a second option. This proposal applies to everybody and that is why I want the information as to how widely it could apply or what the unintended consequences could be. Given that we have already differentiated in our tax code in relation to pensions and the chargeable excess from public sector pensions and private sector pensions, then it will be possible to also take that further. I am not suggesting this is the proposal but could there be a higher standard fund threshold for a public sector employee? Could there be a different age related factor? It would not be this amendment, it would have to be changed. For a defined contribution in respect of public sector workers - who are able to avail of what section 787 of the tax code does, which is to expand or pay their CET over a period of 20 years - it was obviously permissible in law to differentiate between two different types of individuals who both have a tax liability. Therefore, is it permissible, notwithstanding how this is drafted or what was recommended, to look at a carve-out for those who have fast-accruing pensions whereby, because of the onus the State placed on them to retire at a certain stage, that should not be captured in terms of the CET?