Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

These two amendments from Deputies Burton and Bruton are probably the most important on this Stage. The Bill is entitled the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill. Anybody reading that Title would be led to believe there should be a sunset clause. There are in-built contradictions in the Title, but it gives the impression that what is intended is a measure introduced on an emergency basis, which would be terminated after a short period.

The Taoiseach said today in the House he believed the social partnership should be the basis for moving forward, and he indicated that once he got this Bill out of the way everything would be on the table in terms of opening up talks once again with the social partners. We know the previous discussions had gone to the eleventh hour when all of a sudden the Taoiseach and the Minister pulled this rabbit out of a hat and put it on the table without any opportunity for response.

There has been no proper consultation on this proposal and no opportunity to examine the anomalies, including those which have been raised and detailed in this House. It is an unfair Bill in the category of worker that it targets and in the crudeness of its divisions — 3%, 6% and 10% — and their application. People on and below the minimum wage and those on family support will be targeted by this legislation as much as people who are earning vast sums of money.

There is also a provocative element in this legislation in that it pits worker against worker, because the public sector alone is targeted. That is seen as another unfair aspect of the legislation, and it clearly needs to be addressed in the context of social partnership. Unless there is a sunset clause, the social partnership process cannot examine it. The Minister is making it impossible for it to be put on the table for discussion in a meaningful fashion.

In that context, what will happen next year when there is a target of €4 billion? Will it be this levy, which amounts to €2 billion for 2009, plus the €4 billion targeted for 2010? Will it be cumulative if we do not withdraw this legislation or put a sunset clause into it? Does it mean the public sector will have to bear the levy along with another levy that will cut across the board, applying to other workers also? I ask the Minister to clarify whether there is a cumulative aspect to the proposal.

Another issue that has been brought to the Minister's attention a number of times in the House and which was raised again by Deputy Burton earlier is that of tax exiles. How can the Minister impose a levy of this nature on public sector workers, who have in no way been responsible for the mess we are in, and not propose any measure to tax those people who do not pay a penny of tax — who get off scot free? I am talking about the Bonos, the J. P. McManuses, and all the other fine philanthropists, either domestic or global, who jet into this country, do not pay a penny of tax here, and wrap the flag around themselves in presenting themselves as good Irishmen. Yet all they do is to provide, on a sort of charity basis, a contribution here and there. They do not do their civic duty. It is time to target them. The 120,000 people who marched last week want to see those people targeted. They want to see the tax loopholes dealt with and the tax exiles pay their share. Ensuring that happens is the Minister's job and his responsibility, not just his entitlement.

The intent of this Bill is to ensure the Exchequer gets adequate funds to keep the country moving, although it is not being done in a fair or equitable fashion. However, if the Minister does not put pressure on the existing financial institutions to lend out the necessary funds to maintain cashflow for small and medium-sized enterprises, what will happen? What is the purpose of going through this exercise if the banks are not providing for the lifeblood of the economy? We have nationalised Anglo Irish Bank and the Government is putting €7 billion into the other two banks, yet they are still refusing to give out loans.

The latest survey on small and medium-sized businesses showed that around 48% of businesses, down slightly from 54%, were in desperate need of regular cashflow. What is the Minister doing to ensure this is obtained? It is one thing to take cash from the public sector and put it into the Exchequer, but persuading the financial institutions, which are being funded to an enormous degree by the taxpayer, to provide the funding to keep the small and medium-sized sector — the lifeblood of the economy — going and prevent unemployment should be his priority. This is relevant in the context of the legislation.

There is one sector, the Judiciary, that we cannot touch because of a constitutional impediment. Its members cannot be obliged to pay this so-called pension levy even though they have public sector pensions. Has the Minister had any talks with them with a view to inviting them to join on a voluntary basis? They are some of the most highly paid people in the country.

If he has not yet invited them, perhaps he might consider doing so.

See this speech in context