Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

The Minister did not advert to the fact that the existing medical card provisions are not solely designed as a way of deciding on access to medical cards. It is a long-established practice in his Department to confer exemptions from paying levies to medical card holders. There are close parallels between this and other levies in terms of giving exemptions.

Is the Minister willing to consider any form of low-income relief? Deputies on this side of the House are trying to find ways of opening access to relief, even if some sort of compensatory mechanism is required. That is the intention behind the amendment I have tabled to provide for a 50% relief for those earning less than the minimum wage which would be compensated by those who are higher on the scale. Even within the terms of this Bill, I would be willing to contemplate exemptions or reliefs at the bottom which would be compensated by higher payments further up the scale because the latter are the major beneficiaries of public service pensions.

I am not convinced that a levy structure which ranges from 3% at the bottom to 5% at the top on a net basis is anything like commensurate with the alleged benefit of public service pensions. In my view, it does not constitute a fair adjustment in the public service pay bill.

Is the Minister willing to entertain some form of relief at the bottom end or are we wasting our time arguing the toss on this and other amendments? I cannot understand why, within the targeted savings of €1.4 billion, he would refuse to contemplate changes at the bottom which would be compensated by increases at the top. If a proposal such as this commands the support of the House, it would appear to meet the Minister's requirement in terms of telling the outside world that he has delivered savings while demonstrating his sensitivity to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about the present structure of the levy.

See this speech in context