Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)

The proposal would get rid of the pension levy but bring forward another mechanism to fund the jobs initiative to the same amount. We have put forward proposals to abolish the universal social charge and other measures that would replace the money that would be lost to the Exchequer as a result. All of these measures and amendments are ruled out of order. I welcome the Government challenging the idea, principle, theory, politics or accuracy of the numbers behind any of these initiatives but we cannot discuss these today. That is a more general point.

I have stated before that I welcome the Government initiative on the travel tax. The concern is that there has been a dilution of the stated objective of the Government. The programme for Government stated that it would abolish the travel tax as part of a deal with airlines to restore lost routes. That is the text of the programme for Government. When the jobs initiative was announced, it dealt with additional passenger numbers and the idea of restoring lost routes was gone. That may be a textual error. Is the Finance (No. 2) Bill subject to additional passenger numbers or is it subject to additional routes? I realise the effect of the amendment is not subject to either because the Minister can decide at any time to issue the order. Is the theory or principle behind it to do with additional numbers or restoration of lost routes, as the programme for Government states? I believe it should relate to the restoration of lost routes because it will be difficult to quantify additional passengers, the effect it will have on them and the commitments necessary from the airlines.

What happens with the order? The Government has made the order conditional on responses from the airlines. What happens if Aer Lingus agrees to do X, Y and Z to increase additional passengers and target such an amount of additional passengers but Ryanair says "No, go and sod off"? What happens then? Naturally, the positions could be reversed as well. Do we hold all the tourists and airlines to ransom because a certain airline decides not to play ball with the Government? I am genuinely curious as to the rationale.

It is a good negotiating tool of the Government to say the change will only be enacted when lost routes are restored. If that is the commitment the Government intends to live up to, it is a stance worth taking. However, in opposition the Minister proposed an amendment to the finance Bill in January to get rid of the travel tax. It was a worthy amendment and one Sinn Féin supported. We sought to go further and reduce it further. What happens if one airline agreed to do it but another does not? What is the commitment from the Government? Is it the programme for Government commitment which refers to the restoration of lost routes or is it the statement made at the launch of the jobs initiative which relates to additional numbers? How do we measure those?

See this speech in context