Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I will be helpful. The amendment I have in mind is a simple one, namely, to include ARFs in the definition of what is covered under the scheme. I could not have tabled that amendment because I would then be levying a charge on ARFs, which a member of the Opposition cannot do. I needed to take a roundabout way to raise the issue on the floor.

I do not want to touch the imputed tax. The argument seems to be that an imputed tax of 5% has been levied on those funds since 1 January. That they are taxed at the marginal rate could result in an effective 2.5% tax. The Minister now seems to be saying that Michael Fingleton and Seanie FitzPatrick are paying 2.5% anyway, that it is enough and that asking them to pay a further 0.6% would be unfair. I do not accept that the 2.5%, the effective tax rate at the higher end - I do not know the domiciled statuses of some of the people in question, but that is another day's work - that is levied on large pension pots of €10 million to €20 million would get sympathy from anyone or be viewed by anyone as being even half enough. Many people would say more tax should be paid.

My amendment was to include ARFs with annuities and PRSAs in the definition of what is captured by the levy. It is a one-liner. I do not want to revisit last year's budget. If the Minister approached the matter from the other direction, the public would still view him as giving people special treatment because they would find some loophole to get out of it. In the interests of equity, their pension pots should be levied at the same rate. It could be argued that they should be levied much more, but let us at least get them to pay the same rate as everyone else.

ARFs should be included within the scope of the legislation but I could not word my amendment in that way, as doing so would have been out of order. There is time before 5.30 p.m. to do so. We would facilitate it. I would prefer the Department of Finance and the Bills Office to draft the amendment because the House would not accept an amendment from me. Since the Opposition would be out of order if it tabled such an amendment, the provision can only come from a Minister.

See this speech in context