Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)

No. The Minister claims he cannot accept it. Without labouring the issue, it is a central question pertaining to the fairness of the legislation. I take it from the Minister's comments that there are two reasons for his inability to accept the amendment. It is not that he cannot accept it - he will not accept it. First, the imputed tax was increased in January. Second, it would be difficult for the Revenue Commissioners to collect the money. I disagree fundamentally that these reasons are sufficient excuse for the Government to exempt high earners with massive pension pots from the levy.

The arguments articulated by the Government in support of a pension levy have been two-fold. First, there should be a solidarity tax to help people return to work. Who should show more solidarity than the FitzPatricks and the Fingletons, the people who have millions of euro stashed in pension pots, if we are to help people who are sitting on unemployment benches? We should ask them to show a bit of solidarity. Second, those putting money into pension pots that are subject to the levy have benefited from significant tax breaks under previous budgets and previous Governments. This is a statement of fact. Those who have invested in ARFs have also benefited from the same tax breaks.

The Government's request for solidarity with the unemployed should equally apply to the highest earners. On these grounds, there is no justification for not imposing a 0.6% levy on people with the sorts of massive pension pots about which the rest of us can only dream. It is not credible that Revenue would not be able to collect a pension levy this year. We have changed the taxation code. Under the Minister's amendment and as opposed to having two dates, is the new date for collection in September? We change taxes every year. Two years ago, we had a budget mid-stream. Situations are constantly changing. Revenue could deal with this issue. If we tapped into the millions of euro the Government is going to exempt, it would be worth the paperwork and the extra effort.

The Minister is unlikely to change his position on the matter. A major flaw of this legislation is that the Government is exempting high earners from the pension levy. It is incredible that there are no Labour Party Ministers in the House. The Government is exempting these people from the levy in respect of which there is not a word from the Labour Party in terms of how unfair or unjust this is. We heard all of the outbursts and hysterics from members of the Government when on this side of the House in relation to decisions by the previous Government which allowed high income earners get away scot free while those struggling to get by were being penalised time and again.

This levy will affect those who have pensions and as such have invested in their futures. I ask that the Minister reconsider allowing these people to get off scot free. The amendment before the House deals deal with the matter. I do not believe acceptance of the amendment would require considerable redrafting of the legislation as it relates only to definitions, although I could be wrong in that regard. I am sure there exists in the Department the expertise to deal with this issue. I presume the Department officials have already considered including approved retirement funds, ARFs, in the scheme but have decided against it. I presume that those issues have been examined by the Department. I encourage the Minister to bring before the House before 5.30 p.m. today some type of wording to address this matter.

See this speech in context