David Norris (Independent)

I propose to share time with the Senator Quinn. I welcome the Minister of State but with lukewarm enthusiasm. I listened with interest to Senator Ross, who has led this debate in this House and on the back page of his newspaper, this morning when he said it would be an indication of the Government's seriousness if the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, came to the House. He did not intend disrespect to the Minister of State. He appealed to the Minister for Finance to do so and hoped the Minister of State would not take the debate because that would be an indication the Government was rushing this legislation through. There are other indications, both in the structure of the speech and in its delivery, that suggest this is the case.

I have just come from Trinity College, where I was speaking on a motion about the attitude of the Roman Catholic church to sexuality. In one curious way this seems to fit into that debate. If one makes an acronym of the Bill, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill, it becomes FEMITPIB, which almost sounds like the female condom. One could see this as the tax or revenue equivalent of such an instrument because its workings are completely uncertain. There are various views on whether it is an income levy or a tax; it seems to straddle both. One of the problems is that it is very unfair. People would accept legislation if it was fair but this patently is not and the language of the Minister of State makes it clear it is a matter of indifference to the Government whether it is fair.

Money is being extracted from people who simply cannot afford to pay it. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence. I am prepared to pay and many people who can afford it are prepared to pay. A woman who was recently separated, left with three children, is a civil servant and approached MABS for advice. She is living on that advice and does not have enough money to go to the cinema once a month or to buy a packet of cigarettes once a week. What is she to do? She will have to borrow the money and she is in a trap. That is madness, in my humble opinion. All Members have received e-mails. I received one from a man who says he will emigrate, such is the impact on him. He would be prepared to pay an increase in taxation. Why do we not have that? He suggests there will be unrest if tax is imposed on top of a levy. That is one of the problems, it is a piecemeal approach. The Government was not sure about the most basic elements. Two Cabinet Ministers contradicted each other as to whether this applied to gross or net income. At least the Minister of State has spelled out that it applies to gross income. At least we have that degree of certainty but it is not much to rely on in this kind of crisis. The Minister of State indicated the kind of crisis in the language used, which is quite apocalyptic. He refers to exceptional circumstances. There is certainly an awareness of that critical situation.

One of my correspondents has stated that a tax increase would be preferred. There is a suggestion of a 4% increase in 2009, which would yield €1.48 billion, 3% in 2010 yielding €1.01 billion and 4% in 2011 yielding €1.53 billion. That would produce the €4 billion from the PAYE system. There is a suggestion for a draconian 95% on anybody getting over €400,000. That is what happened in Britain in the 1970s and we may have to squeeze the fat cats.

The Minister of State's speech was fatally dull and the figures were anaesthetising when they were separated from the apocalyptic language. His speech referred to an exponential increase in the budget deficit. If it is a budgetary problem, let us have a budget. We need a comprehensive approach to the matter.