Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I support the amendment. It arises from the inherent unfairness of the legislation which will hit the lower paid specifically. The levy, as the amendment identifies, will be on income that is not related to pensions, including overtime payments. In some instances, those paying the levy will not be benefiting from a pension while others will be benefiting disproportionately. The levy is inherently unjust.

I do not propose to make a Second Stage speech but, as I said on the Order of Business yesterday, the Government is attempting to rectify the problem with the public finances in an inherently unfair way. The provision does not work from the top down by first attacking privilege, wealth, bonuses and mega-salaries but seeks to target the lower paid and slip in measures that give rise to anomalies. Strictly speaking, what is proposed is not a pension levy because not everyone benefits to the same degree and not all income that is subject to it is pensionable. It is taxation under the guise of a pension levy, thereby making it more palatable to the public.

It is most regrettable that we will not have the opportunity to deal with all the amendments. It is bizarre and does not inspire public confidence that we are guillotining legislation that may have a greater impact on people's lives than any other legislation considered for a long time. This is an inherent weakness in our parliamentary system.

Our amendment on tax credits for farmers hit by the changes affecting payments under the farm waste management scheme is very important. Farmers have two problems with the delay in payment under the scheme, the first of which is that it will affect their entire credit and cash flow status. A bank that accommodates a €50,000 or €60,000 loan on the grounds that there is to be a farm waste management scheme grant will not simultaneously give a loan to a farmer to engage in other farm enterprises, buy a tractor or develop his farm. If the farmer is compromised in this regard, his capacity to spend will be negated.

If I default on my tax payments to the Revenue Commissioners and am six months or a year late, I must pay interest on the unpaid taxes. This is legitimate and I ought to and would pay the interest if such circumstances arose. If the State defaults on payment to farmers in respect of a prima facie contract, which is effectively the case, the State will not give the tax credit to the farmers for the interest owed by them to the bank. If the farmer owes the bank €3,000 in interest, this sum should be subject to a tax credit, just as a Member or any other citizen would pay interest to the State on tax owed in arrears. We cannot have A without B as they are logical corollaries. An issue of justice, logic and fairness arises in this regard.

People are crying out for fairness, transparency and consistency. There is now a belief — it is so sad in a republic — that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. The greatest challenge the Government faces is to correct this. One way to start this process is to tell small farmers that while the State must renege temporarily on its contract, it will pay what it owes——