Ciarán Cannon (Fine Gael)

I would just like to outline the context behind this amendment. These PRSAs were introduced in 2003 by the Pensions Board in an attempt to increase pension coverage across the whole working population. The idea was the lower paid and the self-employed would start making some provision for their pensions. The intention also was for PRSAs to supplement the State pension and to avert what many of us believe will be a major crisis in pension provision for many years to come.

This is an inequitable imposition upon a certain sector of the working population. Employees in other pension schemes are currently not taxed on any contributions that their employer puts into the pension plan. This recommendation seeks to correct what I believe was simply an error of omission. I do not believe this was deliberately done either by the officials or by the Minister during the drafting of the Bill. I cannot believe that such an unfair imposition was made upon a certain sector of the working population. Anybody who has been out canvassing on the doorsteps in the past few weeks will have been told of the horror people experienced when they opened their paychecks to find the serious chunk taken out of their pay by this new universal social charge. However, one cannot imagine the horror that people experience when they open their paycheck to discover that not only has the USC been applied to their pay, but also to any pension contribution that their employer is making on their behalf.

I agree with the Minister to some extent that this Bill has been rushed through the Seanad and the Dáil. I also recognise that we are living in extraordinary times and that we need to limit pension tax relief. However, this is a simple anomaly that unfairly singles out PRSA pension scheme members for an extra tax charge that their colleagues in traditional pension systems simply do not have to pay. The PRSA regime was introduced as a simple, transparent and portable pension arrangement for the lower paid. They are not used by high earners. We are talking about the self-employed and lower earners being hit unfairly in this situation.

I am informed by senior people in the pensions industry that removing this inequity simply requires a one or two line amendment to the Act. If it cannot be done now, over the coming months and perhaps even for a year, this universal social charge will be imposed unfairly and inequitably on PRSA contributions made by employers on behalf of their employees. It is unfair and unjust. I am informed that it is easily rectified, and I ask the Minister to accept that.