It is now two weeks since the Taoiseach promised, in the House, to make available all background material concerning the €1.8 billion pension levy. Unlike practice for the last decade, the Minister for Finance announced a major revenue proposal without publishing any background papers. I challenged the Taoiseach on this and he said he would have no difficulty in providing any information. I immediately wrote to him seeking this information but none has been supplied to me.

This matters because this week the House will vote on this levy. Almost every day a new piece of information is emerging on its potential impact. At the weekend a report was published stating it could have a severe impact on defined benefit schemes. Last week the International Monetary Fund expressed its concerns about unintended consequences. There is huge concern, therefore, about the impact of the pension levy. The people have a right to examine the information on which the Government relied when it made this decision and decided to introduce the levy. The programme for Government committed to providing more information before budget votes, but, in fact, the Government is providing less. Will the Taoiseach tell us in a straightforward way whether the Government carried out a full assessment of the likely impact of the levy and whether it has considered the analysis which suggests it will reduce pensions provision by far more than the €1.8 billion suggested?

The pensions industry proposed that a pension levy of 0.5% should be introduced as against a reduction in tax relief. The Government decided on a levy of 0.6% on the pensions industry which forms a major part of the jobs initiative announced within the constraints of the IMF-EU deal to stimulate a measure of confidence and growth in the indigenous economy. I am not sure what information the Deputy is seeking or whether he has a list of specific questions he wants answered in respect of elements of the pensions industry. I will try to supply the detailed information if he sends me a list of questions.

Budget 2011 increased the annual notional distribution from 3% to 5%, which means that in respect of, for example, approved retirement funds, ARFs, where a pensioner takes nothing from an ARF, he or she ends up paying income tax and the universal social charge on 5% of the capital value. This means that at least €2,400 must be paid in tax on a sum of €100,000 in an ARF. By comparison, the levy being applied to private pension funds is only 0.6% and is a temporary change, unlike the position on ARFs, as the Minister for Finance made perfectly clear in his announcement on the jobs initiative.

The pensions industry has projected forward that in the full lifetime of a pension fund there would be an impact in respect of a levy such as this. However, this levy will be in place for a four year period, is temporary in nature and being used following an initiative taken by the pensions industry in order that, instead of reducing tax relief, a charge or levy will be applied in this way. Obviously, as Deputy Shane Ross pointed out, there are charges in the management of the pension funds that could be reduced as a consequence of the introduction of the levy, which would have a significant impact. I have undertaken, arising from Deputy Ross's question two weeks ago, to have the Minister for Finance follow up on his constructive comments.

The Taoiseach did not answer the question I asked. I am seeking information on the advice the Minister received, including internally in the Department of Finance, as well as from the Pensions Board and a variety of other sources, normally supplied in making a major decision of this kind. All of the background material provided in the consideration of the issue leading up to the decision should be published.

The background is the bank guarantee.

The net effect of the jobs stimulus will be, as the Taoiseach knows, the deflation of the economy by approximately €200 million, the difference between the revenue that will be raised by the levy and the smaller amount provided in tax reductions. Unless the Government publishes the full details of the cost-benefit analysis carried out before the announcement of the jobs initiative, serious questions will be asked about its impact.

Like the Deputy's party did.

They were good at it when they were in government.

We can all now see what the primary purpose of this initiative was, namely, public relations. Unfortunately, however, this public relations exercise can have a significant and lasting negative impact. That is what I am trying to get at. We are entitled to have the information, particularly on how it will undermine private pensions provision into the future.

After 13 years of Fianna Fáil rule.

Will the Taoiseach accept——

Can we have silence, please?

On a final point, will the Taoiseach accept that there is a wide range of genuine domestic and international concerns and criticisms among commentators who are raising questions about the levy and that it should not be forced through the House until a proper review of its impact has been prepared and published for Members?

When did the Deputy first hear about the cost-benefit analysis?

When I see the Taoiseach acting as if he wants to be Taoiseach.

I assume that as leader of his party and one who might still want to be on this side of the House, had he thought of it himself or been approached by the pensions industry, the Deputy would certainly have considered it. Let us think of the circumstances in which he left the country.

I am asking the question to seek information on the advice provided. The Taoiseach should answer that question.

The Deputy is talking about it being a public relations exercise. I made it perfectly clear——

This was a decision taken by the Taoiseach and continued by him.

The rhetoric is over now that he has left College Green.

Will the Deputies, please, allow the Taoiseach to reply?

We stand by the decision made. It was made in the interests of creating employment, growing the economy and providing a sense of confidence in the indigenous economy at a time when there are over 440,000 on the live register. If Deputy Micheál Martin expects us to sit by and do nothing, to sit idly by——

That is not——

If he wants information on the detail of what the Minister for Finance considered, he should table a question to him or raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Come off it. The Taoiseach said he would supply the detail of the advice provided.

The Taoiseach said things had changed and that there would be transparency.

We will move on to the next question.

Surely, the Deputy does not expect me to have at my disposal here the detailed information made available.

I do. There was a memorandum. I expect him to provide that advice and publish it.

If he wants that detail, the Deputy should ask the Minister for Finance.

Yes, we can.

I am asking the Taoiseach, the head of the Government, the man who talks all the time about transparency.

Will the Deputy cool down?

I am the head of the Government. If Deputy Micheál Martin wishes, he can ask the Minister for Finance who will answer the question.

I call Deputy Gerry Adams.

The programme for Government spoke about transparency.

It is over.