Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

The list of categories that we are seeking in these amendments to have excluded from the charge are unanswerable for anybody who claims to be even vaguely interested in fairness. Unless somebody on that side of the House in the Government will tell us soon - I would like to see the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, nod his head and state that I am absolutely right and that the Government will agree - they are, in fact, exposing the truth about this charge. With all the talk about fairness and how there will be exclusions for the small number of categories that the Minister has decided to exclude, if he does not exclude these categories then the talk of fairness is rubbish.

How could the Minister possibly not exclude the 350,000 who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own over the past three years? Is it not bad enough that they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, through the behaviour of gamblers and bondholders, developers and politicians? Is it not bad enough that they must suffer that ignominy of unemployment with little prospect of recovery anywhere close on the horizon, and that their children are leaving the country? The Minister states that it is okay to load another austerity measure on top of them, as well as hitting various other payments, in the budget the Government has just passed and in the social welfare Bill, that they would receive and that would bolster their income, which is miserable compared to what they would have enjoyed when they were working hard, as they want to be, and contributing to society. How can the Minister not exclude anybody who has lost his or her job?

How can the Minister not exclude those on family income supplement who are at the lowest level of income? That is why they get State support. How can the Minister not exclude those with a disability? How can he not exclude State pensioners? How can he not exclude those who are in negative equity because of the behaviour of reckless bankers and developers? How can he not exclude those on medical cards? The reason they are on medical cards is because they do not have enough money to provide for their health care. If those groups do not deserve to be excluded from this household charge, then it is an attack on those groups. There is not other way to describe it. It is quite obscene.

Of course, the reason the Minister of State is not nodding his head and is not giving the commitment is because even the groups that the Minister has excluded have nothing to do with the Government's desire for fairness but have everything to do with trying to pull a con trick on the public as to the real nature of this charge. Just as they did when they supported bin charges where they brought in the waivers at the beginning to try to soften people up to try to disorganise and undermine the legitimate opposition to the bin charges, after a few years the waivers disappear. Everybody out there knows that is what will happen here. It is merely a ruse. It is merely a tactic. It has nothing to do with fairness. It is about playing games with people. It is about the same cynical politics, which has wrecked this country and which has infected and corrupted the political culture. The Minister thinks it is okay. He thinks it is funny. He thinks it is tactical to play games with people, pretending that there will be some element of fairness when the intention is nothing more than to get the foot in the door for this charge, and then for the water charges, do away with the waivers and ratchet up the charges as the years go by. That is the intention. Most members of the public know this. It is very important that it be said loud and clear; otherwise the Deputies would not vote with us on the amendments.

This issue turns on the question of fair taxation, and the Minister of State and Government know this well. They keep wringing their hands saying they do not like what they are doing and wish they did not have to do it. They say the troika made them do so. It is obscene that this measure is in the troika agreement and that the Government is doing its bidding to pay off the bondholders. Notwithstanding its ridiculous, pathetic decision to capitulate to the troika, there are alternatives, and these have been spelled out.

Why will the Government not be honest? Deputy Joe Higgins referred to the wealth tax and I will not repeat the point. Why is it never complicated to attack the poor, vulnerable and least well off and why are we always told it is too complicated to tax the wealthy? It is stated that while the latter approach might be fair, it is just not possible. I do not understand this. Perhaps the Minister of State could explain it to me.

Could the Minister of State explain why the 10,000 highest earners in the State who, according to the Revenue Commissioners, earn an average of €500,000 per year, or €6 billion between them, paid less than €2 billion in tax? This represents an effective tax rate of 29%. Even if it were increased to 39% - I would be in favour of increasing it to at least 49% - it would yield €1 billion. Is €250,000 or €300,000 per year not enough for these people? Do they honestly believe it would be unfair to take from them the €160 million the Government is choosing to take from the poor and vulnerable? Could they not afford it? Could they not manage on €250,000 or €300,000 per year? Is it that difficult to live on that money? Could the Government not go after some of the former taoisigh and Ministers who have left the Oireachtas with annual earnings of €145,000, in spite of their not having reached retirement age? This is unbelievable. When David Cameron resigns, he will receive £32,000 as a former Prime Minister. Two of our former Prime Ministers walk off with €145,000 each per year. Why does the Government not go after them? Why is it so difficult? It is a question of whether the Government is committed to fairness or cynical bogus tactics to pull the wool over the eyes of the least well off and most vulnerable.

I agreed with Deputy Mathews' analysis but his one problem is that he does not recognise that the troika and Government will not listen to him because they do not care. They have made a cold, calculated decision that working people and the poor will pay for the crisis of the bondholders.

See this speech in context