Alex White (Labour)

Yes. For example, prior to last year's budget, the Labour Party, following a briefing by the Department of Finance, proposed a higher income tax rate for higher earners. The price tag in introducing a third rate of tax of 48% on earnings over €100,000 was €355 million as costed by the Department. Iinformed by the contents of the report of the Commission on Taxation, we also proposed a reduction in pension relief and the price tag was €330 million. We did not make up that figure, rather it was based on information provided by the Department of Finance for us. We proposed modifications and reductions in investment property relief and the price tag was €430 million. The same applies to property schemes.

Deputy Varadkar, when describing the Labour Party proposals on the revenue side, was, I believe, misled into thinking the Labour Party was proposing an attack on the middle classes to the tune of €2.5 billion. I would like to debate that figure with him. Few people, middle class or otherwise, would be affected by many of these reliefs which, in many cases, ought not to have been introduced in the first instance. They ought to have been curtailed more quickly. According to the Commission on Taxation, there is no genuine compelling economic benefit to be gained from their continuation and they should be removed. A debate on these measures would be helpful. The only measure in the list brought forward on the revenue side last year by the Labour Party that could conceivably be regarded as an attack on the middle classes is a third rate of tax at 48% on income over €100,000.

A real issue of equity arises. I had an interesting discussion last week with a colleague from the opposite side on the general economic environment. I agree with him that until people believe there is equality and fairness in the Government's approach to economic recovery, whether in terms of taxation measures or the configuration of cuts in public expenditure, there will not be the public confidence, involvement or a shoulder to the wheel which the Government rightly, in a rhetorical sense, seeks all the time. That simply will not happen. I agree with what my colleague had to say during that general private discussion. Many people feel the same way. At the time of a general election the reality is that the public will have to be persuaded by way of debate that there are, regrettably, some public services that we simply are not able to afford. We can have the debate on how we have come to be in this situation at another time, but I will be happy to participate in it.

What upsets me a little is that people do not yet seem to understand or to have analysed what has gone wrong. Colleagues opposite have the idea that this has been a golden era and what we are facing is a blip caused by the international recession, but that is completely wide of the mark. We are where we are because Government decisions that ought to have been made were not. In the future there will have to public discussion and confidence in measures that will be extremely difficult and affect ordinary voters, citizens and families. People will not buy into these decisions, unless they can see fairness across the board.

When speaking about how we order business in the House, I had in mind that which goes beyond the structured debate we are having today in which the Minister of State - I accept he is only doing what he is required to do and that he does it well - has made a speech and will reply to questions from colleagues. I would prefer if the two or three organisations with big picture proposals, including Social Justice Ireland, could be invited to come to the Seanad Chamber to defend their proposals. We could then pursue and scrutinise them with them, with the benefit of advice and information from the Department of Finance or the Civil Service. This would allow genuine public debate rather than set piece debates. That is what I had in mind in regard to how we could change the way we do business in the House. I urge the Leader to seriously consider how best we might do this.

I look forward to the four-year programme being produced. There is an air of unreality in terms of what some Government Members appear to expect from the Opposition. Without information and the facts, there will not be a genuine debate. I am, however, prepared to have a truce for a short while if we can receive the information we require. We could then have the argument, but this cannot be done the other way round. One might say this could be done in a general election campaign because that is when such things are done. The big issues will be debated in such a campaign. We want a general election but cannot have one because the Government intends to remain in office for as long as it possibly can. Short of having a general election, let us try to facilitate genuine debate. We could start by doing so here.