Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague for his help. I apologise for causing confusion but the progressive measures were introduced by both Governments. We brought in two thirds of the austerity but we tried to do it in a way that hit the wealthiest the hardest. I did not like the way the changes to child benefit were made. I would love to have seen a means test brought in. No Government has had the courage to deal with that.

The reduction in the jobseeker’s allowance for the young unemployed was started by the previous Government and continued by this one. The public sector pension levy hit the public service but it was highly progressive because the highest earners paid the most and the lowest earners the least but it was very difficult for them. There were cuts in public sector pay in 2010 and again under this Government with the Haddington Road agreement. The public service pension cuts were a huge issue but that was a progressive measure.

The property tax was not progressive because it does not affect people according to their income but according to the house they live in or the location. The abolition of the Christmas bonus in 2009 and its partial restoration are included in this study and the cutbacks in the household benefits package, which were insidious because they benefit people over the age of 70, the disabled and carers. While this was being cut the Government was saying basic social welfare rates have not changed but those receiving the benefits could see exactly what was being changed. All these matters are included in the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, study including the partial restoration of the Christmas bonus this year which we welcome. That shows the cumulative, relative impact of austerity and that the poorest suffered comparatively the least in percentage terms and the wealthy suffered the hardest. One can make that case only by going back through all the measures brought in since the famous budget in October 2008.

The measures this Government has brought in have hit the poorest the hardest. The Minister of State should examine this and try to change course by supporting this recommendation, consider the expenditure cuts and restore them to the level they were at before the last Government cut the rates. Other Departments have a role as well. He could consider the options for changing the graph because the poorest in society have been hit very hard by the choices this Government has made.

The Government talks about the International Monetary Fund, IMF, agreement forcing it to do this or that but there were many things in that agreement that were not done, including some progressive taxation measures, reform and regulation of the legal profession, of the medical consultants and the top levels of various other professions. This Government decided to hit the poorest hardest and to let the wealthy away relatively lightly in comparison.