Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

It has been proven both scientifically with sociological studies and in other ways that countries with a narrow social gap are much better. They are healthier and more stable and there is little unrest with a happier society. Those countries with wide social gaps are places of unrest, much disturbance and much abuse of human rights with mental health issues, increases in prison population and levels of violence. However, given the various cuts to date, the proposed cuts and charges and this debate, I fear we are creating the kind of society in which the gaps between the various classes are becoming increasingly wide.

This motion concerns an attack upon low-paid workers. Why is the Government starting with the low-paid? I do not wish to be told that people at the other end of the scale have taken cuts. While they may have so done, they are not proportionate to what is being proposed in respect of the low-paid workers. If one considers the Dáil, one is paid €10,000 to chair a committee, even though Members are aware the bulk of the work is carried out by the staff. Where is the fairness in such an arrangement? While this issue will no doubt appear on an election manifesto for the next election, it will not be tackled now as an unjust payment to those who are well paid.

I do not believe there is hard evidence that cutting JLCs will create jobs in the hospitality sector. Many of those who work in this sector have trained with Fáilte Ireland or CERT as it used to be called. They have a variety of craft skills, such as chef, waiter, waitress, management and so on. The courses in question vary in length, involve great work experience and offer people good and varied qualifications when they come out.

Cutting JLCs will have a detrimental effect on these high standards. Workers in the hospitality sector need to be supported in acquiring these skills which will be of help in continuing to attract visitors to the country.

The jobs initiative has introduced certain measures to assist the hospitality sector such as a lower VAT rate, a reduction in PRSI and getting rid of the travel tax. We should wait to see what effect these measures will have without first going after the low-paid. The tax incentives to the hotel industry had a negative effect, with every Tom, Dick and Harry of a speculator building hotels. This had a detrimental effect on family-run, long-established hotels with high standards. It certainly was not low paid workers who were responsible for our difficulties.

Any further reduction in the incomes of low paid workers will have a significant effect in a number of areas. Cuts will lead to a further strain on health and social services, an increase in claims for family income supplement and to community welfare officers, and a drop in revenue and tax revenue. People will not spend money. They are not spending it now, which is affecting businesses. Therefore, if their incomes are reduced further, even less will be spent and there will be more job losses.

A negotiated adjustment to Sunday pay rates brings them from double time to time and one third. Sunday working is considered unsocial, which must be recognised, as it is in other European countries which make special provision for Sunday working.

The shareholders in Bank of Ireland had a meeting last week and there was reference to the same old staggering salaries paid at the top and the complete disregard for ordinary people who had lost money. The board members continue to fly the flag for the elite. We allow this to continue, not to mention the obscene payout to a former AIB managing director. There is much fumbling in the greasy till, but it is not adding the halfpence to the pence, rather it is adding a nought. Therefore, what does it matter if it is three, four or five noughts when one is at the top end of the scale? We have to introduce income equality and not exacerbate the problem. Therefore, I am very happy to support the motion.

See this speech in context