Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)

On Monday I had the honour of being asked to visit Abbey national school in Roscommon town to give a talk to 196 young school lads between the ages of six and 12 years. I was asked to explain the position I thought Ireland would be in ten years. The idea was that many of the children listening to me would be adults in ten years going out into the world to look for work by which time it would be their country. After I had explained to them where I thought we could be and where we probably would be if we kept going the way we were, there was a question and answer session. A nine year old lad asked me my view on JLCs. I thought he had been put up to it, but after listening to him, I discovered that his concern had to do with his father and the cut in his wages. The child was worried that his father would not be able to buy him a birthday present if this happened. This is an example of the real effect if we cut the wages of people already put to the pin of their collar. What benefit would accrue in making such a cut? If wages are cut, people will probably need family income supplement and, in some cases, rent allowance. Has the State done a cost-benefit analysis of this decision and how much extra it will end up costing us? Will it do us any good in the long term?

Reference was made by a previous speaker to a survey undertaken by the credit unions to show how much income was available to people once they had paid all their bills. A large number virtually had no excess income. Many others with some income left over will no longer have this income if their wages are cut and they will be unable to spend money in service industries. How will employment be increased by doing what I instinctively think the Government is going to do, which is to try to cut low paid workers' wages?

People do not necessarily want high wages. The average person would be happy living on €10 a week if he or she could actually survive on €9 a week, buy all he or she needed and have a good quality of life. It is not about high wages, rather it is about what one can afford to buy on these wages. As a result of the previous and this Government's policy of bending the knee to the European Union, the amount of money people will have in their pockets will be less, regardless of how high wages are. They will have to pay back in taxation. Deputy Joe Higgins is a man who did not deserve to be insulted by the sniper talker who ran away after he had said his piece. It does not make sense for the Government to take money off people in one way and to then tell them it will reduce their wages. They cannot live on that amount of money.

People have no control over their high mortgages. Mortgages need to be reduced to their real level and negative equity must be done away with in order that people can start spending again. Then if the Government wanted to cut people's wages, perhaps they might be able to afford to live on them. As a result of everything being completely out of sync, we need to recalibrate the whole system. I understand employers have been badly hit by this decision which is not sustainable. If it costs a person so much money to live in this country, what are workers meant to do? Much of this problem can be solved if we get rid of much of the debt and reduce mortgages and living costs. People would then be able to live on the wages employers could afford to pay them.

See this speech in context