Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Bacik on a number of points but differ with her on a few others. It is absolutely correct to say that the cost of living impacts those on the lowest incomes the most. If we look at the data from the Central Statistics Office, CSO, however, the differential is not as wide as people may think. The most recent data produced by the CSO, and it is a little out of date, indicates that the rising cost of living impacts people in the lowest-income households, perhaps of the order 6% or 7%, while for middle-income households the equivalent rate is 5% or 6%. It is not as great a difference as people may believe it to be. That is why the Government decided we needed universal and targeted measures. Middle-income people, working people and people not on welfare are also struggling to pay the bills and to deal with increased utility costs. Even though we received criticism from people for doing it, I stand over the decision to take €200 off everyone's electricity bill, because even people on modest incomes and middle incomes are also struggling with their bills. If we only implement targeted measures, then working and middle-income people will lose out and that is wrong. That is why we need a combination of universal measures that benefits everyone, as well as targeted measures for those most affected.

Regarding wages, in Ireland they are approximately 36% higher than the OECD or EU average. As is often the case with statistics, it depends on how things are measured. Our minimum wage is the third, fourth or fifth highest in the OECD. If we compare what people are paid like-for-like, such as teachers, nurses, gardaí and construction workers, then Irish pay rates are higher than those in the UK and much higher than the OECD or EU average. When we adjust for the higher cost of living, that pretty much cancels that out. It can only really be argued that we are a low-pay economy based on relativities, and that is a particular way of working things out, in that because somebody in Microsoft is paid a fortune, that means we have relatively low pay. However, when we compare like with like, it is a much more complex picture and, as is often the case with statistics, it depends on how they are used. Certainly, compared to the average of our peers, wages are about 36% higher.

Our minimum wage is one of the highest in the world. I acknowledge that has to be offset against the fact that we have a higher cost of living and also by the fact that we have lower payroll taxes on people on lower and middle incomes than other countries do. Relativities can be used to prove almost anything and, therefore, can be misleading. The increase in the national minimum wage this year was lower than the rate of inflation. However, looking back over previous years, we have increased the national minimum wage well ahead of the rate of inflation. I think it has gone up by about 25% in the past five or six years. Inflation has not risen by 26% in the past five or six years. It is closer to 10%. With the exception of this year, we have had national minimum wage increases greater than inflation.

See this speech in context