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

I thank the Deputies for their questions. I will start by responding to Deputies Haughey and Brendan Smith on the Northern Ireland protocol. I welcome the continued positive UK-EU engagement aided at finding joint solutions to concerns about the implementation of the protocol.

When I met the Northern Ireland parties and business representatives last month, I got a real sense of a widely-held desire to see a joint resolution and to refocus on other pressures facing people across Northern Ireland, including the cost of living and resolving the various strikes under way. As I said to President von der Leyen, when we spoke on 11 January, the approach taken by the European Commission is the right one. The Commission has listened carefully to people in Northern Ireland and is willing to show flexibility in the search for an agreement. I also discussed the protocol with Prime Minister Sunak, when we spoke on the phone on 23 January, and expressed my belief that it should be possible to find joint solutions.

I said that I was encouraged by the constructive nature of the discussions and I believe both sides want to reach agreement. The best support we can offer them is to provide the time and space for them to get there. I can confirm that notwithstanding newspaper reports, no deal has yet been done between the EU and the UK but I agree with Deputy Haughey that the agreement on customs information is significant and helpful.

Regarding the UK's legacy bill, I very much endorse Deputy Brendan Smith's remarks on Belturbet and agree those families deserve truth. There might never be prosecutions, although I would never like that to be ruled out, but what they want and deserve is truth - to know what happened and who did it. The Government continues to communicate its deep concerns about what is happening and the unilateral approach by the UK Government. I raised this directly with Prime Minister Sunak during our call last Monday and with the party leaders in Belfast recently. The Tánaiste raised it with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference in Dublin on 19 January. There is consistent opposition to the Bill across the board and that continues to grow.

I am very aware of the strikes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I make a point of watching British news any day I can. Listening to the Deputies opposite, they almost sound as though they are glad the strikes are under way and are sad that they are not happening here, notwithstanding the impact they have on people who use public services. A trade union leader once said something to me with which I really identify. I recall him telling me that any strike is a failure of industrial relations and that while it is easy to go out on strike, it is much harder to settle a dispute because that means having to sell to your members something that is less than what they have been demanding. I thought that was a pertinent comment. That was not from me; it was from a trade union leader.

There are very big differences between what is happening here and what is happening in Great Britain. For a prolonged period, we had pay rises that were higher than inflation. We do not have that at the moment but we have a public sector pay deal that at least goes part of the way towards compensating workers for the rising cost of living, while in Great Britain, they are effectively back to austerity and are increasing taxes and reining in public spending. Because we have managed the economy so well and because the public finances have been managed so well, we are in a very different position and have been able to reduce income tax and put in place cost-of-living measures that have helped soften the blow. However, I hear the concerns workers have that prices are rising faster than wages. I acknowledge that this is a problem but the best way to resolve that is by negotiation with unions, not strikes. Strikes are a failure of industrial relations.

I did have a chance to look at the Oxfam report. I acknowledge that it is based on net wealth instead of gross wealth. That is something I am glad was clarified. I heard the Deputy use the term "modest tax rates". My reading of it was that it was proposing tax rates of 60% or more. I do not think most people in the country would regard a 60% tax on anything or anyone as being modest. The biggest risk of taxes of that nature is they drive people, wealth and investment abroad. That is why wealth taxes generally have not been successful where they have been tried.

See this speech in context