Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I would like to know what kind of businesses are struggling because of the minimum wage. I have not come across such businesses. I have asked for information about them but I have not found them. Perhaps the Department has the information and it would be very helpful if this information was shared with us.

The people on the minimum wage are people without a voice. They have no connection with registered employment agreements or joint industrial council agreements because none of these people on the minimum wage is likely to be a member of a trade union. They are people without a voice and without protection. The trade union movement is opposed to the reduction of the minimum wage, not because it affects their members but rather because it affects people who are poorer than that and who are outside the protection of the trade union movement, outside of any protections. The registered employment agreements do not deal with minimum wage levels, the reason being one does not have to have a registered employment agreement to pay people at the minimum wage. Why would one go to the trouble of negotiating for months or a year to register an agreement at minimum wage levels? There is no connection between these two and they are completely separate.

I would like to hear how jobs are to be created. This Bill introduces a disincentive, a measure which will take money out of the economy because the one certainty about people on the minimum wage is that they spend every cent. It all goes straight back into the economy. A reduction in the minimum wage is taking money out of the economy. This must be causing small businesses to struggle even more. For instance, the local shop will suffer because people will not buy a cake at the weekend or some other little extra they might try to put on the table. The Minister of State's point is unreasonable but I agree with him that anyone who is contracted under the minimum wage is protected. The Minister of State has dealt with labour law for the past two years and he knows it better than I do. I do not have any worries about his capacity but rather I am focusing on the issue. People at the end of their contract or those without contracts are sacked and replaced by people at a lower level. This does not create one extra job nor does it protect any job. All it does is put more money back in the pocket of someone up the line.

It is very significant that this is the direction we are taking. I could not believe it when I heard the boss of IBEC state on the record that IBEC had not sought a reduction in the minimum wage. IBEC made it clear it was not its suggestion. It was interesting to hear that Mr. Chopra made it clear the IMF did not demand a reduction in the minimum wage. There is no condition relating to the minimum wage in the agreement. The suggestion did not come from any of those bodies.

The National Competitiveness Council is the Minister of State's adviser on competitiveness and he is still offering the view that competitiveness can be improved by reducing the minimum wage but I would ask to see the evidence for this. I do not see any evidence to prove that point. People on the minimum wage are not working in the area of competitiveness. None of the jobs we are trying to create in global industries and international business depends on the minimum wage which belongs to a different place altogether.

The minimum wage rate does not affect the members of trade unions. I cannot find any trade union members who are earning the minimum wage. The National Competitiveness Council did not look for a reduction in the minimum wage nor did IBEC or the IMF. The Government is the only body looking for a reduction. Why is it is being reduced? Despite the efforts of decent people such as Senator MacSharry who has made efforts on behalf of people whose homes are threatened by repossession through an inability to pay their mortgages, we have failed to protect them. I am not saying I could do any better but while we have failed to protect those people, we then reduce the minimum wage and make a certain class of people even worse off. The public note we have managed to put structures in place to save the banks. I supported the Government on every single one of the measures on this issue. I have disagreed quite regularly with my Fine Gael colleagues on some of the Government measures. Why then turn around and, having looked after the banks, go to the opposite end and hammer people on the minimum wage? What does this achieve? We need to re-evaluate our decisions.

I am not being high-minded when I say this is ethically and morally wrong. I do not wish the Minister of State to think I am preaching. I am no more ethically or morally correct than anyone else and I have made more mistakes than most along the way. This measure is ethically and morally wrong. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, well enough to know that we would share many of these views and this measure is not necessary.

In reply to Senator Ó Brolcháin's point, people in his party took a stand in Government on issues such as stag hunting where lives were not threatened. It was an issue of principle. I did not agree with it but I understood the Green Party's position. I cannot understand hurting small people at the bottom of the pile. Most of them probably do not even vote so they are not a threat to anyone. I do not understand why we cannot stand up for them.

We must focus on the issue of the gap between the rates of social welfare and the minimum wage. This was raised by Senator Buttimer yesterday and he touched on it again today. Senator Cummins, among others, has also raised the issue. I have been listening in this Chamber for years about the problem of the gap between welfare and the minimum wage, that it was not worth people's while to go off welfare and onto the wage. We are now narrowing the gap so this must surely worsen the situation. I remind the Minister of State it is to do with the percentages of smaller amounts. I am talking about the actual money figure.

The provision in section 11(1) provides that the Minister may vary the rate by order and this aspect of this issue sent shivers down my back. This means the Minister will sign a ministerial order in his or her office and it will be introduced without any discussion. This is very regressive. I applaud my colleagues in Fine Gael who, most creditably, have said on the record of the House that they will restore the minimum wage if and when they get into power. At least then we can get some good out of this legislation because it can be done by ministerial order when that time comes. This is a classic example of Fine Gael outmanoeuvring Fianna Fáil on the issue of fairness in wages. It has made a very fair argument during the years which I believe people will support. It will be a big issue for ordinary people who look at decisions taken, what was said and done and three or four decisions such as this are absolutely appalling.

Senator Ó Brolcháin talked about monitoring, but I do not know what monitoring in which we need to engage. When the new jobs are created, I will want to know where they are and in what industries. The Senator should indicate where he expects them to be created. I cannot figure out what new jobs on the national minimum wage will be created. Will they tend to be created in areas of the services industry? Even in good restaurants where one would expect the national minimum wage to be paid, the reality is staff are all being paid more than it because that is what is required to hold on to them.

I thank the Minister of State for at least not being sucked into the trap of saying the national minimum wage is the highest in Europe because we all know that when purchasing power is taken into account, it is far from being the highest in Europe; it is more like the sixth or seventh highest. I appreciate the argument was not tossed out, but it is one that has been made by others, which is an issue.

Senator Ó Brolcháin told us benchmarking was a huge mistake, which I would like to hear explained. I put my hands up: I led the negotiations on establishing a national minimum wage and on the establishment of benchmarking. It appears I have much to answer for. However, I would like to hear what exactly was wrong with either of them. According to today's Irish Independent, it cost €1 billion, but this sum was divided among the 250,000 people who worked in the public service. As one of the officials accompanying the Minister of State will know off the top of his head, it worked out at a figure of 7.5% on average. Some have said benchmarking wrecked the country, but we are talking about a country that is in a hole for the €85 billion we have had to get from the European Union. People can still stand up and point to a group of public servants and claim it is their fault that the country is where it is because they were paid too much. What does Senator Ó Brolcháin think should have happened in 2002? Should all of the public servants and others who profited from wage increases have stood back and let even more go for even larger helicopters and more millionaires to build bigger houses in more vulgar places? What was it that we should have done at that stage? Should ordinary workers have stood aside and watched the flow of wealth being created - faux wealth as it turned out - move in another direction? Perhaps they should have said: "We will be good here. We don't want this." That is exactly where we find ourselves in terms of the decisions made. It is utterly irrelevant to suggest benchmarking has anything to do with the national minimum wage. Those on the Government side have run out of arguments; there is none left.