There is a certain tragic irony in the situation that as we sit here this morning, homeowners in Priory Hall are before the courts down the road, as Dublin City Council seeks to get out of the responsibility of paying temporary accommodation for families who had the misfortune of purchasing a home in Priory hell. These families have lived on the knife-edge for hundreds of days in insecure accommodation while continuing to pay a mortgage on buildings that are only fit to be knocked down. It is ironic that 100 years ago in this city, James Connolly, the former leader of the Tánaiste's party, fought against tenement buildings. Now, on his watch, homeowners are being treated like evacuees, paying money for properties that are death traps and a health hazard. Is it not ironic that James Connolly campaigned against William Martin Murphy and Independent Newspapers, as the mouthpiece of the employers? On the Tánaiste's watch, the new William Martin O'Brien and Independent News and Media, get a bailout of €60 million at the taxpayers' expense. It is a real case of history repeating itself but this time around, the Tánaiste, who claims to stand in the legacy of Connolly, is on the wrong side of the barricades.

It must have been pretty nauseating to take a lecture from Fianna Fáil about workers' rights and bus workers' rights but it was even more nauseating to hear his response. He could have been Bus Éireann management; he could have been Fianna Fáil when they were on his side of the House. I ask the Tánaiste to explain the journey he has made onto the side of IBEC. The nation was treated to the views of IBEC earlier in the week when that organisation told us it wanted an end to austerity because it had gone far enough. This sounded good until one read the small print. What IBEC was actually talking about was making sure there would be no austerity for its members. IBEC said, "By all means, continue with the austerity on hard-pressed homeowners, fleece them for a home tax, go after them for a water tax." When low and middle-income earners had nothing else to give, IBEC said: "Do not go after the high-earners." Instead, it argued that the Government should go after public sector workers once again. It was ably assisted in that argument by his party colleague, Deputy Howlin, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

On what planet is the Tánaiste living? Maybe it is the one where people like David Begg, who is on €140,000, put forward the prospect for the unions to be realistic.

Please put your question, Deputy Daly, as we are over time.

Is it realistic for low-paid public sector workers, who have already had their salaries reduced by 22%, to see them reduced further? Does he think it realistic for unions to go into a process where their members will come out worse off? Would it not be more realistic for the Tánaiste to target the increased number of millionaires who have got richer on his watch by progressively taxing them as he said he would? Would that not be something that a party that says it represents workers should do?

I get the impression that Deputy Daly does not think very highly of me.

The Tánaiste should not take it personally.

I will deal first with the Deputy's specific question as to whether I support low-paid workers taking a further cut. I do not support that. That is why the agreement proposed to the trade unions did not propose a cut in pay for low-paid workers. The cuts in pay proposed are graduated above a certain level. It is also the reason this Government reinstated the cut in the national minimum wage which was imposed by the previous Government. It is also the reason we legislated to reintroduce the joint labour committee system after it was struck down by the High Court. We recognise that people who are in low-paid employment need to have a statutory framework within which their pay and conditions are protected. This Government has not reduced the basic rates of social welfare payment, something that was done by the previous Government. It is the reason this Government took more than 300,000 people out of the universal social charge. These are the people on the lowest level of pay. When it comes to protecting people who are on low pay, this Government has taken repeated action and shows exactly where it stands even in difficult circumstances.

Of course, the issue of pay only arises if one has a job. That is why the Government's priority is to ensure the protection of existing jobs. We have pursued policies which have not involved - as is the case in other countries - compulsory redundancies for those working in the public services. We want to protect those companies employing people in the public transport system, for example. We do not want to see Bus Éireann fail financially, which would result in the loss of jobs. It is also the reason we are pursuing an economic strategy which is aimed at encouraging investment in this country by companies who establish subsidiaries here and who employ Irish workers. I am very pleased to see that over the course of recent times we have been successful in this regard. Last week alone, for example, more than 2,000 new jobs have been announced and more than 1,000 additional jobs were created in the private sector over the past 12 months. There has been a turn in the numbers of people who are at work. However, it is not fast enough; we want to see a lot more done in terms of additional jobs. It is the reason we have put such an emphasis on youth unemployment. Young people who are leaving schools and colleges cannot get the jobs for which they are qualified. We obtained European Union agreement for the youth guarantee which is supported by a youth investment fund of €6 billion. It is all to do with ensuring that people have jobs, that those jobs are secure and are not put at risk and that the best possible pay and conditions apply to them.

A supplementary question, please, Deputy Daly.

Of course I have nothing against the Tánaiste personally. The point I was trying to make was that he appears to be considerably out of touch with the reality on the ground. His very reference to the idea of youth unemployment being dealt with by his Government is masked by the fact that more than 300,000 people have been driven from our shores over the past four years.

The fact that the Tánaiste is out of touch is revealed by the fact that workers in jobs in the public sector, who are glad to be in jobs, have said clearly, both in the public sector and in Bus Éireann, that they can give no more. The issue is that there is never only one way to deal with a problem. While workers' pay and conditions have been decimated, the number of billionaires in Ireland has almost doubled since the crisis. The number of millionaires has gone up to 751 and the number of people earning over €300,000 - very few of them are in the public service - has increased to almost 10,000 people. Is it not the case that a party that says it stands on the side of ordinary people should see its role as tackling inequality rather than accelerating it? Should the Tánaiste not be dealing with taxing wealth rather than decimating workers' conditions? That was my question.

Does that apply to the banks?

Not if people are not living in a reality.

Those workers live in reality.

I have already dealt with one end of the equation, which is what this Government has done. It is very easy to say it. It is not a case of what we say; it is also a case of what we do. I have outlined to the Deputy and the House very clearly what this Government has done in order to protect the pay and conditions of people who are low-paid workers. The same applies to the issue of wealth. In the budget, this Government introduced the largest package of taxes on wealth that I can recall in my time in this House. We have introduced a property tax with an additional tax on properties over €1 million.

I drive past some of those properties and I see the posters that the Deputy's party has put up for their consideration. These posters advise them not to pay the property tax. It is very easy to come in here and bemoan and complain about millionaires and then put up a sign on their road telling them that they should not pay the property tax.

It is a family home tax.

It is what one does. Saying something is one thing and doing it is another. That is the difference between what Deputy Daly represents and what the Labour Party represents in government. We act to resolve problems and make things better rather than to go on shouting about them forever.