David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Micheál Collins, Mr. Fergal O'Brien and Ms Maeve McElwee for their presentations which will be helpful in drafting the document that will consider low pay, in-work poverty and a living wage. There is a mountain of data showing there is a problem with low pay and deprivation and poverty among people who are working; not people who are unemployed. Dr. Collins provided the joint committee with some of the figures, as did Mr. Seamus Coffey earlier. I note that 20% of the workforce are on low pay and that 400,000 suffer from poverty and deprivation. Moreover, 11.7% of people who are working are in poverty, while 8.7% of those who are working are in consistent poverty. These obviously are real figures; there are people behind them and they are of real concern to members as, I hope, everyone present wishes to see a fair and decent economy with decent wages and so on. That should be one's starting point. I argue that the current model is not working because we have such high levels of in-work poverty and low pay. Therefore, one must investigate what the problems are, acknowledge that there are problems and then consider what the solutions are. Dr. Collins has made reasonable, realistic and deliverable proposals on a living wage. The joint committee must consider them and I agree with Dr. Collins's analysis that a living wage is not something that will happen overnight. It will be gradual and happen over time.

As for the contributions made by Mr. O'Brien and Ms McElwee, can they back up some of their assertions with data? The IBEC briefing notes state the living wage "comes with a fiscal cost as it will hurt employment". On what data, research and evidence is this assertion based? The joint committee has also heard from the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, that an increase in the minimum wage or an increase in wages would hurt our competitiveness. However, countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Austria have much higher personal taxes, higher corporate taxes, higher wages, higher employers' PRSI and better labour protections. They all have much better workers' rights and much better wage levels and are much more competitive. This came from the global competitiveness report, a survey of business, which showed that if one builded a model and a more sustainable economy on decent work, decent pay and decent workers' rights, it would be more sustainable for everybody.

The delegateses from IBEC made an interesting point which was also made by Dr. Collins and with which I agree, namely, that wage levels and increases are one way to lift people out of poverty. Obviously, the concept of a living wage is aimed at doing some of this, but I refer to Government policy on public services. The delegates quite rightly mentioned housing supply and child care costs as two critical issues, to which I would add health care. From where would the increased revenue come to pay for the investment in these services? While I am open to correction, I do not believe IBEC is calling for increased taxes across the economy. From where will the increased revenue come to pay for these services? If one does not argue for wage increases, especially for those who need them and if one states more money will be necessary to solve the housing supply problem and resolve child care issues, one must then ask from where will the money come.

We say more money is necessary to pay for the housing problem, for housing supply and child care. We must argue about where the money will come from. Does Mr. O'Brien have a position on rent controls, which is one proposition put forward? I am interested to hear the IBEC position on this. What data will IBEC use to back up the assertion that it would be bad for the economy? I argue that more competitive countries and those with more sustainable economies pay better wages, have better working conditions and have higher taxes on corporations and wealth.