Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I think that is useful. Basically I am hearing that nobody is really objecting to the staggered approach but there is a serious concern about the timescale on this, particularly as the legislation has been bandied around for quite some time now. Would it not be the case that in smaller organisations, the pay arrangements will be less complicated anyway by virtue of the arrangement and that all of these big, mad bonuses and special bonuses and arrangements diminish when the employment is small? It is not as complex and presumably, if there is learning curve to be had, the fact that we are coming late to this issue means we have the advantage of international experience. We do not need to make the mistakes that were made in the other jurisdictions. I am not convinced on the need for a staggered approach at all, but I am hearing that nobody has a huge problem with that, although there does seem to be a general agreement that it should move quicker and go down. If I am wrong on that, I would like to hear more.

Maybe it is me, and it is early, but I do not get the point about part-time workers, I really do not. What would the problem be from IBEC in that? Part-time workers, in terms of gender pay gap, is key. This is an information provision. Particularly given the significant levels of under-employment that are now being revealed, many relating to women, is the problem that, when the information is gathered, the employer might be worried about looking bad or something? I do not really get it. If that is the case, then the points the witnesses made that the reason this is here is because they had all these requests, can be explained and made look as though it is not a problem. The bigger picture for women and gender equality is that part-time work and underemployment are huge contributors. Any information we can get that assists in impacting on policy has to be key.