Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of quick questions for Professor Galligan and then more of my questions will focus towards the ESRI.

I thank Professor Galligan for her work. I will make a comment on the gender quota piece that I have made previously and which others have heard. The research shows that gender quotas are not a matter for women; they are a matter for society and for better decision-making. The research shows that when we have more diversity and representation in a room, everybody works harder and everybody performs harder. In fact, it has a way of stripping out mediocrity or groupthink. Professor Galligan might comment on the research. It is not a leg-up for women; it is a matter of fixing systems that are dysfunctional.

In that regard, building on a couple of the specific points raised by Professor Galligan, I note the 40% quota in terms of corporate boards. Professor Galligan mentioned the EU directive and that eight countries have taken legislative measures. It seems to have been the approach that legislative measures are needed when it comes to the private sector, which is why eight countries have done that and why that EU directive is in place. Professor Galligan might comment on that.

The State boards issue is interesting. We saw, for example, that higher education has one of the highest balances of women. Professor Galligan could perhaps comment on initiatives like the Athena SWAN programme, which has demanded that attention be paid the whole way up the ladder and how that may have contributed to how we are seeing that level of shift there.

Professor Galligan carried out analysis in terms of women not only being on boards, but on what boards. Similarly, the media analysis was not just about women being in media but what they are being asked to discuss. Previous research found that often, women were being asked to talk about their experiences while men were being asked to give their analysis, for example. It highlighted the importance of the types of opportunities being given within media.

My main questions are for the ESRI. Again, it comes back to that same question. What we are looking at here are not just some things for women and how we move them along. We are looking at how we deal with a society that is deeply unjust and badly designed, and similarly in terms of the workplace. I was a little concerned about the idea of the trade-off and the choices women make. The other way one can phrase it is the penalisation that is attached to care or the preference to have invisible care support because all those men are not simply making a different choice; they are relying on an invisible care support in many cases, and on a society that is framed that way. It is about how we frame it, not as being an issue for women but as being an issue for society and how we design it. Why is it acceptable that if a person moves to a part-time role, he or she is somehow not on the same progression ladder or that if a person takes two years out, he or she does not continue up that ladder and that is penalised? Why do we accept that being penalised? It is not simply around why women make different choices or about getting them to make the same choices as men, or that hopefully, if they are this top economic cohort, which is where much of the focus seems to be in the analysis, maybe they can get paid childcare. We need systemic change. I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on that.

I was really disappointed, to be frank, that one of the old tropes we hear about minimum wage and job losses was replicated in the ESRI's statement, even though the same paragraph goes on to point out that the research does not show it. It states "Given that women are more likely to be minimum wage workers than men, such job losses could disproportionately affect women." However, the research shows that it does not actually stand up that there are necessarily job losses. The fact is that the ESRI acknowledges later that Ireland has the highest income inequality; we are 32nd out of 34 in the OECD for income and equality. Perhaps that has a knock-on, in that we are not analysing if top pay differentials have an impact in companies. SMEs are being pushed out when we know, for example, that the big lobbyists, and we should be honest and frank on things like trying to keep the minimum wage down, are very wealthy companies such as major retail companies, the fast-food sector and all of those companies that make vast profits. It may seem like it is just a line to put in when we do this, but what we are doing is fuelling what will be a very real debate affecting women, predominantly, around things like the minimum wage. We are putting out a kind of scarecrow that was out there before that is not proven. The minimum wage is a massive issue. We have measures such as ability to pay to deal with the companies in trouble. However, and this is again in the analysis, why the unexplained gender gap in our wages? We are not simply looking for what cannot be explained by conditions of the market or the fact that people are in lesser-paid work.

The issue is that there are certain sectors, predominantly those where women are, where the wages are lower. That is not about women choosing higher or lower-paid jobs; it is about work, where women do it, being valued less.

I am not just critiquing the point that has been made in recommendation 35 on the right to collective bargaining; I want to welcome it also. I would like it if the witnesses from the ESRI could elaborate on the importance of that and on what we need to be doing to address the wage inequality issue in Ireland, which is exacerbated by the fact that women tend to be pooled. I ask the witnesses to also comment on the knock-on effects on pension inequality, where the gap tends to be even wider. I am concerned about the leadership positions, the top positions and the senior executive who gets a bonus and the senior executive who does not get a bonus. At the same time, at a crucial level, if we are to address injustices in society we need to look, not just to the unexplained but to the explanations that are given, whether they are acceptable and whether they need to be systemically changed. I ask the witnesses from the ESRI to comment on some of the explanations given around the wage gap and the measures we should be taking to address and redress them, as well as individuals' choices.