Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The ESRI clarified that even where there were hour reductions, research shows employees' wages stayed the same. They may have been working slightly fewer hours but they received the same or greater pay than previously. That is important to note.

It is useful to clarify that we already have a mechanism for companies that show an inability to pay. It is time we moved past the anecdotal narrative about what might happen and instead pointed out that we have a mechanism for these exceptions and that the rule needs to be adequate.

I do not want the meeting to get lost in this question but I have a concern around the median approach. A great mistake was made by the Low Pay Commission when it was established. I was on the National Women's Council of Ireland at the time and we pushed to get the word "adequacy" included in the terms of reference. We did not succeed in having "adequacy" made a consideration of the commission when deciding the minimum wage. The effect of that would be seen later. I will be very concerned if we end up with living wage legislation that does not view adequacy as being how people can live well, especially when we talk about pinning the living wage to the median wage. I always highlight the median wage because it tells us half of the population earn below that level. Usually, especially when it comes to tax policies, we only hear about the average wage, which is usually much higher because it is pushed up by those on much higher incomes. It is interesting that when it comes to pinning something to a percentage that is determined by the median rather than average wage, the median wage suddenly makes an appearance.

My concern is that a percentage of the median wage does not work well in circumstances where over half the population sinks into poverty wages, which we can unfortunately see happen in different parts of the world. Even in Ireland at times, 50% of the population has been at risk of poverty. I am concerned about using a blunt market figure as the determinant of the living wage. We need a belt-and-braces approach of looking at that but also checking it against adequacy measures, such as minimum essential standards of living.

The living wage legislation is in the programme for Government but not in the priority legislation for autumn. I ask the witnesses to give their sense of when that legislation is likely to come through. It will need further discussion and I am interested to make sure it gets over the line. While the Tánaiste said it would take four years, the citizens' assembly said it should be done by 2025, so it clearly expects it to be done in the next three years. The cost-of-living crunch pushes it further up the line. The minimal essential standards of living are an important tool in tackling the cost of living because they allow us to look at collective and public services that can address some of those costs.

We may have gone too deep into this so I will pull back and ask two or three specific questions on gender issues. On collective bargaining, the witnesses mentioned the EU directive. Will they comment on the importance of ensuring a right to collective bargaining is enshrined in national law? That has been sought for a long time and it is important. On a related issue, the tax relief for trade union contributions was removed, while members of a business and professional body still get tax relief. I ask for comment on enshrining the right to membership of a trade union in law and supporting it as a public good that leads to better outcomes for society.

We had a discussion with the ESRI about the importance of collective action in sectors with a large number of women, which are often areas of low wages. It is not just about individual rights but also collective thresholds. The sectoral order on childcare was mentioned but I am concerned that this only came about because the funding to the sector comes from the State. Will the witnesses comment on the joint labour committees, which were important but have been pushed back, and the need for something similar in areas like hospitality, which have a high proportion of women workers and are low paid? It is not a matter of State subsidy in this area; we just need to look at the hard measures for bringing a sectoral pay scale up. In childcare, the State is the largest customer so we have a particular lever. In other areas, we may need legislative measures.

The pensions issue is related to the pay gap. The pay gap knocks on and becomes part of a wider pension gap. A number of the citizens' assembly recommendations were around pensions. The ESRI noted that we are seeing a great deal in the media about the PRSI fund running out. The Commission on Pensions gave no consideration to the large amount of money spent every year - I think it is €2.9 billion - on private pension tax relief. Will the witnesses comment on that relief and the need to factor it into our public spending on pensions? What do they think is key to ensuring gender equality in terms of the pensions pay gap? The ESRI acknowledged that the private pension tax relief as currently constructed is regressive and predominantly benefits men. How can we ensure we route that money into what the citizens called for, namely, a universal State pension?