Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of our guests for coming in. In regard to IBEC, it is unfortunate we have to spend so much of the committee meeting speaking about some of the comments and the news reports, but it is important and that is what we are here for. I would agree with Deputy McAuliffe, although I do not want to put words in his mouth, that there is a lot that is problematic, not just in the comments over recent days but also with respect to the opening statement today, on a broad range of issues, in particular around collective bargaining. We have very low rates of people taking up trade union membership, which is at 500,000 at the moment, so I think the voluntaristic nature IBEC speaks about has to be put in the context that many people do not feel they have the opportunity to avail of collective bargaining in this country. That is the pure fact of it. I do not see any suggestion here on how IBEC intends to change that. Just simply disagreeing with the recommendation is not very helpful to us, to be honest.

Why does IBEC say in its submission it welcomes the gender pay gap Bill from the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. IBEC says it has been a difficult journey to get to here and it finishes up its statement by saying the employer is the only stakeholder that has to report and yet, to achieve real change, we need to see changes in the education system. There are a lot of recommendations in regard to the education system but that is not what IBEC is here to talk about. It is here to talk about its obligations and the obligations of businesses. On the one hand, it is saying it welcomes the Bill and, on the other, it seems to be saying it does not seem very fair that it is the employer that has to report. Obviously, the employer is the one who has to report on the gender pay gap because it is the one paying people. IBEC’s opening statement is problematic throughout. It is almost like it is kicking and screaming about any changes we need to see in regard to inequality in the labour market. That is my first point.

In regard to paid domestic violence leave, as I said on the record a couple of weeks ago, I do not believe it is in any way practical to suggest there has to be proof. We have to remember that any legislation has to go through Cabinet and be approved by all three parties, and sometimes those things can be a barrier and a challenge. I was delighted to see the Tánaiste’s statement yesterday that we do not believe that proof is something that is necessary or practical.

I am disappointed IBEC cannot see that also.

This is probably the fifth or tenth item on my list at this stage but I would love to hear our guests' comments on a four-day working week. We discussed it at a previous committee and I am conscious some trade unions are trying to advance this. Do IBEC or WorkEqual think this is something we can move to? That is it for the moment. I will come back in during the second round.