Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests. I have lots of questions. It is a point worth making that we have had this delay factor from IBEC, unfortunately, on lots of factors of progress. I was looking at it historically and one of the things that came up is that the Federated Union of Employers opposed the granting of equal pay in principle and had to be forced to change that position through a sit-in at its headquarters. The same arguments were being made. The point being made at the time was that the evidence for why we could not have this progress was not being provided by the Federated Union of Employers. The argument was that it would impact on SMEs. It has been the same argument forever. Is it not the case that we have mechanisms, such as the inability to pay mechanisms, if there are individual businesses that struggle or have difficulties with paying, for example, an increased minimum wage? We already have such mechanisms and those situations are the exception rather than the rule. When the ESRI was before us, its representatives confirmed that the evidence does not show, for example, that increases in those wage levels lead to job losses. That is a core issue.

Others have spoken on the domestic violence leave, but the key point put very well by Ms Buckley was that this is something women do so they can get the capacity to leave. Even meeting a lawyer is something people in this situation cannot do safely unless they get time and space to do so. The leave is there for safety and giving people the opportunity to get to safety. It is not something that comes after a process of addressing domestic violence but something that allows people to address it. That understanding is crucial and was put very well by Ms Buckley.

I would like a comment on it being the case that we already have mechanisms like the inability to pay mechanism. The voluntarism approach to collective bargaining clearly is not working. I do not see how we could get to the recommended level of 80% using a voluntaristic approach. The unions might comment on that.

I have a core concern about the recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality with regard to the minimum wage, which was carefully worded.

It recommended increasing the minimum wage to align it with the living wage. My concern is that I am seeing a rebranding of the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the recommended amount may well align it. For example, I have looked at 2020. Effectively applying the living wage that year or applying 66% of the median wage would come to about the same amount but that would not be the case this year, thanks to inflation. We need a belt-and-braces approach whereby we improve the way the minimum wage is measured so that we are applying the 66% principle.

I should point out that the Government's proposed 60% of the median wage in 2020 would have fallen far below the living wage as calculated based on the international living wage principles. Those principles hold that should be based on what is needed to live a decent life and participate in society fully and should be measured against actual concrete measurements. The minimum essential standard of living is based on 2,000 items that families actually need. I am concerned that in the excitement to improve the minimum wage, which is desperately needed, we may be allowing it to be rebranded as the living wage, which is something different. We should be able to set an adequate minimum wage according to the EU directive alongside the living wage and check it against that. The living wage principle, internationally, is based on the actual cost of living. If we are talking about these special measures being based on the employer's ability to pay, we also need to look at people's ability to live. That must be factored in when we are looking at the minimum wage. I know that is rather detailed but it is important. I have lots more questions but I will save them for the second round.