Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I organised the meeting at which Deputy Farrell was present. It speaks volumes that contract cleaners and security guards who worked right throughout the pandemic on the front line in our hospitals, and who put themselves at risk, had to take time out of work to attend a meeting in Leinster House with their union to drive home the reality of life for them. It is disgraceful that they have yet to be paid by the HSE, enabled by the Minister for Health, and to have access to a payment for which they are eligible. This speaks volumes about the bureaucracy and how the bureaucracy does not serve the interests of all citizens. It is important that a signal is sent that this money, for which they are eligible, will be paid before Christmas. They have waited long enough.

Deputies Doherty and Boyd Barrett raised important points on issues that are close to my heart, as the Minister will know. It is extraordinary that every time an ERO or sectoral employment order agreement is signed off by a Minister, one or another rogue company decides not to comply with the national law. Such companies decide to march up to the superior courts, in the first instance to challenge a decision of the Minister to sign an order that has been done in compliance with the law, or in the second instance to challenge the architecture of legislation that has been endorsed and approved by this Oireachtas, the previous Oireachtas or indeed the one before that in line with principles that have been in place in this country since the foundation of State, and in fact before it, that promote the idea of decency in the workplace.

The ERO for the security industry, which was signed by the Minister of State, Deputy English a couple of months ago, has had an injunction served on it by an organisation that was involved in the joint labour committee process. Opportunism does not describe it - it is quite disgraceful. I ask the Minister to use his good offices as Minister for Finance to intervene with his colleagues to establish if the State will challenge the substance of the case that is being taken by that particular security company. I also make the point that the injunction itself should have been challenged. It appears to me that the injunction is not being challenged by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is a separate matter and I only mention this because it was referred to by colleagues previously.

Any increase in the national minimum wage is welcome. We have had an established process since 2015 to examine what the rate of the national minimum wage should be. I note from media reports that the Tánaiste appears to have brought a memo to the Cabinet yesterday in relation to the evolution of the minimum wage and the transformation of the national minimum wage into what the Tánaiste would describe as a living wage. There are different arguments as to what constitutes or comprises a living wage. The Irish State and the Government have decided to pitch the living wage at 60% of hourly median income. In fact, the norm across the European Union is 66%. That being said, the Low Pay Commission report has said very clearly that in time the living wage may evolve to being 66% of median hourly income, and that prospect is being held out. That is important. We cannot, however, have a rebranding of the national minimum wage. It must be a real living wage that meets people's basic needs and wants. This is not about luxuries: it is about basic needs and wants so that people can live with some dignity in this society. To be frank, there is a lot of cheerleading going on about how great it is that we are moving towards a living wage. It cannot simply be a rebranding. The reality is that we are moving towards higher rates of national minimum pay because of the looming EU directive on minimum wage. It is as simple as that.

There is a requirement to do that. It is not as if there has been some Pauline conversion in the Government. That being said, I welcome the commitment and I do not for one minute suggest that there is not a commitment across Government, even though we will differ on the direction of travel and so on. Any commitment to improved pay and conditions for working people is important. We cannot have simply a rebranding of the minimum wage; it has to matter.