David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply and remind him that I am supporting the Bill and recognise that it is a step forward. Although I have concerns about the powers, functions and remit of the commission, I accept it is a useful first step. We can learn lessons from the report on the British low pay commission. I do not know if the Minister of State or his officials have read the report but it raises some interesting points. The trade union movement, which supports a minimum wage, expresses the concern that the minimum wage could become a ceiling rather than a floor and that was found to be one of the main problems with the British national minimum wage. The primary tool of the low pay commission in the UK was to make recommendations on varying the minimum wage and it recommended that the Government make it an explicit long-term ambition of economic policy to reduce the incidence of low pay, setting out a plan to reduce the share of employees who were below two thirds of the median wage. It asked for the Government to set this target so that it could then make recommendations based on that target. It also recommended that the Government change its relationship with the low pay commission by routinely setting out its views on how the national minimum wage could contribute to its wider goal of reducing the incidence of low pay. To make this ambition meaningful the commission called on the Government to set out a practical plan to deliver on its ambition to reduce the incidence and persistence of low pay.

The author of the report is by no means somebody who would be seen as a friend of people on low pay or even as being on the left of politics and the Minister of State should read it. The report advocates that the British Government ensures that a low pay commission has as many powers and tools it needs to make recommendations, not just on the minimum wage but on how to reduce the high incidence of low pay within an economy. The Minister of State says this power exists in the low pay commission but we are not so sure it is robust enough. We have gone over this a few times. My criticism is not to take away from the work the Minister of State has done but is a genuine attempt to highlight to him mistakes that are now accepted as having been made in Britain when they set up their low pay commission and to ensure we do not make the same mistakes here.

The amendments were designed to take out the national minimum wage element and just call it the low pay commission. It should actually be a living wage commission, which would really change the dynamic of the commission's role. It could have included a provision to make recommendations on the minimum wage but it should have been a living wage commission to look at how we create a living wage, both in the public and private sectors.