David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:"(a) median earnings during the relevant period,".

We are getting through a fair clatter of amendments now. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any measure below the median, if included, would not accurately reflect the prevalence of low pay in the economy. The intention is to extend the remit of the Low Pay Commission.

Amendment No. 5 reads:

In page 4, after line 36, to insert the following:"(i) each sector’s business model and performance,

(ii) innovation in each sector has increased, decreased or remained stagnant within the current period,".

The purpose of this amendment is to address the issue of low pay. Some of the relevant issues will have to be addressed on a sectoral basis. This was the rationale for the establishment of joint labour committees, registered employment agreements and employment regulation orders. The Minister is addressing those issues in another Bill that is being processed in the Oireachtas.

While low pay pervades all sectors of the economy, it is particularly widespread in hospitality, retail and the services sector and is also present in education, health and administration. As such, conditions in certain sectors will vary and a differentiated approach may be required in some sectors. It is imperative, therefore, that a sectoral approach is taken to deal with the specific issues of low pay in each of the various sectors. Different strategies may be necessary to achieve this and amendment No. 5 provides for this.

Amendment No. 6 reads:

In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:"(da) economic inequality and purchasing power parities,

(db) the percentage of workers in the economy earning two-thirds or less of median income,

(dc) the Living Wage as set for the relevant period,".

I will not rehearse the arguments on this issue again. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve the same outcome I sought in the first few amendments. A living age must be a key focus. In arguing against increasing the national minimum wage employers organisations cite comparisons with other countries. This morning, for example, IBEC released a report in support of its argument against increasing the minimum wage.The Small Firms Association and all other business organisations have argued against an increase in the minimum wage, which is hardly surprising. Their views differ, however, with some employers opposed to the minimum wage per se, while others are willing to tolerate it but oppose increasing it at this time. Employers also claim the current level is very generous. The dynamic in terms of what a minimum wage delivers for workers in different countries changes when one takes into account purchasing power, the cost of living and so forth. This amendment seeks to ensure we use the correct formula when determining the minimum wage.

Amendment No. 7 reads:

In page 5, line 7, after “Ireland” to insert the following:", taking into account the standard of living, general wage levels and access to welfare supports to include social protection supports, universal healthcare provisions, state provided childcare and social housing".

This returns us to the concept of a living or social wage. If one parks for a moment the issue of the minimum wage, the Minister of State's party leader, the Tánaiste, has spoken about supporting a living wage and moving in that direction. If we are to achieve this objective, we must have a proper discussion of a living wage. The Low Pay Commission could be a mechanism for facilitating such a discussion. Without repeating the points I made earlier, if we are to have a genuine living wage, we must be cognisant of the concept behind it, namely, that a person who works should be able to meet the basic needs of his or her family and pay his or her bills. Unfortunately, many workers in this State are unable to do this. As I stated, 20% of employees are on low pay and 16% are suffering from multiple deprivation. The solution lies partly in increasing wages and the minimum wage. The State also has a responsibility to invest in public services and so forth.

Employers organisations will have a difficulty with wage increases and will argue that they give rise to competition issues. Many small employers are still struggling. We must take a holistic view of this issue and ensure it does not mean simply making wage demands on employers. The totality of the package must be considered to ensure the State plays a role. The employers organisations agreed on this point, although they did not support the views expressed on how the money to pay for all of these things would be raised. In any event, that is an entirely separate issue.

I do not propose to delay proceedings as the remaining amendments in the group are similar in content. The sentiments I expressed on previous amendments apply to them also. I have set out my substantive argument on this group and look forward to the Minister's response.