Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Minister of State's response. He addressed amendment No. 8 a few minutes ago, which provides for a reference to the need for quality job creation. I am supporting the Bill and think it is a very important step forward. The Minister of State is clearly deeply cognisant of what is in the Bill and what will not be in it. I acknowledge his leadership in that deep reflection and the way in which his response has been carefully put together.

In a number of speeches, as well as in the call for applications to the Low Pay Commission, he said that work should always pay, but that he is conscious of the need to balance a statutory minimum pay rate that is fair with one that is sustainable and allows employers to continue to create high-quality jobs. One of the prime reasons I have heard for not accepting this amendment on Committee and Report Stages is that section 4 of the Bill indicates that the commission will make recommendations to the Minister of State so that the minimum hourly rate is set in a way that is both fair and sustainable. The Minister of State seems to be saying that a concern around quality is already provided for in the Bill in that regard. I am still arguing that this amendment ought to be accepted, as the existing provisions are not sufficient. The fact that the issue is included in section 4 provides a further argument that it ought to be explicitly referred to when the Low Pay Commission is making its recommendations.

The question of what "quality" means was raised on Committee Stage, especially by Senator Quinn. I had a sense that there was an implication there that "quality" is too hard to define, as it varies from sector to sector. Perhaps, then, we should just leave the difficult task of defining the term out of our laws, or at least, out of this law. Should a very expert commission, resourced to review research, not consider the issue of high-quality jobs? If we include an explicit reference by way of this amendment, it would mean that the commission would have to explicitly review indicators that contribute to quality prior to making its recommendations.

The difference between the creation of jobs and the creation of high-quality jobs is significant. The former merely refers to more jobs. It is important that quantity not be the assumption of the Bill. The quality of work should be the emphasis. I accept that quantity is measurable and much easier to report on, yet it leaves too much room for the creation of jobs that are of low quality and add to the already prevalent in-work poverty rate, which stands at 16%, as Senator Cullinane has already said.

If measurement of quality is the issue, a 2009 report by the Directorate General for Internal Policy sets out indicators for job quality. These include the number of hours in work; a wage as close as possible to a living wage, about which the Minister of State speaks very eloquently - it is wonderful to know there is going to be a forum; job security; and the presence of a contract. These are just some of the indicators. By refusing to accept the amendment, maybe the Minister of State is saying that these issues do not and should not matter to the Low Pay Commission prior to its making recommendations to him on the national minimum wage. I think he is aware that the working poor now account for one in six people in poverty. The economist Micheál Collins of the Nevin Economic Research Institute has said the core of this problem is the large and increasing number of jobs that the State is subsidising through payments such as the family income supplement.As the Minister of State is aware, the Department of Social Protection is spending more and more every year on subsidising people's incomes from jobs. The question is one of a policy trade off, that is, do we want more jobs that the State needs to subsidise or to create jobs that are self-sustainable? The Minister of State might say the issue of sustainability is referred to in section 4 but if it is, it supports the arguments that it ought to be explicitly identified in terms of what the commission should examine before it makes recommendations. By accepting this amendment, the Minister of State would demonstrate that he and the Government are committed to jobs that are self-sustainable rather than creating jobs that the taxpayer must subsidise.

I refer to amendment No. 10 and the promotion of gender equality, on which the Minister of State commented in his earlier remarks. The points were similar to those he made on Committee Stage and I want to address some of them. He is aware that women continue to be rooted in a narrow range of occupations, they make up the majority of those on low pay and those living in poverty and they are crowded into the lowest part of the jobs hierarchy. Would it not be wonderful to think that the recommendations from this commission might change some of that?

The Minister of State's response to this amendment on Committee Stage and today acknowledges that a very significant number of people who are merely existing on the minimum wage are women. Does he accept the gendered nature of in work poverty? I hope he will consider responding to that in any final response. Furthermore, he said last week and reiterated today, "As the minimum wage workers tend to be predominantly female, by its very nature a national minimum wage is more beneficial to female workers." He referred to the factors the Low Pay Commission will take into account in the setting of the national minimum wage. He also said they have stood the test of time since 2000 and, therefore, we do not need to change. I ask the Minister of State to comment on the pay gap and the view that there is no need for the Low Pay Commission to take into account the extensive research on it, inclusive of recommendations on how to narrow it, prior to its recommendations on national minimum wage levels. That is what his views sound like to me.

Is the Minister of State arguing that if the national minimum wage rises, it will reduce the gender pay gap and, therefore, one does not need to be explicitly stated that the Low Pay Commission take account of the promotion of gender equality in its consideration of setting the national minimum wage? As he is aware, over 60% of workers on low pay are women. He and the Government say they are committed to gender equality, something I have seen in practice. Including this amendment would be a prime action or signal that their commitment in this regard, in an area where there are many women, translates into action.

The setting of a national minimum wage that will ensure the reduction of in work poverty has to take account of the circumstances of the lives of the workers. If the Low Pay Commission does not explicitly address the policy target of gender equality, then it will be less effective in recommending a national minimum wage that will be sufficient for women to get out of poverty. What would be the good of that?