Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton, to the House. I welcome the commitment by the Government to addressing the serious problem of the gender pay gap. I welcome to the Visitors Gallery the representatives of the National Women's Council of Ireland. I thank the council and other organisations, such as IMPACT, for their great support for this Bill. This Bill passed on Second Stage as a Labour Party Private Members’ Bill without opposition on 24 May. We are delighted it is before the House on Committee Stage. We very much hope for cross-party support. We anticipate that the Minister of State will not be opposing the legislation as it proceeds through Committee Stage today.

In the context of the specific amendments tabled by my colleague, Senator Conway-Walsh, I thank her for supporting the Bill generally. I acknowledge the amendments have been tabled in the spirit of seeking to strengthen the Bill, which I absolutely appreciate, and to make it prescriptive rather than simply facilitative. I am not against them but I ask the Senator not to press them to a vote today because we anticipate there will be Government amendments on Report Stage. I look forward to working with the Minister of State and colleagues from all parties on how best to shape the Bill to ensure we have an effective mechanism for tackling the gender pay gap.

Let me give a little background for colleagues. We know there is a 13.9% pay gap between men and women in Ireland currently. The equal pay legislation we passed in 1974, the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, has been ineffective in addressing it. Effectively, women in Ireland are working for free for one month every year. This is a growing problem that has been recognised internationally. We have examined other models of legislation, particularly from the United Kingdom, Australia and Belgium, where steps have been taken to tackle gender pay discrepancies through transparency and disclosure of data to show where there is a gender pay gap in existence.

As colleagues will be aware, this issue came to a head in the context of the gender pay disparity in RTÉ. As a result of its being revealed, we saw the publication by RTÉ of figures. This Bill seeks to enable this kind of publication. The data would be anonymised so no individual employees would be identified. The data would simply show how many men and women work at a particular level in an organisation and their level of pay. In that way, we could establish whether there is a pay gap between women and men in a particular organisation. That is the nature of the Bill.

We have included the word "may" in the legislation rather than "shall" specifically to keep it in line with the existing Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014, which in section 32 empowers the commission to invite a particular undertaking or group of undertakings, or a particular sector, to carry out an equality review or prepare and implement an equality action plan. Our Bill specifically seeks to enhance the power of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission by inserting a new section 32A into the 2014 Act. This would also empower the commission to require employers to publish the pay data I have described to show whether there is a gender pay gap in their organisations. We have simply used the same language that is in the 2014 Act, namely, the word "may". The Sinn Féin amendment would make it stronger and state "shall publish". We were conscious that the commission is independent in its functions and that the word "shall" might be unduly prescriptive. Rather, we want to empower the commission to take the sort of action I have described.

I have been consulting since we took Second Stage of the Bill. I am mindful that there may be a better mechanism altogether than empowering the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to obtain the data from employers. In this regard, let us consider what is happening in other jurisdictions. In Britain, for example, there is a government website on which data are required to be published by employers. Therefore, it may well be that the collation or publishing of the data could be achieved by a State agency or a Department, be it the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation or the Department of Justice and Equality.Perhaps the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation would be more appropriate. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission would then have a role in oversight and monitoring. Where the data published disclosed a gender pay gap in an organisation or a sector, for example, in a given chain of supermarkets or the whole supermarket sector, then the commission would be empowered, as it is currently under the 2014 legislation, to require the employer to take steps to address and remedy the gender pay discrepancy.

It may well be that we would be willing to countenance amendments to this legislation to place a different onus on the commission, that is, the onus of monitoring and oversight, rather than the onus of collecting the data in the first place. There are two steps. The first is the diagnostic aspect, whereby we must ensure that we know where gender pay gaps exist. We must see the data and it must be published transparently. We have seen that method used effectively in Australia and Britain. It is not simply a matter of name and shame, and I know there is another Sinn Féin amendment on that point. We have to be careful about that. It is not simply about name and shame. It is also about name and fame. An IMPACT official said to me today that companies or organisations that are doing well and in which there is no gender pay gap would be disclosed and celebrated. In such organisations there is in fact pay parity between women and men. I would describe this as a carrot rather than a big stick. The diagnostic element involves publishing the data and the power to publish the data. That is why we are including the enabling language of "may". The Sinn Féin language probably steers us to a different level by using "shall". I am not opposed to it per se. I am in favour of anything that strengthens the Bill, but I can see that we have to work with stakeholders.

I am conscious that the Minister of State and the Department of Justice and Equality as well as the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Fitzgerald, are engaging in consultation. There will be a symposium in December.

Some organisations have changed their positions. I am delighted that IBEC has come out this month in its publication in favour of measures to tackle the gender pay gap. I know some in that publication are critical of aspects of the Bill. I believe we can work together to ensure a good model is adopted that addresses the concerns individuals may have around anonymity. Some say there may be data protection concerns, but that should not arise if the data are anonymised. That is important to say.

We like the current model. It is useful to look at using the existing mechanism of the independent agency, that is, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, and to give it additional or enhanced powers in respect of gender pay gap monitoring and oversight. It may be that the body that will be given powers to require publication of information might be a different body. We prefer not to set up a new agency. I am conscious that in Australia, for example, the model is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. I know that is probably not the best approach for us. We took the view that existing legislation uses similar terms through the use of the expression "may" with reference to the commission carrying out equality reviews or action plans with different undertakings under section 32 of the 2014 Act. We should look at similar powers and provisions in this case around the publication of gender pay gap information.

I apologise for going on so long. However, I believe this is a key amendment in terms of how the Bill works or how it would work. We are absolutely open to amendments. We are happy that there is ongoing consultation and that the Government has committed to this. This is very much in the spirit of the commitment in the programme for Government.

IBEC has been critical of our model of more than 50 employees as being too low a bar. Of course, that is the Government's level. The model mirrors what is already provided for in the 2014 Act, section 32 of which gives the commission powers around equality reviews and equality action plans in respect of undertakings of 50 or more employees. We already have a model and we are keen to keep it within existing legal framework while ensuring that we provide for enhanced powers such that we can get the information we need without the existence of a gender pay gap.