Emer Currie (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for presenting this vital legislation to the House. We have waited for it for a long time. The gender pay gap is often criticised as being a blunt measurement and the argument is the 14.4% pay gap does not mean women are necessarily paid that much less in a like-for-like scenario, although I know that happens. We already have the right to equal pay but we lack transparency

The gender pay gap is the overall national percentage difference in average hourly pay for men and women, with women earning 14.4% less than men for every hour that they work, on average. That happens across their lives and across workplaces. Women are more likely to work part-time and be in senior positions. They are far more likely to take unpaid caring roles, whether caring forwards for their children, backwards for parents or U-bending, namely, doing both. This reflects my life stage and that of most of my friends.

Women are deeply affected with the gender pay gap by their role in having children. With the leave they take they are more likely to fall out of the workplace, as I did because of a lack of flexible work and trying to juggle everything. There is also the question of accessible and affordable childcare, which can make it less likely that women will return to work. Sometimes women just want to spend time at home, which is okay too. I will never regret the years I spent at home with my children, as they were the best years. It is a pity they do not remember it now. There is also the question of subconscious bias.

Covid-19 has demonstrated how we regress when under pressure. There is a lack of progress. Some have criticised the gender pay legislation as a blunt instrument and there is a more complex position to be reflected but this requires a holistic response. This legislation is the start, not the end. It will not solve the problem but show where it lies in more detail. It will provide badly needed data.

It is really important that information should be transparent and employees know how their organisation is performing. Workers should be protected from being identified but they should be empowered to take action if they wish. It is great that details are being published under ministerial guidelines to include mean and median gaps in hourly pay, bonus pay, part-time pay, as well as benefit-in-kind. The employee threshold is initially 250 and that will reduce to 50, with a review in four years. There are countries that have made progress on this matter, and in Iceland that number is 25, in Finland it is 30 and in Sweden it is ten. I would like us to be ambitious with this trajectory. I take on board Senator Clifford-Lee's point and progressive companies should take it on board.

It is also very positive that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will the power to apply to the Circuit or High Court for an order requiring a person to comply with ministerial regulations and that an individual employee may make a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

I welcome this legislation as part of our strategy to address equality of opportunity, this must feature in a bigger framework for meaningful and transformative change. This should focus not just on the problem but on the solutions. I mean this both in terms of a national strategy and the need for organisations to produce their own action plans to address pay and career equity. We require change at every level of society, whether it is in homes, workplaces or in national policy. Employers can play a key role in this and we must democratise our workplaces. We are not at that point yet. We have 100 years of workplaces in this State but the office has not cracked it for everybody.

We need affordable and accessible childcare and flexible workplaces for all.It needs to be a level playing field. There is an emphasis on remote working at the moment but remote working is only one part of flexibility. The people who cannot access remote working can access other parts of flexibility. I have mentioned Finland to the House before as an exemplar. We need to democratise our own homes where the care is shared and valued. I agree with Senator O'Reilly's comments about tax individualisation which is something that I am still very much against. This is ultimately about facilitating choice and increasing opportunities. Although I could go on I will stop there.