Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Jun 2023

Vol. 1040 No. 1

National Minimum Wage (Equal Pay for Young Workers) Bill 2022: Second Stage [Private Members]

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Before I introduce the Bill, I want to say quite openly and publicly that People Before Profit sends its full sympathy and solidarity to the family of the late and great Christy Dignam. If he was alive today, he would fully support this Bill. My experience of him was when he played in a local venue in Ballyfermot in the 1990s. It used to be packed to the gills, full of young people who really got him, and he really got them. He understood young people in working class areas. He was of them, he was part of them, and he fully expressed their experience in life.

Not so long ago, on behalf of the National Homeless and Housing Coalition, which People Before Profit was very much part of, he worked with Senator Frances Black and other musicians like Don Baker to make a song called "We All Fall Down". It was about homelessness, for homeless people, and to be used as a fundraiser for campaigning. We want to thank him for that, and to credit him and his life with being very full and rich in terms of the contribution he made both politically and culturally to Irish society. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis.

I want to start, funnily enough, by thanking a member of our staff. Nicole, who works in Deputy Paul Murphy's office, wrote this Bill, ironically because of her direct experience of working for sub-minimum rates. She was a young worker in a Santa's grotto. Santa thought it was okay to pay her 80% of the legal minimum wage, while her colleagues, who did the same work and dealt with the same children, got the full rate of pay. She is not alone in having that experience. According to the Central Statistics Office, CSO, more than 150,000 people are on the minimum wage and 34,000 are on sub-minimum wage rates. Of these, half are on rates determined solely by their age.

They are not apprentices. They are not training, or simply gaining experience. They do not work for fun or for pocket money. They are workers, who do the same work alongside others who work with them. This State passed legislation to say that is okay, based on one's age, to pay one less. If this was any other category of work, we would clearly see it for what it is and it would never be acceptable. It is discrimination and exploitation, and it has to stop. That is why we are bringing this Bill forward today, to try to stop it in the here and now.

There is no case for continuing with these rates. There never was a case for them. In the cost-of-living crisis, at this time of historic highs in energy, rents, mortgages, travel and groceries, the idea that it is okay to pay young people less for doing the same work must stop. It has to be seen for what it is. It is wrong.

When the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 was brought in by the then Minister in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mary Harney, the reduced rates were justified in the following way. The then Minister said that "all other things being equal, an experienced employee is of more value and more productive than a new entrant or trainee." Is it not an odd way to justify legislation for inequality, by starting one's statement by saying "all things being equal"? For everyone who starts in new employment, and in that sense inexperienced, their age does not really enter into it. When we look at where the majority of young workers on these lower rates are employed, it is mainly in the food, hospitality and retail sectors.

It is simply untrue to say that young workers are of less value or are less productive than a colleague who is two years older than them. It is important that we call this out, and say that at the time, it was a sop to the industry, the hoteliers, restaurants, shopkeepers and perhaps the sector of society the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil looked to for their support. To allow us to continue with the practice of paying young workers less for their labour solely because they are young is not acceptable.

It is notable that no study, review or peer-reviewed research was conducted by the then Minister Mary Harney, the Government or Fianna Fáil at the time to back up the statement that she made, that these workers were of less value or less productive. It was simply stated as a justification to exclude them from the minimal protections of the National Minimum Wage Act.

The 2000 Act is not unique. The treatment and abuse of young people in this country did not end there, and truly, this is not a country for young people. When the recession hit, the Fianna Fáil and Green Party Government cut the jobseekers' payment for the under-25s, a cut that has remained in situ in various guises. Again, it was justified at the time by saying that there was a need to incentivise young people to work and take minimum wage jobs, ironically at a time of mass unemployment. It was also allied to other job activation measures under the guise of the youth guarantee programme, which was aimed at forcing young people to take up jobs or training regardless of their suitability for that job or training.

In reality, the policy of that and previous governments was basically to hound young people out of the country when times were hard. It was to say, "Off you go to Dublin Airport". Cuts to unemployment rates and the so-called labour activation measures are a way to enforce a policy of mass emigration during a recession. The attitude to young people in this country continues to this day with these sub-minimum legal rates of pay.

While the numbers directly on these rates may seem small, it is worth reflecting that 17,000 or so of them at present are not the same thousands that were on it two or three years ago. Since it was introduced in 2000, it is likely that hundreds of thousands of young workers have directly experienced these sub-minimum wage rates.

It is also worth saying that it is not just young people who are affected. We know from trade unions and others about the depressing effect these wages have on others in the sector, like retail and hospitality, where extra hours that may provide more work, or extra hours during holiday time or peak periods, is given to younger staff in order to avoid paying the full, legal minimum rate to those over 20. In these sectors, it is mainly women, migrants and vulnerable groups who dominate employment. There is a high prevalence of part-time and precarious employment in these sectors, making it a steadily exploitative industry.

These rates are used to depress the earnings of vulnerable groups, which should be of great concern to us and a reason to stop it now. We often have a picture of employment in this country as high tech, highly paid, lucrative, very much high quality and a great place to work, but the reality for hundreds of thousands of people is very different. Women comprise the majority of workers in the low-pay sector. Low pay is also allied to precarious employment and, again, Ireland has high percentages of that employment according to EUROSTAT's labour force survey. The impact of low pay and precarious work is an issue for all of us and not just those at the receiving end of it. Effectively, it means the State ultimately has to subsidise the prevalence of low pay and precarious working conditions that affect large swathes of the population.

The Bill does not address the systemic problems at the heart of that contradiction. It can deal only with one particularly egregious example of the abuse of workers, but it is worth saying that the reality of workers lives' in 2023, for the majority, is a far cry from the rosy picture presented by this and previous governments. Earlier this year, the Council of Europe found that Ireland is in breach of labour rights obligations and specifically mentioned Ireland's failure to ensure a decent standard of living for young workers on minimum wage. It also highlighted excessive restrictions on the right to strike and access to trade union recognition. We brought this Bill forward to highlight one form of clear abuse of workers' rights, but a system of abuse right across many categories of employment is at play throughout this country. We do not have the right to trade union recognition, we have far fewer rights and benefits than most other European states when it comes to paid holidays, annual leave, maternity and paternity leave, sick leave and other social wage benefits, and we have seen a war waged on the right to retire at a decent age and the right to a decent pension.

We in People Before Profit believe all these issues and struggles are linked. They are very much linked to a system that, for example, has allowed Debenhams and Clerys workers to be abused and dismissed, a prevalence of low pay and precarious employment and, at the same time, a system that says it is okay to pay young workers less than those they work alongside for doing exactly the same work. We are not saying the minimum wage is an ambition or standard to be achieved. In fact, we believe we need to move rapidly towards a living wage and increase the benefits all workers can earn in terms of what is called a social wage. However, that is the minimum and because it is legally the minimum, it is time to stop the discrimination and abuse it allows of young people.

I add my condolences to those offered to the family of Christy Dignam, as Deputy Smith did. Christy was a legend in music and a beautiful singer. He was a working-class hero and I suspect his songs will be sung for a long time, if not forever. He will be greatly missed but his legacy will live on.

It would probably surprise many people that we have a situation where there is such a thing as a sub-minimum wage. The fact is the minimum wage, which is now €11.30, is not a liveable income, even for those who get it, when the absolutely shocking cost-of-living, the accommodation and housing crisis, the extortionate levels of rents and house prices, and the shocking increases we have seen in energy prices and the price of food are considered. Across the board, the cost of living over the past two years means even the minimum wage itself is far short of an acceptable income for working people. In reality, it leaves 150,000 people who have to exist on this wage as the working poor. In and of itself, that is unacceptable and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. We should be moving immediately to the introduction of a living wage, at least to the €13.10 that is established as a living wage. As Deputy Smith said, however, we believe we need to go further. In this day and age, and given the cost-of-living crisis and the cost of accommodation and housing for people, we should be talking about at least €15.

The idea that, against the background of an already shockingly inadequate minimum, people aged 19, 18 or under 18 are paid less than this pathetic minimum wage is shocking, and something I suspect most people do not know about. We are keen to highlight it because anybody who becomes aware of this says it is an absolute outrage that if somebody is 19, they get €10.17 an hour rather than €11.30, if they are 18, they get €9.04 and, worst of all, if they are under 18, they get €7.91. It is absolutely shocking. It violates the basic principle that there should be equal pay for equal work. That is a basic principle. I strongly suspect we are violating the human rights of young people in expecting them to work for a lesser amount of pay for doing the same work as people who simply happen to be older than them and get paid more on the basis of age. It is basic discrimination and it is insulting to young people for the work they do.

The suggestion or narrative we hear from those who try to defend the status quo, that somehow young people do not really need to be paid the same or that it is just pocket money, again just shows a complete lack of awareness and understanding of the realities young people face. As Mr. Jonathan Hogan of the Mandate trade union pointed out earlier this year in response to that kind of narrative, the reality is that many young people's earnings and income are crucial to their family's income in helping what are often low-income families to pay the bills, including rent. It even goes beyond that, as representatives of the students' union movement and the secondary schools students' union have stated. I welcome many of those groups to the Gallery. I make the Minister of State aware that many people are present who have an interest in this Bill, are supporting it and, indeed, have been independently campaigning on this issue even before we brought the Bill to the House. I welcome representatives of Mandate, University College Dublin Students' Union, UCDSU, the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, the Irish Second-Level Students Union, ISSU, all of which support the Bill, as well as the Unite trade union and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, youth committee. We were also joined by representatives of Sinn Féin at this morning's protest, along with members of the National Youth Council of Ireland and many others. I hope I have not left anybody out in all that. I thank them for their support and campaigning on this issue.

As Ms Molly Greenough, who I think is in the Gallery, pointed out, when she was asked about this:

UCDSU wants to see an immediate end to the exploitation of young workers under the age of 20. This is a form of discrimination that just compounds things for students working long hours just to put themselves through college. Abolishing sub-minimum wage[s] ... for workers under 20 is only fair.

That is absolutely true. Students are struggling at present. They are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. Rents are unaffordable and students are being hit disproportionately with the cost-of-living crisis, rising food prices, the rising cost of energy and all the other cost-of-living increases that have hit ordinary working people and young people over the past two years in particular.

It is worth saying that in many of the areas where younger people work and have to put up with these discriminatory levels of pay, we have also seen, as part of a more general phenomenon during the cost-of-living crisis, massive profits being made in many cases, for example, by the big supermarket chains. The cost-of-living crisis has not been a lose-lose situation for everybody in this country. The reality is that while workers have lost huge amounts of their income in real terms because of cost-of-living increases and are being crucified with those increases, we have seen profits shoot up for many of the big corporations, many of the supermarket chains and so on. What we are actually seeing with the cost-of-living crisis is a redistribution of wealth in favour of big business at the expense of working people. Young people, in this case, are disproportionately suffering those cost-of-living increases.

I note that at the national economic dialogue, the Taoiseach identified and highlighted the concern about low pay and acknowledged the huge hit that working people have taken in their income because of the cost-of-living crisis. Therefore, I am interested to see what the Government will say to this Bill. Is it going to let it pass? There is absolutely no justification for not eliminating this discrimination and ensuring that young workers are treated with respect and at least given access to the minimum wage, which, as we said, is already shockingly inadequate, and even more so considering the labour shortages we are now suffering in this country.

In almost every area, we are seeing the unprecedented phenomenon of advertisements appearing all over the country saying workers are wanted for this and that. There are shortages in every area of the economy. I have not seen the latest Central Statistics Office, CSO, figures on immigration but I suspect we will see a significant increase in the number of young people leaving, which was already running at about 45,000 to 50,000 people over recent years. I suspect, as we see the new figures come in, we will see that many more young people are leaving.

Yet, we need those young people to stay. The Government needs to understand they have to be encouraged to stay, and that means showing them some respect and giving them some prospect that the incomes they will earn will allow them to be able to put a roof over their head, live a decent and dignified life and allow them to survive in a decent and dignified way when they are trying to go through education. There is no justification for the Government opposing this Bill. Indeed, it seems it is an absolute obligation on this Government to support the passage of this Bill and ensure it is brought into law as quickly as possible as part of a more general increase in wages and income for workers in this country to match the cost-of-living crisis people are facing.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann resolves that the National Minimum Wage (Equal Pay for Young Workers) Bill 2022 be deemed to be read a second time this day twelve months, in order to allow for further consideration of the Bill.".

I wish to start off by sharing my sympathies with the family, friends and many fans of Christy Dignam. I admit to being a fan of his music and much else. Deputy Boyd Barrett is right that his music will live long past many of our own timelines. He was a timeless contributor to the arts in this country.

The Government acknowledges this Bill from People Before Profit. I greatly appreciate the interventions made by both Deputies Smith and Boyd Barrett. Deputy Smith was right to mention the staff in Deputy Paul Murphy's office who worked so hard putting this together. It is a fine piece of work.

To cut to the chase, the Government is proposing a timed amendment of 12 months' delay on this Bill. The timed amendment quite simply is to allow the current examination of the sub-minima rates of the minimum wage by the Low Pay Commission to continue. Following this examination, recommendations will be made to Government for the retention or abolition of these rates. It is important we give the Low Pay Commission the time and space to carry out this review.

When we discuss the minimum wage, it is important we recall the work that is being done and progress made. In 2011, the minimum wage was €7.65 an hour and today the full rate stands at €11.30, with a 7.8% increase this year alone. I expect a greater increase. Like Deputy Smith, I want to see us moving towards the living wage as soon as possible. The Taoiseach, as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, indicated that will achieved at the latest by 2026.

As Deputies are aware, the Low Pay Commission was established in 2015 as an independent body with the mandate to advise Government on the setting of a minimum wage that is both fair and substantive for workers and supports employers and competitiveness. More context on this commission may be helpful. The Low Pay Commission is made up of both workers and employers, particularly from the SMEs and those operating in low-paid sectors. In addition to this, there are also independent members who have a particular knowledge or expertise in relation to statistics, labour market economics and employment law. This well-balanced membership allows the commission to represent all stakeholders. The commission will take an evidence-based approach to arrive at its recommendations and is obliged to consider the likely effect any proposed national minimum wage order will have on levels of employment and unemployment, the cost of living and national competitiveness. I have no doubt this will be a thorough piece of work.

The Government is supportive of the Low Pay Commission and the work it has carried out since its foundation. We have the utmost respect for its independence and expertise in advising on matters of low pay and the national minimum wage. This respect is clearly reflected in the fact the now Taoiseach asked the commission to examine the youth rates of the minimum wage and to make recommendations. Government is expecting to receive this report back from the commission before the end of 2023.

As we speak of the Low Pay Commission, it should be said that the current youth rates of the minimum wage were also established on foot of recommendations from the Low Pay Commission. The current rates came into effect in March 2019 following a previous examination of the rates undertaken by the Low Pay Commission in 2016 and 2017. At that time, the youth rates applied to those under 18 years of age, those over 18 who were in a first job and those over 18 who were undergoing a prescribed course of study or training. In the course of this previous analysis, the Low Pay Commission found that of 26 OECD countries that have a statutory national minimum wage, just over half have sub-minima rates for young people. The commission considered abolishing youth rates but concluded that the minimum wage rate would then no longer offer any recognition of the difference between a young inexperienced worker and a more experienced colleague, which could lead to employers seeing less value in hiring young people, with a potential impact on youth employment rates. Ultimately, the commission recommended that the youth rates should be simplified and changed to an age-based system. It also recommended that the trainee rates should be abolished and that all workers should be paid the same, regardless of their educational status. It is also worth noting that the commission recommended that the rate for employees under 18 should also be retained in acknowledgement of the fact that such employees have a statutory restriction on their working hours and conditions under the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996. These recommendations were accepted by Government and form the basis for the current sub-minima rates for those under the age of 20: 90% of the hourly national minimum wage rate for those aged 19; 80% for those aged 18; and 70% for those under the age of 18.

Following the request for a re-examination of the issue from the then Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in 2022, the Low Pay Commission commissioned research from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, into the matter. This forms part of a broader research partnership agreement that operates between the ESRI and Low Pay Commission, which is tasked with undertaking and disseminating research on issues related to low pay in Ireland and helps provide the evidence base for the commission's advice and recommendations to Government. The commission will also be initiating a stakeholder consultation on the prevailing youth rates in the near future.

I encourage all of those interested and invested to make a submission when the time comes. I am happy to engage with the Deputies opposite and indeed the visitors in the Gallery. I congratulate Molly Greenough on her term as president of the University College Dublin Students' Union. I have had considerable engagement with her both as a local Deputy and in my in role. I wish her the best going into future and I look forward to dealing with successors in the coming weeks.

Following the conclusion of this consultation and ESRI research in the coming months, a final report and recommendations from the Low Pay Commission are expected in the latter part of this year.

For these reasons, Government is proposing a timed amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill. We propose that the Bill be read a Second Time in 12 months' time. At that point, the Government will have received and had an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission on retaining or removing the sub-minima rates of the national minimum wage. I therefore propose that the Second Reading of this Private Members' Bill is deferred for one year.

I wish to add a few brief words to what has been said about Christy Dignam. I think many people in this country were touched by the news of his passing yesterday. He had a great voice and sang bel canto. He was a fine songwriter. He was a poet, really. He would remind you a lot of another great Dubliner, namely, Philip Lynott. Christy overcame much adversity in his life.

He was a working-class man with a very authentic voice and an ability to articulate what others might only feel. Many people feel sometimes that everybody hits you and everybody knocks you down, and a lot of those people in particular felt the loss of Christy Dignam last night. Rest in peace, Christy.

It falls to me to respond to some of the points made by the Minister of State. The Government is proposing to postpone a decision on this for 12 months. It has before it a Bill which argues against discrimination. Have no doubt, this is about discrimination on grounds of age. You cannot discriminate on grounds of gender, religion, ethnicity – at least not legally – but the Government has allowed a situation where a person can be discriminated against in the workplace on the grounds of age. Confronted with that injustice by the People Before Profit-Solidarity Bill, what is the Government’s reply to young workers? We will come back to it in 12 months' time. Justice delayed is justice denied. That is a very poor position and one that will be noted by many young people and young workers in this country.

Of course, the minimum wage as it stands is far too low, at €11.30 an hour. Anyone who would argue that anyone can survive in this cost-of-living crisis on €11.30 an hour is not in touch with the real world. In reality, a real living wage would be about 50% more than that, at a minimum of €16. If there is minimum wage legislation, even if the number is completely inadequate, then at the very least everyone should get the minimum rate. Yet, if someone is 17 years old, an employer can legally pay him or her €7.91 an hour. If someone is 18 years, an employer can legally pay him or her €9.04 an hour, and if someone is 19 years of age and in the second year of employment, an employer can legally pay him or her €10.17 an hour. That is wrong. We are not the only ones who are saying it is wrong. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has said it is wrong, as has the National Youth Council of Ireland and the groups that are represented in the Gallery which were named by Deputy Boyd Barrett. Here is another interesting one which says it is wrong: the European Committee of Social Rights. A very significant European Union body has said the Government’s policy in not consistent with the European Social Charter. I think it is Article 4.1. The European Social Charter says no one should be paid less than half the average wage, but an 18- or 19-year-old on those sub-minimum rates is paid less than that. The Minister of State could summon an emergency meeting of the Low Pay Commission and ask it to examine these issues and to move with great speed and the support of the Government and the Dáil to right that wrong, but instead it chooses to kick the can down the road for 12 months. It is a kick in the teeth for young people.

We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Many young people live away from the family home and are making their own way in the world, and there are many others who, because of the housing crisis, are forced to live in the family home but are making a significant financial contribution at home. There are also many young people under the age of 20 years who are mothers and fathers and have families themselves. They are asked to survive in a cost-of-living crisis on sub-minimum rates which can be anywhere between €7.90 and €10.17. It is a disgrace. When they go to Tesco on a Friday night, does the Minister of State think that when the till is rung up and they are asked to pay the bill, they can say they only receive 80% of the minimum wage and ask if it is okay if they pay only 80% of the bill? Or that when the landlord comes knocking on the door, looking for the rent – I am betraying my age by giving that example – or when the day comes for the rent to be transferred into the landlord’s bank account, they can send a text message to the landlord to say they are on only 90% of the minimum wage so would the landlord accept 90% of the rent until they are 20 years old? How are young people expected to survive in a cost-of-living crisis on wages of this kind?

I will not burden the debate with a whole lot of facts, figures and statistics but I will give a few that are worth thinking about. One young worker in three under the age of 24 years earns less than €20,000 a year. One young worker in five, excluding students, earns less than €20,000. One young worker in three under the age of 25 years is a temporary worker. This is poverty pay that young people are being forced to endure. Because I am a person who sees the silver lining in every cloud, I do see an opportunity here. It is for the trade union movement. The trade union movement should look at this issue very carefully. How many young workers under the age of 24 are members of trade unions? It is fewer than one in seven, or 14%, according to the Smurfit business school in UCD. Were there to be a vote in a workplace on whether or not to join a union, the percentage of young workers who would vote in favour of bringing in a union is 65%. That is more than 4.5 times the numbers who are actually unionised. No other age cohort in the country indicated a higher degree of support for unionising their workplace than the 18 to 24 group. I will say clearly and openly, the trade union movement in this country has not done nearly enough to campaign and fight for the rights of young workers. There is an opportunity here to redress that with a campaign to abolish these youth exemptions and for a decent, realistic minimum wage in this country that would be far beyond what we have now or even the official living wage rates. It is a challenge and an opportunity for the trade union movement which I hope it takes up.

Of course, the easiest way to go about this is for the Government to withdraw its amendment, allow this Bill to pass tonight and pass speedily pass through the Houses of the Oireachtas, and to abolish the sub-minimum rates for young workers. However, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party have set their faces against that. It sends a clear message to young people and the unions that they need to organise, organise and organise again.

One thing that we will be clear on is that we will be on time today.

Before I start, I want to add my own words of condolence to the family, friends, fans and community of Christy Dignam. He will be sorely missed. We will miss his voice, his humour and we will miss his activism.

He will leave a hole in the community that will be very hard to fill. I know his family are grieving. I hope they take some consolation from the massive national outpouring of grief for a man who was effectively a national treasure. I want to associate myself with the previous remarks. I thank an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for her indulgence.

I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this legislation to abolish sub-minimum rates of pay for younger workers. I welcome our guests from the trade union movement, the ISSU and others in the Gallery who have a very keen interest in this matter. For many of the people in the Gallery, this is actually a bread-and-butter issue for them. This is not some aspirational thing; it is pounds, shillings and pence. This legislation would make a very real and meaningful difference. Those to whom it relates need it now, not in 12 months' time. The prudent and fair thing to do would be for the Government to withdraw its amendment.

Sinn Féin supports the aims outlined in the Bill. We look forward to teasing through any issues on Committee Stage. The Bill is similar to Sinn Féin’s National Minimum Wage (Removal of Sub-Minimum Rates of Pay) Bill 2021, which my colleague, Senator Gavan, brought before the Seanad. I commend the Senator on his work in respect of this matter, which he has been campaigning on for some time. He has done a major amount of work on it. This legislation builds on that work.

Sub-minimum rates of pay are used as a mechanism by some, not all, to exploit young workers and they have no place in a modern economy. It is a practice that has been criticised by the European Committee of Social Rights. The committee found that Ireland is in breach of the European Social Charter in terms of sub-minimum rates of pay for workers aged 18 and 19. These rates of pay are open to abuse by some employers as a mechanism through which a young worker is paid as little as 70%, 80% or 90% of the minimum wage.

It will not be lost on the Minister of State that it is not called the national minimum wage for nothing. It is called the minimum wage because it is the minimum, basic and absolute lowest rate that can be paid. These reduced rates are exploitative of young workers and the State should recognise the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Workers, whatever their age, pay the same tax, PRSI and USC. There is no reason why such discrimination should persist. As Mandate Trade Union stated, this is an outdated and old-fashioned concept based on the belief that young workers live at home and do not face the same issues as older workers or, indeed, that they are fortunate enough to live in a house with a lot of wealthy individuals and most people are not. In 2023, this could not be further from the truth as young workers grapple with the inflation crisis, the cost of transport, the cost of education, the cost of rent and the general impact of the cost of living.

In 2018 and 2021, Senator Gavan introduced legislation to abolish the exploitative practice of sub-minimum rates of pay. This issue continues to have an impact on young people five years after Sinn Féin first introduced legislation to deal with it. The Government continues to do nothing other than sanction reports into the discriminatory practice as sub-minimum rates of pay remain in place.

There are workers over the age of 18 who are only being paid 80% or 90% of the national minimum wage simply because of their age. These workers are doing the same work as their colleagues and should get the same pay. This is just another way for businesses to take advantage of cheap labour. Due to their nature, the rates of pay involved can be used exclusively to target younger workers. Such rates have been abolished in Germany, Spain, Korea, Canada and Belgium. It is about time we did the same. When rates of pay are negotiated where there is trade union representation, sub-minimum rates are removed from collective agreements. The concept of sub-minimum rates of pay is outdated and punitive. I would also point out the plight of apprentices who are excluded from the minimum wage in the early years of their apprenticeships and, as a result, they are considerably less well-off than young workers in other forms of employment. Issues such as this are causing chaos in the apprenticeship system across the board.

Last March, ICTU wrote to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to state that the trade union movement believes the minimum wage exemption for apprenticeships, including craft apprenticeships, is no longer sustainable or fair, is counterproductive and should be abolished. Connect Trade Union also pointed out that contrary to when the clause excluding its application to apprentices was introduced in the National Minimum Wage Act, many of those now undertaking apprenticeships have previously gone to college or undertaken other work. As a result, they are often older than the apprentices we would have seen previously. These are issues which have to be addressed and must be resolved. The best defence for any worker against being exploited at work is to join their trade union and be active within that trade union.

I will also follow up on the point that was made regarding the importance of unions. We have seen the work that unions have done over many years with regard to dealing with exploitative practices. However, I do not think it is good enough that we are getting another case of kicking the can down the road. We will see what will actually happen over that 12-month period. We all accept that this is exploitative practice of young people. I thank People Before Profit for bringing this legislation forward.

We have all listened to some of the conversation in the public domain. It has been simplified in the sense of referring to young people who have no expenses and who are living at home, and that what they are being paid is just pocket money. We all know the realities, however. We are talking about students who have to pay huge levels of costs and the huge cost of accommodation in this State, but we are not dealing with those issues in any way, shape or form. We know many good employers are paying way above that. We know that at times, employers find it difficult to get workers but what we need to do is put the protection in for those who will exploit and who are willing and happy enough to pay €7.91 per hour for someone aged under 18 on the basis that they do not want to pay €11.30 for someone aged over 20. That is not something we would like to see continue. That is the reason why these issues have been rectified in Germany, Spain and Belgium. I would like to think we could add this State to that particular problem.

Deputy O'Reilly spoke about the particular issue with regard to apprenticeships. We all know the delays. Obviously, those delays have made it worse for people because of the very low wages they are on. We all know the travel costs and everything else that everybody across this State has seen increased and they are still dealing with this.

The fact is that this does not make any sense whatsoever in the modern age. It leaves absolute ruin in its wake, and, unfortunately, there will be employers who will be exploiting young people. That is just not good enough. This is about kicking it down the road for 12 months and then doing nothing about it, which has been the case. In fairness, the Bill before us is a follow-up to similar legislation and reflects the work that has been done by Senator Gavan. We just need to sort the matter quickly.

The old saying a fair day's pay for a fair day's work comes through in this Bill. It was the motto of the labour movement back in the 19th century. Here we are today still demanding it. I thank the Deputies who brought the Bill forward. I also acknowledge Senator Gavan for his work on this issue.

We fully support a minimum wage, but we are also calling for an hourly living wage. As we can see with the current cost-of-living crisis, this is more important than ever. Unfortunately, the minimum wage has become the starting wage for many and for young people it is appalling that they do not even get that.

As Sinn Féin spokesperson on community development, I am constantly in contact with employees who work in community service programmes that are funded by the Government through its agencies. However, it is stated in the contracts that the State will not fund pay for these workers up to the minimum wage, let alone a living wage. While many projects and social enterprises strive to pay their staff a living wage, this obviously puts more pressure on them and many simply struggle just to get the pay up to the minimum wage. With regard to younger workers, the misconception and outdated belief that they should earn less because of less overheads is outdated and insulting in 2023. All our citizens, including young workers, struggle with the cost-of-living crisis. They pay their fair share of tax, PRSI and USC and, therefore, should be treated equally to their peers.

I urge the Government parties to not oppose this Bill. Do not, as the Government's late amendment tries to do, kick it down the road for 12 months, possibly to the other side of a general election when it will be delayed even further by more meetings, committees, studies and all of that if the Government gets back into office.

I also ask the Minister of State to ask the Minister for Rural and Community Development and Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, to look at the issue relating to the community services programme and bring the funding up to the minimum wage in order to allow these projects to use their profits to bring their employees up to a living wage.

I thank People Before Profit-Solidarity for bringing forward this Bill. We support the Bill and look forward to teasing through the issues on Committee Stage. This is a very important issue. The Government has a duty and responsibility to abolish sub-minimum rates of pay that are used to exploit young workers and have no place in our society. Equal pay for equal work is fundamentally what this is about. The State needs to recognise this principle and end the exploitation of young workers.

My colleagues, Senator Gavan and Deputy O'Reilly, have been campaigning on this issue for some time now, including in the context of the National Minimum Wage (Removal of Sub-minimum Rates of Pay) Bill 2021. That legislation was introduced in 2018. It is five years since Sinn Féin first introduced legislation on this issue, and young people are still affected. As we see time and again, the Government continues to do nothing for young people. There are young people struggling with the cost of rent, education, transport and the cost-of-living crisis while they are also subjected to punitive and outdated rates of pay. The concept enshrined in this situation is based on a whole series of outdated assumptions. There is an assumption that families are generally doing okay and that they have the capacity to carry the costs of young people. There is an assumption that all family units are happy and coherent but, unfortunately, that is not the case and very often young people do not get the support they should at home. In such instances, their own independent income is vital. That is not the typical case but when we set down rules and legislation, we must take into account all sets of circumstances. The assumptions involved are quite outdated.

There are also assumptions in respect of apprenticeships, as has been outlined. Perhaps once upon a time the vast majority of apprentices were 15 or 16 years old and did not need a full income. That was an outdated assumption at that time and that is even more the case now when many people are leaving industries later in life. Perhaps such a person has children. The route of apprenticeships is closed off to that person. The whole issue of the pay rates for apprenticeships needs to be revised.

We are talking about exploitative practices affecting young people. There was some criticism of the trade union movement earlier. Trade unions are sometimes due criticism but they have done good work in ensuring that in certain retailers this practice has been eliminated. I encourage all young workers to join trade unions to try to ensure their rights are vindicated. Ultimately, the Government can and should act.

I too thank the Deputies for bringing forward this Bill. I welcome the opportunity to speak on legislation that seeks to abolish the age-based discriminatory practice of underpaying workers under the age of 20. Sinn Féin has long advocated for the removal of these discriminatory pay rates. We brought a motion before the Seanad last term but it was voted down by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Sinn Féin's Senator Gavan brought a motion before the Seanad on this topic nearly two years ago. I thank him for doing that. I had hoped the Government would see sense this time around but, unfortunately, it is not doing so because it is kicking the issue down the road for another 12 months.

There is no moral or economic excuse for continuing discriminatory practices towards our young people. The gall of the Government to ask young folks to do the same work as their colleagues but receive less pay for their trouble. Young workers play a vital part in our economy and they too have day-to-day expenses, projects and saving goals, not to mention the impacts of the cost-of-living crisis. Most of those young people are on lower incomes, as the Government is well aware, and we bang that drum at the Government every day. It is even more the case when those young people are underpaid. I urge the Government to remember the slogan "equal pay for equal work". Anything else is a breach of our labour rights obligations. I further urge the Minister of State to act to ensure the end of the reduced pay rates and ensure that young people are paid fairly and adequately for their hard work.

I commend Deputy Paul Murphy and People Before Profit on bringing forward this Bill. It has always struck me as completely and utterly unfair that young workers, those under the age of 20, have a lower rate of the minimum wage. A 19-year-old, for example, will earn just 90% of the minimum wage. An 18-year-old will only earn 80% of the minimum wage and a 17-year-old will receive just 70% of the minimum wage, which works out as €7.91 per hour. How has this situation been allowed to persist for as long as it has?

On a related point, it was not so long ago that we had a substantial report from the Commission on Pensions. It stressed the need to promote and protect intergenerational equity. This means not only fairness within generations but between different generations. That was obviously in the context of planning for workers' retirements. Contrast that report's stated aim with the very real pay inequality which persists for young workers today. Where is the intergenerational equity for those people? I cannot see it and I am sure the Minister of State cannot see it either. It has been five years since Sinn Féin first introduced legislation to end this unequal and discriminatory practice. These exploitative sub-minimum wage pay rates have now been ended in the likes of Germany, Spain, Belgium and Canada. The list goes on.

The Minister of State will have seen that the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, recently produced its housing report at an event in Dublin City University, DCU. It stated that students are paying an average of €750 for rent every month. Imagine an 18-year-old who has just entered college. The student needs to work to cover rent but obviously cannot work a standard 40-hour work because he or she needs to attend class and tutorials, sit examinations, complete assignments and prepare, etc. Let us assume the student works half that amount. This 18-year-old could be earning €9.04 per hour. After one month, he or she would have earned just over €720, which is not even enough to cover the average student rent. The student would still have an average shortfall of €30. What should such students do? Should they be starting to busk on Eyre Square or Grafton Street to allow them to cover their rents?

Let us not forget our apprentices who are not even covered by the national minimum wage legislation, discriminatory as it is. The late author Cormac McCarthy, who sadly passed away yesterday, wrote the novel No Country for Old Men. This Government seems determined to write the sequel, "no country for young people".

I also thank Deputy Paul Murphy and People Before Profit for introducing this legislation. This is an issue on which Senator Gavan has been campaigning for some time. He has done a massive amount of work. To discriminate against some people in society with sub-minimum rates of pay, which is what we are discussing, goes against the principle of equal pay for equal work. Such discrimination does not take into account the unique situations in which some of our people find themselves. It is also a poor reflection on the social conscience that we should be conveying an legislators. Young workers are not immune to the rising cost of living we are all facing. They also face that issue on a daily basis. Five years after Senator Gavan introduced legislation to abolish the exploitative practice of sub-minimum rates of pay, we are here again. That is because of inaction on the part of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Governments through the years. That is why we are back here again talking about the national minimum wage. It is simple. I do not care what age a person is from 16 upwards. If at any age you do the same work as anybody else, you are entitled to the same rate of pay.

It is not all businesses but some businesses are exploiting the situation. Some young people are doing the same type of work as others for unequal pay. That practice has been abolished in Germany, Spain, South Korea, Canada and Belgium. It is about time the Government got the finger out and abolished the practice here so that everybody is treated equally. We are looking for a workforce that is attractive to all. Let that get out there. We are talking about this issue on a continuous basis in this Chamber. With employment levels as they are, we should be balancing the playing field rather than skewing it in favour of older people at the expense of younger people. As Mandate Trade Union has stated, this is an outdated and old-fashioned concept based on the belief that young workers who are living at home do not face the same issues as older workers. As I said earlier, it should not matter where a young person lives. If they are doing a set amount of work that is the same as an older person, they should get the exact same pay. There should be no more of the Mickey Mouse legislation that is there. It needs to be changed. We give out all the time that apprentices are not taking up apprenticeships. They are on the lowest possible minimum wage. They are looking at their friends who are labouring for double their wages. It is a no-brainer. We need to tackle the money apprentices are getting and level that playing field so we entice more people into apprenticeships. The Government will keep saying it and we will keep saying it on this side of the House. That is where we are falling down in this country. We are not enticing young people into apprenticeships as we should be. I hope the Minister of State takes this on board so we are not back here in another couple of years repeating the same things.

With the indulgence of the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, I will take the opportunity to express my solidarity with the workers in Tara Mines who received the devastating news yesterday evening that there are to be 650 temporary layoffs - and we hope they are temporary - at the mine in Navan.

It has a huge impact on workers and families in Meath and across County Louth as well. It is extraordinary that the company has decided to reach for the nuclear option of lay-offs as opposed to engaging with the trade union.

I have allowed the Deputy latitude but he should move on.

This is relevant generally to the conditions of workers across the country. They should engage with the trade unions on alternatives. It is high time, by the way, in conclusion on this point, that the Government stopped ignoring the Labour Party's calls for a German-type short-time working scheme to be introduced that could greatly assist in situations like this.

The Labour Party is happy to support this Bill which addresses the blatant discrimination against low-paid younger workers in Ireland which has been tolerated for far too long. We believe there is no justification for asking young people to do the same work as their older colleagues for less pay. In fact, there probably never has. We have anti-discrimination employment laws in this country and discriminating against young people when it comes to paying the minimum wage is incompatible with the spirit of those laws, in our view. It is no longer accepted - it was never justified - to pay women less for the same work and it is long past time that principle is extended to younger workers too.

Ireland is something of an outlier in Europe in setting different rates for the minimum wage according to age but the Council of Europe has now found that Ireland is in breach of its labour rights obligations under the revised European Social Charter because of the reduced minimum wage rates for younger workers. The Government is now compelled to do something to address the issue. I was not present in the Chamber for the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Richmond's remarks earlier but I assume that he made reference to the fact that the Low Pay Commission is currently looking at that question. That is a welcome move.

The Labour Party welcomes the move towards a living wage that is currently under way. We have a target in place to create a living wage of 60% of the median wage in the country by 2026 and we cannot lock our young people out of that progress. We have locked young people out of progress in terms of the housing market and we cannot lock them out of higher pay. We want to see hard-working younger people on low pay at least reaching that same target or the living wage will mean nothing to a significant portion of our working population.

The move to a living wage is flawed if it is not guaranteed to every worker in the State and this Bill would set the framework to allow that to happen.

Over a quarter of those earning the minimum wage are aged between 15 and 19. This unfortunate cohort of workers is having to make do with anything from 90% to just 70% of the adult minimum wage. The same outdated arguments that were used falsely to justify paying women less are now being rehearsed as justification for lower pay for our young people. Some will say that workers in their teens may live at home in the main, and while that might still be true, in a world where families across the land are facing a huge cost-of-living crisis and are struggling to make ends meet, every working member of a household is expected to pull his or her weight and make his or her contribution. The law, as it currently stands, as it pertains to the minimum wage, does not reflect that.

The argument in favour of paying the same rate of minimum wage across the board is a broader one. It is about the concept of fairness. My party has always fought for an honest day's pay for an honest day's work and we see no reason that principle should be compromised in any way simply because of the year of one's birth.

Labour has moved to address this issue in seeking to guarantee, for example, the minimum wage to apprentices. Apprentices and young people in general are crucial to this country's future and, in particular, are a cornerstone in tackling the housing crisis. If we are meaningfully to tackle the housing crisis which is the root cause of many of our social, economic and infrastructural problems, then training young people in the trades needed for construction is more important than ever. Despite everyone's best efforts, the number of young people going into apprenticeships in the wet trades is embarrassingly low. In order to attract young people to this vital area of endeavour, guaranteeing at least the minimum wage while they train, regardless of their age, will be crucial. In that sense, apart from being the fair and right thing to do, guaranteeing the minimum wage and then a living wage to all, makes sense for the economy too. It is high time we made apprenticeships a viable alternative to higher education for young people who want to go that route and provide fair pay to our young apprentices.

While providing a fair day's pay for our younger people and apprentices may provide more options for them, it will not have a significant impact on the numbers seeking further education. I recall, in the debates around the introduction of the national minimum wage in 2000, one of the features driving that particular provision in the Act was that there was a concern that younger people would somehow be disincentivised in terms of continuing in education because of the minimum wage. This was one of the justifications for sub-minimum rates. An argument that some will advance for keeping rates of pay low for the younger worker is that it serves as a negative or punitive incentive to take up further education but evidence from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, as we know, found that at best the impact of low rates of pay for younger workers on their continuing education was "small and weak, and sometimes statistically insignificant".

The Low Pay Commission has not yet arrived at a position where it recommends doing away with age discrimination in terms of the minimum wage but it has recommended further research on the issue, as I referenced earlier. Based on that research, it has been asked by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make a recommendation on the issue later this year. We in the Labour Party do not see a reason to wait until then. The case is clear. I and my party believe that there is only one way to go, that is, to end this pointless and unjustified discrimination now.

The country's unions now agree. Congress has called for the ending of age discrimination with regards to the minimum wage and earlier this year, as the minimum wage went to €11.30, Mandate Trade Union pointed out the folly and injustice of denying the new minimum wage rate to young people. It is patently ridiculous that a 20-year-old can earn the full minimum wage of €11.30 per hour while a 19-year-old colleague standing or sitting beside them and doing the same work is earning €10.17 and an 18-year-old colleague has to make do with only €9.04.

It is a point worth making as well that not every young person under the age of 20 is earning a sub-minimum rate. Based on the last set of statistics I have seen, approximately 16,500 workers are on sub-minimum rates and not all employers take the view that the sub-minimum rate is the rate that they should pay. That is good and others should follow that example. If one is unfortunate enough to do the same work at age 17, one will be asked to work for only €7.91 per hour based on the proportion of the adult rate of the minimum wage that applies to 17-year-olds because of the legislation that is in place at present.

On the face of it, discriminating according to age in terms of the minimum wage is, I hope the Minister of State will agree, manifestly unfair and unjust and has to come to an end. This Bill provides us with the opportunity to do that once and for all and the Labour Party is happy to support it.

Like Deputy Nash, I too would like to express solidarity with the workers in Tara Mines who must be shocked at the sudden announcement. It is essential that every support is put in place in the first instance but very little will soften the blow of the announcement that they have had in the past 24 hours.

I thank People Before Profit, PBP, for bringing forward this Bill. If there is a time to make this change, it is now. We have almost full employment and we have an historically low rate of unemployment. Indeed, employers are struggling to get workers and, as has already been said, not every employer will take advantage of young workers paying them the lower rate in terms of the minimum wage.

The price of a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk does not matter depending on one's age. Whatever one has, it only stretches the same way.

There is a presumption - it is almost a middle-class notion - that this is pocket money for young people. I certainly have come across young people where this is critical for them, individually or as a contribution to the family income, in keeping the show on the road.

I have a particular affinity with equal pay for equal work because I was sitting in an office one day and I got equal pay for doing the same amount of work as the person who was sitting next to me. That was in the early 1970s. The Minister of State has no idea how corrosive it is to sit there watching somebody being paid more and doing exactly the same job as he is doing. That is their experience. Their first experience in the workforce is this experience of being discriminated against and the Minister of State has no idea of the campaign that was waged against equal pay for equal work when it came to paying women equal pay. In fact, the Minister of State could look now and say that our economy has benefited hugely from having a larger number of women in the workforce which would not have happened if we had kept that discrimination.

It is utterly corrosive. It is not just about how far a person's money will stretch. There is an emotional feeling to being discriminated against that stays with a person, and that should be factored into this.

There are all sorts of arguments. I recall the letters pages in the newspapers and the editorials around that time. Everything was going to collapse because women were going to get equal pay, and there is a similar sense of scaremongering to this. If somebody is doing the same work, there is absolutely no reason they should not be paid the same. Indeed, why should good employers be undercut by those who will take advantage by rotating workers to get in younger workers and undercut other employers by doing that repeatedly, which can happen? The argument that young workers will drop out of education does not hold water, as has been proven to be the case, and the current circumstances, where there is full employment, are the perfect time to carry out an analysis of that. It is discriminatory and unnecessarily punitive to treat people differently based solely on their age.

Young workers continue to be exploited, running the risk of being let go when the time comes for their employer to increase their wage, only for the employer to hire someone younger. That is something we should highlight. There is no doubt that in the case of some employers, that happens. We keep being told how well the country is doing, but other jurisdictions do not rely on this kind of discrimination. We should look to our European counterparts. The then European Economic Community, EEC, as it was known when we joined the now EU, was pivotal in making that change to equal pay for equal work for women. We should look at the signals that are coming from exactly the same location in respect of the discrimination occurring against young workers. If we look at how young people are treated in general in this country, it applies to everything from being locked out of homeownership, although that does not really apply to very young people, to having to suffer the pension timebomb in the years to come, yet they are being discriminated against or adversely affected at every turn.

I do not think there is any argument to continue this. Not only should there be equality in respect of the minimum wage, but we should move towards a living wage. We are creeping slowly towards that, but within that context, there cannot be a differential dependent on age. The idea that somebody who is older by mere months is paid a different sum highlights the issue. Students, for example, are really struggling to put a roof over their heads during college and often have to work. They can then be doubly discriminated against by virtue of the fact that if they get a job and happen to be under 20, they can be paid lower, as often happens. There is no argument for it. I ask the Minister of State to consider how beneficial it was for women to get equal pay in the context of their contribution to the workforce. This is about more than economics; it is about forming a view of what the world of work is like. Starting that journey with an experience of being treated less favourably than someone who happens to be, say, a year older than you just does not stand up.

On foot of our debate yesterday evening regarding our fire services, the Government's amendment is disappointing. We heard about our firefighters. Their hourly rate equates to 90 cent an hour, but I am not sure if that point was made, or if it was, the Government must have heard it but been deaf to it, and this is similar. I have been working since I was 12, and I have no shame in saying that. It was not because I was thrown out of my family and had to work or anything like that. They were just different times. I had a job in our local shop, and I will say this for my employer. It was the best job I have had in my entire life. I was treated in the same way as those who were in full-time employment. I was paid the same hourly rate and I paid my dividends through hard work.

As Deputy Catherine Murphy noted, it is about the atmosphere of a workplace. How can someone who is behind a bar at midnight, who has been working for hours to make ends meet for themselves, never mind trying to subsidise a family, be exploited in that the 21-year-old working beside them is on the minimum wage at the very least? Why would someone be exploited in that way? If it were a man and a woman we were talking about, that would not even be tolerated as conversation.

The motion is timely, and as for the Government’s amendment, I ask the Minister of State please to see sense. There are people in the Gallery who will be making decisions on our behalf as we get older, and if they were to bring forward something like this, on an ageist basis, for the older population, we would be jumping up and down. The amendment needs to be withdrawn. Based on the European average and what is happening, we should have equal pay for equal work. Employers may be deterred from taking on younger people, but I think we can safely say that at a time when we are almost at full employment, or at least that is what we hear every day, they will be more than glad to get them and to pay them. I have been very lucky throughout my working life in that I have never been exploited, but that does not mean there are not cases for which we need to legislate, but we should do so in a positive manner. We should not be the ones creating the exploitative circumstances. That is why the amendment needs to be withdrawn, and we should take the motion as it stands on board. Employers, in a practical, common-sense approach, will make their decision based on equal pay for equal work, and I do not think any more than that. We do not want to demonise anybody, but we certainly do not want to exploit our young people.

I know plenty of people of 16 years of age who have to go out to work and cannot survive on our apprenticeship programmes. That was mentioned earlier by another Deputy, but it is something the Minister of State needs to look at. We need to get apprenticeships under way. We are way behind the curve of the European average in respect of our young people taking up apprenticeships. We need them badly but they are not being encouraged and, as a matter of fact, they are being greatly deterred. The students who are sitting in the Gallery may well be college students, but we should be paying equal value to apprenticeship programmes, given that is what our environment of today dictates. This is true especially for anybody who is not academically brilliant, such as me. I left school at 14, and I did not suffer the consequences because my mindset was that, whether you think you can or cannot, you are correct, and we do not have enough of that today.

The simple stuff such as we are now debating deters and discourages people. As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, it is demoralising. It does not matter what age a person is. If they are working, they are working, and if they are putting in hours, they should be paid the same hourly rate as the colleague beside them. Of course, when a person moves on to a life career, that will change, but it should not be the case for anybody aged between 16 and 20.

There should be no difference whatsoever in paying the minimum wage to somebody who is working at that stage. I do not need to labour the point; many of my colleagues have put it forward. I want the Minister to think seriously about this based on what we debated yesterday evening about the fire service. We need to encourage people and we have to have a level playing field. As I said, being near full employment, we have to ensure we have, not only a moral compass and social justice about this, but we have to have a good feeling about the people we elect working in our favour. That is why I ask the Minister again to withdraw his amendment.

First, I am not going to listen to People Before Profit Members at all when it comes to talking about work, employment, paying people, or about money. I will tell the Minister of State who I will listen to and he will be interested in this. I will listen to Pat McDonagh who is a great man. He is an Irish man who has created thousands of jobs and provides great service the length and breadth of this country. I am going to talk about Pat McDonagh because he gave his version of what he thought about this. He is a man who creates work and pays people on a Friday. He is not a person who goes around yapping about pay and conditions. He is a person who has practical experience of giving people lifetime careers, or part-time work and getting people started-----

He charges them for uniforms.

-----and that is so important.

He charges them for uniforms.

I would like to be allowed to continue. I would like to continue without interruption.

No latitude - the Deputy is right absolutely.

What I am trying to say is that the employers in Ireland are important. One of the most valuable things young people can get is a thing called experience. That is very important. Yes, they have to get fair pay and be treated properly but life experience is so important. If the people who are talking about this had half as much interest in the real world, in creating employment and work, then they might know a thing or two more about it. I am interested in getting young people going and giving them into life experiences, working in all the different areas and going up along the ladder. It cannot be expected that the day a person goes into a job they will get the exact same pay as the person who was there for a year or five or ten years ahead of them. That does not make common sense. We heard Deputy Verona Murphy talking about her own life experiences. There is nothing wrong with starting work at a young age and starting off.

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk about young people's work. I have been an employer for many years and as an employer I know too well that Friday evening comes very fast. I believe in paying people equally for the same type of work but there is a thing called starting off and training people and getting them used to rules and regulations. They have to be up for that. In all this talk, we have to appreciate employers in the same way as we appreciate workers. We are in the market now and the workers are in that market. If the workers are not paid properly, they will not stay and that is a fact. Yes, we have to recognise equal pay for equal work but we also have to recognise that youngsters have to be trained. I love youngsters starting off. I love giving them a job and my son carries on in the same vein in work today. We must appreciate the employers as well because if employers are left to pay an exorbitant rate from the very start, they will employ fewer people. There is only so much money to go around to make ends meet. I do not know how many people the Members have employed in their time. I value employing people. I recognise that I have to pay them and they will have to be paid because their families depend on them. Whether it is a young lad making a few bob to go back to college or back to school, they all need their money and they have to get it. If employers do not pay them, they will not stay with that employer. That is a fact. This is only a publicity stunt.

We are told there is near full employment in the country but are the people who are employed - young people in particular - being treated properly? I have grave doubts about that. I also have serious concerns about putting an extra burden on the employer. The employer cannot take the hit every time we stand up here in the Chamber. Some feel the employer should take every hit and that they should go home with zero or minus amount in their pocket. If anybody is seen to make any little bit of a profit, some parties completely and utterly point their fingers at them instead of praising and helping them along. They might then end up employing a lot more people and creating more employment in our country.

We have to look at the universal social charge, USC. This is where we need to take the pressure off the employer and look at what the Government can deliver. This was a payment that was imposed on the people of this country. It was promised it would not be left there and it is now playing a leading role in bringing in huge tax takes for the Government. The Government is continuously glorifying its massive tax take. If that is the case, let us step off the gas regarding the employer and expecting them to take up the bill if extra money is to be paid to the young people. Maybe it is time for the Government to drop the USC charge for low earners or anyone on the minimum wage and at least that would make up the difference for those people.

These young people are trying to live and buy a car. They cannot buy a home. They have no hope of getting a mortgage. Council houses cannot be got. The cost of living is out of control. Many of the parties in here favour the carbon tax which is an extra burden, especially on younger people in rural areas due to the cost of fuel. This whole situation is crippling people. We are told we are living in a great country with massive wealth and massive tax takes but many people are suffering and the Minister of State is standing idly by while that goes on.

I too declare that I am an employer for a long time - 41 or 42 years now - and I appreciate the right of Solidarity-People Before Profit Members to bring forward this Bill. However, it is a phoney Bill because we do not appreciate the workers and the people out there. They take an ideological stance and I accept that; it is their right. However, they do not understand or respect employers. They are the first people to arrive at a picket of an employer and support people despite it being a good employer. Work is a two-way street. In our business, which my son runs now, we have great employees and we respect them. It is a two-way street. Deputy Paul Murphy mentioned working at 12. There was nothing wrong with anyone working at 12 when we were going to school but that is not allowed now. We have more legislation, rules, and guidelines and it diminishes young people's right to get the feel for work, which I do not think Deputy Paul Murphy ever got in his life. I do not know if he would sweep the floor. Maybe he would.

The Deputy would not know that.

This constant bashing of employers has to stop. I am not going to talk about Pat McDonagh or anybody else. They are good employers but there might be issues there; I do not know. However, employers should be respected because workers will walk away and work elsewhere if they are not paid. The market is there and there is the market value. People must be respected in work. However, I mention regulations and the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA. This should be changed to the national employers' support agency because there are no supports for employers, especially small and medium-sized employers. It is regulations all the time and visits at midnight or maybe 12.05 a.m. to hotels to ask if employers are paying the extra rate after midnight. It is regressive and some of the people out there with their briefcases would not know anything about work either. They do not care. It is about support. Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí. Mol na daoine atá ag obair agus tiocfaidh siad freisin. We need to look after the people who want to work and allow them to work but the environment that is there now is to drive people away from employing people. That is what it is. It is regulation after regulation and agency after agency and they are doing nothing to help with the cost of living but everything to damage the ability of the employers to employ more people.

The Minister is on his way; he is delayed. We have two Members who have not arrived to speak. I am going suspend the House for three minutes. If the Members arrive in the meantime, they will be allowed to speak but if not, we will have to move to the Minister. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Debate adjourned.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 11.29 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 11.33 a.m.
Sitting suspended at 11.29 a.m. and resumed at 11.33 a.m.

I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, who was at a committee earlier and asked me to stand in for him.

In his contribution to the debate, the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, detailed the Government's proposal for a timed amendment of 12 months for the Bill to allow for the conclusion of an in-depth examination of the national minimum wage's sub-minima rates by the Low Pay Commission. The sub-minima rates are provided for under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the National Minimum Wage (Low Pay Commission) Act 2015. In providing for the setting of a national minimum wage, these Acts also allow that in specified circumstances a reduced sub-minimum rate might be applied. The examination was requested by the then Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in February 2022. Writing to the chairperson of the Low Pay Commission, he noted some debate relating to the youth rates of the national minimum wage, including the introduction of a Private Members' Bill under discussion today that seeks to remove such rates. He requested the commission examine the issues around retaining or removing the youth rates and for it to make recommendations on the matter.

As related earlier, the current sub-minimum rates came into effect in March 2019 following a previous examination of the rates undertaken by the Low Pay Commission in 2016 and 2017. The earlier examination of the rates by the Low Pay Commission found that of 26 OECD countries that have a statutory minimum wage, just over half have sub-minimum rates for younger people. On concluding its examination in 2017, the Low Pay Commission recommended the abolition of the then-existing system of training rates and the simplification of the youth rates structure. In advising against the outright abolition of youth rates, the commission echoed some of the conclusions that underpinned the original establishment of the sub-minimum rates in the early 2000s that the minimum wage rate would then no longer offer any recognition of the difference between a young inexperienced worker and a more experienced colleague, which could lead to employers seeing less value in hiring young people and a potential impact on youth employment rates. The commission also concluded abolishing youth rates could potentially act as an incentive for young people to leave education and take up employment, which could have a negative impact on their long-term prospects.

Since the request for a re-examination was made in early 2022, the Low Pay Commission has commissioned research from the ESRI on the matter. This informs a broader, well-functioning research partnership the commission maintains with the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, to develop the evidence base on low pay matters in Ireland and inform its advice and recommendations to Government. This research is well advanced and will be completed in the near future by a stakeholder consultation the commission will be holding on the issue. Both the final ESRI analysis and consultation findings will be considered by the commission in the coming months with a view to preparing its own final report and recommendations for Government before the end of this year. If progressed further today, the Bill would pre-empt the work of the Low Pay Commission, which has undertaken critical work on low pay and national minimum wage rates since its establishment in 2015.

The commission's mandate is to advise Government on the setting of a legally-enforceable minimum wage that is fair and sustainable for low-paid workers and that will not have significant negative consequences for employers and competitiveness and indeed a possible long-term impact on young workers themselves. At present the commission is chiefly engaged in the important work of ensuring the Government decision to progress to a living wage by 2026 - by which we mean a wage set at 60% of the hourly median wage - is fulfilled. This forms part of the wider suite of workers' rights reforms introduced by the Government in recent years, including the introduction of statutory sick pay, the right to request remote working and the introduction of an additional public holiday. The Low Pay Commission is supported in its work through a representative membership, including members with an understanding of the interests of employees, particularly those in sectors with a high composition of minimum-wage and low-paid workers as well as those with an understanding of the interests of employers, especially SMEs and those operating in low-paid sectors. There are also members who have a particular knowledge and expertise of labour market economics and employment trends in the economy. This broadly-based and representative membership ensures a holistic and informed approach in the work of the commission and its advice to the Government.

The Government is supportive of the Low Pay Commission and the work it has carried out since its foundation. The Government respects its independence and expertise in advising on matters of low pay and the national minimum wage. This current examination of sub-minima rates reflects the strongly evidence-based approach to arriving at its recommendation and how it is obliged to consider the likely effect the proposed national minimum wage recommendation will have on levels of employment and unemployment, the cost of living and national competitiveness. A timed amendment is proposed to allow the Low Pay Commission complete its re-examination of the issues for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to consider the commission's recommendations on this matter. It is not appropriate to make a fundamental change to the rates, as proposed in this Private Members' Bill, without receipt and consideration of the Low Pay Commission's findings and recommendations.

I thank the Minister of State. With the agreement of the House, I propose to allow Deputy McNamara four minutes. Everybody agrees.

I thank the Acting Chair.

I thank People Before Profit for bringing forward this Bill. It is something that was brought to my attention by Ennis youth group when I met members across the road in Buswell's. There was a time when people aged under 18 worked for pocket money. It was very much brought to my attention people aged under 18 are now working to try to save money to pay for accommodation if and when they go to college.

The monetary pressures on people under 18 are much greater now than they were. I suppose monetary pressures on families generally are. Those who are just working to try to save money to go to college are perhaps the lucky ones. There are many who are working to try to contribute to their families because of the cost-of-living increases, in particular the cost of accommodation that families are enduring. Some families are lucky enough to own a family home at a mortgage rate that is set and affordable or to be in local authority accommodation which is affordable, but there are many others for whom accommodation is a pressure for the entire family. It might come as a great comfort to the Deputies across from me for me to say that I would not necessarily share their ideology. However, in many respects I share their concern that, as a society, we are regressing to where we were 100 years ago, when everybody in a family was out working to try to sustain the family and keep a roof over their heads. That is very worrying. It is a manifestation of the failure of Government, not just this Government, and it would be unfair to blame this Government, but of successive governments to deal with the housing and accommodation crisis. We are really regressing as a society in a variety of ways. It is having impacts on many sectors that could not be foreseen. It is driving hostilities in communities around resources and around immigration. It is having a huge impact. The grouping I met did not say they were the lucky ones but they spoke about having to work and save up to pay for accommodation. In a way, that would make them quite lucky.

I am a farmer and I have occasionally hired casual labour. More often than not it is young men. They probably do more work than I do and are prepared to do more work than I or indeed than the Minister of State or anybody on the Opposition benches might be capable of. I have always felt they should be fairly paid for that, notwithstanding their age. We need to examine this. Allowing the matter to go to Committee Stage would not pre-empt the Low Pay Commission in its work. The Low Pay Commission reports annually, albeit on different issues. I accept that. There is no reason the two could not operate in tandem. Has any effort been made by the Government to get the Low Pay Commission to bring forward its report? Is it possible for it to do so? It is an issue that deserves to be looked at. The place to do that, since we are a parliamentary democracy, is in committee. This is an issue which would be very usefully teased out by a committee. I welcome the legislation. It is important this Dáil be afforded an opportunity to look at it on Committee Stage and I will be supporting it on that basis.

I thank the Acting Chair for the leeway afforded me to speak on this matter.

This is extremely simple. There is nothing complicated here. There is no need to wait for a year or get a load of reports. This is extremely simple. We need to end the situation whereby young people are discriminated against on the basis of their age. We need to end the situation where they are super-exploited while, legally, the Government is saying it is okay. We need to end the situation where under-18s can be paid as little as €7.91 an hour, 18-year-olds €9.04 an hour, and 19-year-olds €10.17 an hour. It goes against the basic principle of equal pay for equal work. It is a situation that thousands of greedy employers will take advantage of this summer in particular, taking on young workers, exploiting them, and using them to cut hours for older workers who would otherwise have to be paid at least the minimum wage or maybe more. That is why the entire trade union movement supports the goal of this Bill. Mandate, Unite, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions - everyone agrees that sub-minimum pay rates should be abolished. As for some of the people in this Chamber speaking about how great it is to have people working on €8 an hour, I would like to see them working for €8 an hour. They love to speak about work and how they know how to get out of bed in the morning and everything else. They are landlords and business owners and they have probably never worked for €8 an hour in their life. I would like to see them doing so now if they think it is okay for under-18-year-olds to be working for less than that.

I want to go through some of the pretty threadbare arguments that were advanced by the Government and then by the Rural Independent Group Deputies, the most enthusiastic supporters of paying young people poverty wages. About four arguments were advanced as far as I could see. The first was that abolishing youth rates could potentially act as an incentive for young people to leave education and take up employment, which could have a negative impact on their long-term prospects. That is ridiculous. I have not seen any evidence produced to back that up. The idea that the princely sum of €11.30 an hour, which is not enough to survive on and is nowhere close to a living wage, is enticing people to leave school is absolutely ridiculous. The truth is that the continuation of the sub-minimum rates of pay, which one in four young workers under 20 is being paid at the moment, is actually driving young people out of education. It is forcing students to drop out of college because they cannot make enough money to pay for their bills or rent. Others are not able to start in college because they know they cannot afford it due to the poverty wages they are being presented with. That is the reason the third level students' union movement, the Union of Students in Ireland, UCD students and so on support the Bill, as does the secondary school students' union. That argument is really an absolute nonsense.

The second reason is that the minimum wage rate would then no longer offer any recognition of the difference between a young, inexperienced worker and a more experienced colleague. The idea that this is about experience is completely bogus. This is not about experience, it is about age. Some 18% of young people leave school at the age of 16 and go into the workplace. By the time they hit 19 they have had three years of experience in the workplace but they are not entitled to the minimum wage. Alternatively, someone could walk in the door at 20, 21, 22 or 23 with no experience and be legally entitled to the inadequate minimum wage. This is not about experience. It is explicitly about age. Linked to that is the idea that it would be terrible to have someone in a workplace with years of experience being paid the same as someone else who just came in the door. This Bill does not bar people from being paid more on the basis of experience. Of course workers, as they gain experience, should go up a salary scale. That makes sense. People should get more as opposed to the argument that we need to pay people even less than the minimum wage, supposedly on the basis of experience but in reality on the basis of their age.

Another reason advanced is that young workers under the age of 18 are not allowed to work nights and so on and are being paid less on that basis. It does not hold any water because this also applies to 18- and 19-year-olds who do not get those protections. In any case, this is about an hourly wage for the rate. It does not stop workers being paid more. They should be paid more for working unsociable hours.

Another point made is the potential impact on youth employment rates. Again it is complete nonsense in the context of the Government blaring out that we have full employment. The idea is that this will result in people not being employed or whatever. It will not. It will result in pressure on employers who might discriminate against older workers by not giving them hours in the summer time. It will force employers to pay young people at least the inadequate minimum wage we currently have.

What underlies a lot of the arguments is a kind of unspoken idea that this is really pocket money, that they do not have the same bills as the rest of us. It is just not true. School leavers are going into work and relying on this money to survive. They cannot offer their landlord 80% of the rent.

They cannot say to the supermarket, "Here is 90% of the price of my shopping." They absolutely rely on it to survive. It is the same case for many college students who depend on this money to pay their way through college. That paternalistic approach of justifying the exploitation of young people on the basis that somehow they do not need it is complete nonsense. It is not we who say that. It is not just the trade union movement or the students' unions that say it. The Council of Europe repeatedly found sub-minimum rates of pay to breach young workers' human rights. Will the Government even listen to its own human rights watchdog, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which has also condemned sub-minimum pay rates? Unfortunately, it seems the Government is deaf to all of those organisations. Those it has ears for are the Restaurants Association of Ireland, the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, Retail Excellence and the bosses who exploit young workers and line their pockets with their labour.

It was interesting that we had a broad range of support for this Bill across the Opposition benches today. The Government did not even launch a very full-throated defence of the super-exploitation of young people but instead said we will kick it down the road, etc. However, the one group in the Dáil today that came in in defence of paying young people as little as €8 an hour was the Rural Independent Group. That is very interesting because it often likes to pose as the champions of the people. The truth is its members are the champions of businesses and champions of the likes of Pat McDonagh, who was spoken about so highly and whose whole business model is based on the exploitation both of young workers. They are the champions of landlords. It is an incredible situation where Deputy McGrath called for a reintroduction of child labour in this State. He said 12-year-olds should be out working. The Rural Independent Group does not stand for ordinary people at all. It is the only group in this Dáil that is openly and clearly saying it wants 17-year-olds to continued to be paid less than €8 an hour, a continuation of 90% pay for 19-year-olds and 80% for 18-year-olds. It stands for the super-exploitation of young workers and workers generally. It is not on the side of ordinary people at all.

Before I finish I will make an appeal. We have not heard from anyone in the Green Party. I appeal to the Green Party to use its power as a party in Government to ensure this Bill is not kicked down the road. The Government's message to young workers is to wait. Young workers cannot wait. They face into a summer of super-exploitation. However, the Green Party is in power. The Green Party in England and Wales recently called for a minimum wage of £15 an hour for all workers without exemptions. I cannot understand how the Green Party in this country can possibly vote for a minimum wage for young workers that is less than half of that. Are poverty wages for young people the price of power? Let us hope not. It is not too late to withdraw this amendment or to vote against this amendment, to say "No" to kicking the can down the road, to say young workers cannot wait, and to say they will end this horrendous, discriminatory, exploitative situation of young people being legally paid even less than the minimum wage.

Amendment put.

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time this evening.

Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 11.54 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 12 meán lae.
Sitting suspended at 11.54 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.
Top
Share