Vol. 471 No. 3
6 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the level of pay to women as a percentage of that to men is greatly exaggerated in view of the fact that statistics on trends in the pay to women are confined to 17 per cent of women, being those involved in manufacturing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20619/96]
13 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the level of pay to women as a percentage of that to men is greatly exaggerated in view of the fact that statistics on trends in the pay to women are confined to 17 per cent of women, being those involved in manufacturing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20620/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 13 together.
The most commonly quoted figures on the male/female wage differential are for production workers in manufacturing industry where women's hourly earnings are almost three quarters of the earnings of their male counterparts. This group represents less than the one in five of all female employees and the statistics may not, therefore, be representative of female employment as a whole.
For this reason a special study on male/female wage differentials across the economy was commissioned from the Economic and Social Research Institute by my Department and the Employment Equality Agency. The aim of the study was to provide a better measure of the average gap between men's and women's hourly earnings generally.
This study, published in February 1994, found that, taking all sectors into account, women's hourly earnings were 80 per cent of men's. Half of the 20 per cent wage gap found in the 1994 study is explained in the ESRI study by differences in productivity-related factors, such as length of labour market experience. The unexplained gap of 10 per cent reflects a lack of knowledge on the impact of wage determination processes and, probably, to some extent, the residual effect of past discrimination.
The results of the ESRI study clearly indicates a lesser wage gap between men's and women's earnings in employment generally than in the more limited manufacturing sector where earnings trends are the subject of regular publication by the Central Statistics Office. Nevertheless, it must be said that there is no exaggeration of the wage gap within the manufacturing sector and whatever the wage gap generally or by reference to the manufacturing sector, efforts must continue to further reduce any gaps.
I hope that the Employment Equality Bill can make a contribution to this process. In addition, I await with interest the conclusions of the forthcoming Seminar on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value being held later this month by the Employment Equality Agency which operates under the aegis of my Department. This event will bring together national and international expertise in the equal pay area and will consider the recent Code of Practice on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value published by the European Commission.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Notwithstanding the fact that we have had slightly better information since 1994, would the Minister accept that the information gap on trends in women's pay hampers the discussion of the position of women at work? In the European Union, women earn on average between 30 and 40 per cent less than men for non-manual jobs and between 15 and 35 per cent less for manual work in manufacturing. These findings are a salutary lesson. It must be of concern that women are locked into low-paid low status occupations. Does the Minister consider that there might be other ways of arriving at more accurate figures relating to women's pay in the workforce?
I agree with Deputy Keogh. A new ESRI report would be helpful and desirable. The findings of the 1994 report on pay differentials were largely based on data collected by the ESRI in their 1987 survey of income distribution. I understand from the ESRI that this information has been updated to 1994 and would be available for a follow-up report. They may be able to tackle that task next year. This is a complex area and the differential is due to quite a number of factors. Different figures appear on the manufacturing side and in women's employment generally.
Progress is being made in some areas. There has been an improvement in the hourly rates over recent years but much remains to be done. The weekly rates in manufacturing industry as reported for men were 58.5 per cent in 1985. It increased to 60 per cent in 1987. The greater disparity between weekly rates and hourly rates arose from the greater impact on earnings of longer working hours for men on the weekly data. In December 1995, the average hours worked per week by females in industry was 37.6 or 89 per cent of the male average of 42.4. In regard to hourly rates, there has been a gradual improvement. The 1992 figure was 70 per cent. That rose to 73 per cent by 1995. Much remains to be done. The Employment Equality Bill will have some impact, but further research is necessary. Perhaps the seminar organised by the Employment Equality Agency which will look at the position from a Europe-based perspective will be helpful also.
The Minister has suggested that the Employment Equality Bill will resolve some of these matters, but unless we have some form of comparator within the Bill, we will end up as we were. Would the Minister agree that it is necessary to have some form of comparator, especially for those industries in which there is not already an agreement about pay and conditions?
Would the Minister also agree that women are discriminated against mainly in relation to part-time employment because the vast majority of part-time employees are women, and the terms and conditions which apply in part time employment can be particularly restrictive? One of the conditions is that part-time workers do not have even pro rata occupational pensions. Part-time employment is more and more a feature of the marketplace. Women working in such jobs are excluded from pension cover, and this is an indirect way of discriminating against them.
The question of direct or indirect discrimination against women in employment is addressed in the Employment Equality Bill. Equality reviews and action plans may well be appropriate, and the Bill gives the Equality Authority power to look into various aspects of employment equality and the issue of wage differentials between men and women. I agree with Deputy Woods that a comparator is necessary, and on equal pay claims the question of a comparator arises. However, the question of an hypothetical comparator, that is a notional comparator, is a different matter. That is not provided for in the Bill for good reasons which I will be happy to go into, if necessary, on Committee Stage.
Is it expected that the equality authority will be extremely busy because we are talking about 83 per cent of women involved in the workforce for whom we do not have a proper comparator mechanism? We are still depending on outdated figures. This suggests we are totally over representing the level of pay of women in the workforce. The urgency of a male comparator is underlined by that fact. Unless we have such a comparator we will not have equality regarding pay in the workplace.
I agree that more up-to-date statistics would be helpful and it may be possible to obtain them from the ESRI some time next year. I hope so and will examine that possibility. I do not mind discussing the hypothetical comparator now but it may be more appropriate to our Committee Stage discussions on the Employment Equality Bill.
