I welcome all the trade unionists, labour youth and representatives of the National Youth Council to the Public Gallery.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am sharing time with Senator Laura Harmon.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am very excited and delighted to be bringing forward my first Bill in the Seanad. I welcome the many trade unionists and representatives of the National Youth Council in the Public Gallery today. Their presence is very much appreciated. We had a fantastic briefing in the audiovisual room today. Representatives from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, SIPTU, Connect, Mandate, the Financial Services Union and Aontas na Mac Léinn in Éirinn attended. Representatives came from across the board and this is indicative of the importance of the matter we are raising today. The speakers were: Mr. Owen Reidy, general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; Ms Maeve Richardson digital organiser of the Financial Services Union; Mr. Paddy Kavanagh, general secretary of Connect Trade Union and Mr. Ben Friel, President of the National Union of Students NI and Aontas na Mac Léinn in Éirinn. My thanks to all the Senators and TDs who were able to attend and, if they were not, who sent their representatives. I also thank those who assisted and advised me on this Bill throughout this drafting process. I give a special shout out to Mr. John Davey, my parliamentary assistant.

Advice and input has come from the entire trade union movement, particularly the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with thanks in particular to former Senator Paul Gavan for his consistent advice and guidance on this. I am also especially grateful to my immediate predecessors as Labour Party spokespersons on workers' rights, former Senator and now Deputy Marie Sherlock and Deputy Ged Nash, who did so much to bring these issues to the fore. Marie had previously brought legislation before the Seanad seeking the payment of the minimum wage to apprentices in 2023 and, in turn, in 2022.

The fact that previous attempts have been made by other parliamentarians demonstrates that the specifics of this Bill have political precedence and that they are steeped in the ideals of equality and fairness, which should inform all of our efforts to remake Irish society. The understanding that previous attempts to bring about an extension to the minimum wage legislation for all workers was not achieved, unfortunately, during the term of the previous Oireachtas should give fresh impetus to the need to pass this Bill today, which combines the need to fairly and adequately pay apprentices, interns and young people. I am very grateful to my Cross-Party Group colleagues, Senators Laura Harmon, Malcolm Noonan and Patricia Stephenson for allowing us to use our Private Member's time for this very important Bill.

The introduction of a national minimum wage in Ireland in 2000, which is 25 years ago now, was a turning point in workers' rights in this jurisdiction. Overnight, on 1 April 2000, we saw 22% of workers receive an immediate and significant boost to their income. Today the minimum wage is set at €13.50 per hour, but four months into the new millennium it was set at just €5.58 per hour or £4.40 in the old money. While the then minimum wage commission had recommended a rate of 70% of the average male wage at the time, the Government at the time opted for a rate of just 53% of the average male wage. Despite this shortfall, the impact it had was immediate, not in the job losses predicted by those opposed to the introduction, but in the raising of wage levels for all low-paid workers. Some 163,000 workers, the majority of whom women and many of whom were under 25, received a pay rise on April Fool's Day 2000. A total of 80,000 of them received an increase of at least £1, that is, their wages rose by a quarter overnight.

It seems hard to remember a different Ireland, an Ireland where employers could choose to pay adult workers less than £3 per hour. While most of the low-paid jobs were then, as now, in retail and personal services, other low-paid sectors at the time were highly dangerous and in sectors such as agriculture, forestry and fishing. The introduction of the minimum wage was a transformative experience for the Irish economy because it lifted not only individuals but whole cohorts of workers out of poverty wages. Unfortunately, the job was never finished. Apprentices and interns were excluded from the benefits of a mandatory minimum wage. Employers were given permission to employ young people at rates consistently and considerably below the national minimum wage. At the moment, a young person under 18 is entitled to a wage of €9.45 per hour, which is 70% of the minimum wage. Eighteen-year-olds are entitled to €10.80 per hour, which is 80% of the minimum wage and a 19-year-old is entitled to 90% of the full rate, which is €12.15 per hour.

As we heard so clearly today, first year craft apprentices often fare worse, with rates of €7.67 per hour, which is just 30% of the adult minimum wage. This rises to €11.50 for second year apprentices before reaching the minimum wage rate in third year. All of us have many experiences and know fine well that people will not give up a minimum wage job to do an apprenticeship that will only pay half of that wage, and interns fare even worse. However, lot of work has been done in tightening up on the prevalence of unpaid internships over the last number of years. The law is clear. Anybody doing work of a similar level of responsibility as an employee is an employee and is entitled to the minimum wage. As a result of this, the number of unpaid internships on offer has plummeted, but the fact is that they are still out there and a small number of them are still being advertised openly.

I believe the Bill before us today embodies the core values of equality and fairness in the workplace. It was these values which brought me into trade union activism, into politics and into the Labour Party at the very start many years ago, when I became an active trade unionist. Equality and fairness demand that we extend the protections of the national minimum wage to these three groups of workers.

Of course some people do not agree with this logic or with the introduction of this Bill. I have heard arguments against this and no doubt we will hear some of these arguments tonight, from those opposed to the extension of the minimum wage. The first argument is that it will lead to a reduction in employment opportunities for young people but the same claims were made in the run-up to 2000. We heard widespread claims from some employers that a steep rise in unemployment would follow, especially among the lowest paid, less skilled workers. The same claims are being made by some employers today that the unintended consequences of this policy is that employers choose not to give an opportunity to those who need the experience. However, academic studies and our own experience since 2000 have shown that these claims were unfounded. The introduction of a minimum wage had, in fact, no significant impact upon employment rates among the public, and there is no reason to think it will have a negative impact upon young workers now.

The second argument often given is that young people do not need the money because they are supported by their parents. While this argument might ring true for some 17-year-olds or 18-year-olds, we all know 18-year-old students who are working hard, studying and trying to support themselves, whether living away from home or at home. Anyway, many parents cannot afford to keep supporting their young workers. Not only does the expense of supporting someone who should be able to support themselves put a strain upon finances of ordinary families, it also has a more insidious effect. It means that many opportunities, such as unpaid internships, are only available to those who have access to the bank of mum and dad. This leads to a continuation, even a magnification, of middle-class domination of certain sectors. It is bad for diversity and it is bad for the economy.

What about young parents for whom full-time work or part-time work is a necessity? In 2022, 857 babies were born to teenage parents. That is 1.5% of all births.

Do those 857 babies deserve to be born into systematically engineered childhood poverty? Childhood poverty has a lifelong and multigenerational impact, especially in communities already experiencing poverty. Why would we not challenge childhood poverty where we can?

Many young people do not have access to college, apprenticeships or parental funds. Many go into full-time work rather than going on to third level education. That is not because of a lack of ambition or ability but because this is what they want to do. Young adults generally want to be self-supporting. I know this from working as a youth worker for many years.

The third argument often given is that only a small number of apprentices and interns are affected by these low rates of pay and it will not impact most apprentices. The whole point of minimum wage legislation is that it sets a minimum. It is not intended to have an impact on those who are already in receipt of the minimum or who exceed it. This is legislation designed to raise the floor of wages and not the roof. If it is only going to help a small number then surely that is the point of any progressive legislation. It is designed to help those who need help the most.

Employers tell me that it is increasingly difficult to attract apprentices into the trades and approximately 20% of apprentices drop out of their apprenticeships. That is because of low pay. We were told today by Paddy Kavanagh of the Connect Trade Union that 47% of apprentices in the UK dropped out in the first year because of low pay. In the unlikely event that none of us have noticed, we have an acute shortage of housing. We have serious deficiencies in infrastructure and a chronic shortage of skilled craftsmen and craftswomen. We need to address these shortages and deficiencies in any way we can.

I know that the Oireachtas committee on higher education is busy preparing a report at the moment on the very issue of apprentice pay and I fully expect it to recommend that apprentices are paid at least the minium wage. The introduction of the national minimum wage had a positive impact in reducing the levels of poverty in the workplace. This Bill will complete the work that started in 2000. It extends the right to the national minimum wage to all of those people who are working in our economy. Increasing pay and adducing a benefit to the least well-off, while impacting them positively, does not negatively impact those who already receive more. Nobody loses with this Bill; everybody wins. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Seanad and the Dáil from all parties will agree that change is necessary and that the National Minimum Wage (Inclusion of Young Persons, Apprentices and Interns) Bill 2025 will become law in 2026.

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear. Well done.

I am proud to second this Bill for my colleague, Senator Cosgrove. I commend all of her work. She has been an advocate for workers' rights and young people throughout her whole career. This goes to the heart of what the Labour Party is about. I am proud to see that this Bill is supported by trade unions, student unions and youth organisations across the country. I note that our Cross-Party Group in the Seanad, comprising me and Senators Cosgrove, Noonan and Stephenson, have used every one of our Private Members' slots to bring forward sensible legislative proposals. I hope that everyone in the Chamber will support the Bill.

This Bill would remove the section of the National Minimum Wage Act which provides for settling lower rates of pay for workers under 20 years of age. I believe that the system currently in place amounts to age discrimination and must end. It puts a particular strain on young people as they try to cover living costs and the cost of education. This is a time when we have the highest levels of outward youth emigration from Ireland since 2015. We need to keep young people in the country and encourage them into sectors of the workforce where we need them. One quarter of employees aged 15 to 19 receive less than the current minimum wage, the majority because they are on subminima rates and some because they are apprentices. Subminima rate employment among young women is two percentage points higher than among young men. Last year, the Low Pay Commission, which was established by the Labour Party, recommended the abolition of these lower rates. The original purpose of these rates, back in the 1990s, was to discourage early school leaving. That should not be a primary concern now, with Ireland's secondary school completion rates among the highest in Europe.

Another argument in favour of keeping these subminima rates is that employers will stop hiring young workers. This is simply false, as research shows. However, it would seem inconsistent to argue both that fewer young people will get work if they are entitled to the minimum wage and also that this entitlement to a minimum wage would incentivise higher levels of early school leaving.

In terms of apprenticeships, we absolutely need to ensure that we are paying apprentices properly, as Senator Cosgrove mentioned. Low rates of pay contribute to drop-out rates for apprentices. As the Labour spokesperson on higher and further education, that is deeply concerning to me. We in Ireland have huge issues in our workforce and in terms of workforce planning across a number of different sectors. Paying apprentices properly must be key to solving that. We cannot just pay lip service and say we want to encourage more people into apprenticeships if we are not paying them properly. We absolutely need to ensure that this happens.

It is also worth noting that because of inflation in the period between 2022 and now, an apprentice's wage had greater spending power in 2022 than it does today. That is another argument for increasing the rates.

More than one in four apprentices responding to the Connect Trade Union survey in 2024 reported being paid less than the agreed rates and more than half said that completion of their apprenticeship had been delayed by over a year. As well as compromising workers' rights, it also frustrates our efforts to solve the housing crisis, to progress a just transition and to meet our climate targets, arguably two of the most urgent needs of today's society. Workforce planning is a huge issue, as I mentioned previously.

The National Minimum Wage Act also applies to internships, which are a form of employment and are not a recognised legal category. Despite this, unpaid internships remain common. This Bill would make it clear that interns, trainees and those undergoing work experience can nevertheless fall under the remit of the Act. It provides that any person who does more than 30 hours of work within any period of four weeks for another person is to be regarded as an employee for the purposes of the Acts, even where there is no contract of employment and instead he or she is described as a trainee or intern, or as a person on work experience. EU figures show that nearly half of internships are unpaid and over two thirds do not attract any social protections. For those reasons, I encourage colleagues from all parties and none to support this very sensible legislation from my colleague, Senator Cosgrove. I say that because it is the right thing to do and because of equality, age discrimination, the benefits to our economy and workforce planning.

Fianna Fáil welcomes this debate and, in line with the recommendation from Government, we will be opposing the Bill. As has been outlined, the Bill seeks to include young people, apprentices and interns within the full application of the National Minimum Wage Act 2015 and to extend entitlement to remuneration of the full national minimum wage to these groups. The National Minimum Wage Act allows for lower or subminimum rates of the minimum wage for employees aged 20 years and younger. Those aged less than 18 can be paid 70% of the full minimum wage rate, while those aged 18 or 19 years can be paid 80% and 90%, respectively, of the full rate.

As has been outlined, the Low Pay Commission recommended the abolition of subminimum rates in March 2024. The commission highlighted in its report that this is a very complex issue. It stated that the Government will need to give its findings and recommendations detailed consideration and deliberation, and highlighted the potential need for the Government to take its own legal advice on the matter. It is important to acknowledge the challenges that the enterprise sector has faced over the past number of years. We know that the use of subminimum youth rates is largely concentrated in the accommodation, food and retail sectors. These sectors have reported facing considerable cost pressures. As part of the measures designed to bolster businesses' resilience and to support competitiveness, earlier this year, the Government agreed to defer a decision on subminimum rates until 2029.

When talking about this issue, we must acknowledge the recent significant increases in the minimum wage, which show that the Government continues to commit to fair wages for the lower-paid workers in our economy, but also in the context of the Government's introduction of a range of measures to assist workers, including a statutory sick pay scheme, the right to request remote working and other supports.

Subminimum youth rates are based on a percentage of the national minimum wage. When the minimum wage rises, young people on these rates see an increase in their wages. It is also important to highlight the very real progress we have made in raising the national minimum wage in recent years. Since 2020, the national minimum wage has increased by 33.7%, from €10.10 to today's rate of €13.50. In January 2026, subminimum youth rates will increase by 4.8% in line with the planned increase in the national minimum wage.

In relation to apprentices, it is long-standing policy that they are not covered by the minimum wage so as to promote and encourage employers to focus on training apprentices. When the national minimum wage was introduced in 2000, it was determined that apprentices should be excluded from the Act to promote and encourage employers to focus on training apprentices, while at the same time recognising the cost to employers in terms of time invested and productivity foregone.

There are existing industrial relations structures for the negotiation of apprenticeship rates. A forthcoming consultation on apprenticeships is expected to yield evidence on wage levels, and on wage and training costs, and will inform the development of evidence-based policy on the remuneration of apprentices. The Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science plans to bring the next action plan for apprenticeships to Government for approval in 2026. This action plan will strive to further grow apprenticeship opportunities to meet the Government targets of 12,500 annual registrations by 2030.

For interns, arrangements that may be described as internships are not defined by Irish legislation and the use of the word "intern" has no bearing on the determination of the employment of the individual engaged.

Given all of the above, the Government has advised that it is not appropriate to make such fundamental changes to the remuneration of young persons, apprentices and interns as proposed in this Bill.

Before I call the next speaker, I welcome Con Quigley, Dr. Úna Ní Bhroiméil, Eanna Ó Coigligh and Oisín Mag Fhógartaigh to the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery. They are guests of Senator Dee Ryan and they are most welcome to Seanad Éireann. I hope they are enjoying their visit. I thank Senator Ryan for bringing them here. I believe that to describe Dr. Ní Bhroiméil as a big fan of history would be an understatement.

I congratulate Senator Cosgrove and her colleagues on bringing this Bill forward. They have put a lot into it and fair play to them. Unfortunately, I am opposing this Bill, but I think Senator Cosgrove is a great person. Well done to her.

In Ireland, the minimum wage framework reflects the realities of our labour market, particularly in sectors such as retail, hospitality, agriculture and leisure where young people often take their steps into employment. There are different rates of pay, as has been mentioned, from €9.45 for under-18s, up to €13.50 and then €14.15. For a 20-year-old working 40 hours a week, that equates to €28,000 at the moment and from January it will be €29,000. To put this wage in perspective, a nurse who graduates out of college will earn €30,000. Should a 16-, 17- or 18-year-old earn that? From 2020 to 2026, the minimum wage will have increased by 44%, which is a great thing. Over the same period, consumer prices increased by just 19.8%. Ireland has the second-highest minimum wage rate in Europe, after Luxembourg.

This debate is not about the worth of youth workers. As a business owner who has been hiring workers of all ages, it is an absolute privilege to hire young people. Why? It is because you see that nervous first-time worker blossom. The worker’s mam or dad generally hands in the CV. They are dropped in and picked up from work. They do a few hours on a Saturday and Sunday and, month-by-month, you see them thrive in their role and want to take on more responsibility. It is fantastic. However, that 16-year-old who has just started simply cannot do the work of the 19-year-old who has perhaps been with us or another business for over a year.

This debate is about recognising genuine differences in responsibilities, experience and contributions - differences that are especially clear in the agriculture, leisure, retail and hospitality sectors. For example, there are 326,000 people directly employed in retail. Employment in retail and wholesale declined by 17,200 in the year to quarter 4 of 2024. Employment in the retail sector specifically declined by 7,100. Retail businesses are under pressure. Each retail closure costs the State €6.2 million annually. A 20-year-old working in retail is far more likely to work full shifts, handle cash independently, manage stock, open and close stores and supervise younger staff during busy trading periods. While absolutely capable and willing, 16-year-olds are often legally restricted in the numbers of hours they can work and the types of duties they can carry out. They also require closer supervision. When my daughter reaches the age of 16 or 17, there is no way I will allow her to be left alone to open or close a shop. However, I would back her all the way to do it when she turns 19 or 20. In Ireland, under the Child Care Act 1991, the Children Act 2001 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18. What a child is allowed to do is restricted by their age. Workers aged 16 or 17 are classed as young persons.

This does not mean I do not think young people should work. In fact, it is quite the opposite. They should work and be rewarded for doing so. I started work at 13 and I have not stopped. It is important that young people go out to work and support themselves, learn the value of money and progress to earn more.

In the hospitality sector, the distinction is even clearer. Hotels, cafes and restaurants rely on staff who can work late nights, weekends and peak seasonal hours. A 20-year-old can legally serve alcohol, work unsocial hours and take on greater responsibility during high-pressure service periods; a 16- or 17-year-old cannot. Paying both the same ignores these operational realities.

In the agriculture sector, younger workers often engage in seasonal or part-time roles that are carefully structured around school communities. Older workers are more likely to operate machinery, work longer days and take responsibility for animal welfare, health and safety, compliance and independent decision-making - duties that rightly attract higher pay.

In the leisure and tourism sectors, 19- and 20-year-olds are more likely to be entrusted with customer safety, cash management, lone-working and emergency procedures in gyms, cinemas, amusement centres and visitor attractions. These are roles that require maturity, availability and accountability. In our business, someone who comes in at 16 will generally help with parties, become party hosts, supervise children playing and work on the floor. As they progress, they move to reception, help to prepare food, analyse figures, generate ideas for promotions, roster other staff and open and close the business.

Across all these sectors, employers invest significant time and resources in training young workers. Subminimum youth rates help offset those costs while keeping entry level jobs available. Without that flexibility, many businesses, particularly small local employers, would simply higher fewer younger people. Crucially, this system is about progression, not permanent inequality. Youth rates are designed to be temporary. In many cases, if you have a 16- or 17-year-old starting on the lower rate of 70% of the minimum wage, by the time they are 20, and if they are a really good worker, they will be on substantially more than the minimum wage because, as a sensible employer, you do not want to let that person go. Gone are the days when employers can take advantage of workers as we have implemented so many policies to protect them. In Ireland we have the second-highest minimum wage in Europe.

When it comes to apprentices, the Government's position is right. If we introduced higher minimum wages for apprentices, it would prevent many tradespeople from taking on apprentices. Apprentices come into a business to learn a life skill and become a specialist in their field, but only after they have completed their apprenticeship. You can become an apprentice through SOLAS at the age of 16, which is great, but you cannot become an apprentice in the Army or Air Corps until you are 18. You cannot join An Garda Síochána until 18. You cannot claim an employment benefit, such as jobsseekers' allowance, until you are 18. You cannot drive a car or drink, smoke, vape or gamble until you are 18. There is a reason for all of this.

As workers gain experience, complete training and reach adulthood, their pay increases accordingly and that is the right thing to do. Equality does not mean treating everyone identically; it means recognising difference fairly. Paying a 19-year-old more than a 16-year-old within the minimum wage framework reflects the realities of retail floors, hotel kitchens, farms and leisure facilities across the country. It supports employment, protects opportunity and recognises responsibility.

I stand here in admiration of my dear colleagues Senators Cosgrove and Harmon, the other Members in their group and the people who are here on the days before Christmas, at a time when lots of other people are amuigh ag cóisirí agus ag déanamh ceoil sna tithe tábhairne ar fud na cathrach anocht.

We are here to signal our stance, which is that we are with the Senators who have proposed this enlightening Bill. This time last year, I was given a book by a friend titled The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. Many people here will know it and will have read it. It was written by a chap called Robert Tressell, which was the pen name of a Dublin lad called Robert Noonan. He detailed the life of a painter in Edwardian England. Noonan died from tuberculosis. In his book, he outlined the grim struggles that people had in the trades then trying to make ends meet, and the absolute connivance and exploitation, as well the lack of fixity in the employment of his friends. It was an odious story, but an enlightening one that illustrated the human ability to exploit one another.

Many of us would know Ken Burns's excellent series on the civil war in America. That was only 50 years prior to Robert Tressell's book. That was on a fundamental basis of exploitation as well, in the guise of a thing called slavery, which of course we all abhor now at this remove. The common thread is that different work and different effort were treated differently for different people. If one believes in the essence of human dignity, one has to abhor that state. Every person has the right to sell their labour at the going rate. That inalienable right of every person is at the basis of the proposed legislation. It signals that if you are young or, in the case of some of the population, if you are old, you should not have the cost of your labour truncated or minimised because of the number of years you have spent on the earth. It is a fundamental good that you are selling, and you have the right to get fundamentally fair pay for it. That is what we are talking about here.

I am not going to take up much time because the points are very simple. I appeal to the Minister of State and Government Members. They can spend the night citing statistics on this question, but statistics will not alter the basic truth. The basic truth is that this is about fairness, equality and the inalienable right of people to put a price on their wage and not to have it minimised. When Abraham Lincoln was trying to bring the southern states around to his way of thinking on the slavery question, he said he was appealing to "the better angels of our nature". Senators on the Government side and the Minister and State should not give us the old claptrap about this. There was no problem getting €700 million for the hospitality industry. However, when youngsters are trying to get a fair deal in the wage market, there is no €700 million for them because they will be discriminated against and paid the lower wage. That is not sustainable.

In the spirit of righteousness and "the better angels" of their nature, Government Senators cannot oppose the logic, fairness and rightness of this Bill. All the figures and statistics that have will be thrown out in this debate do not mean anything because this is all about fairness and the right to equal pay for equal work. It is as fundamental as that.

Before I call on the next speaker, I welcome guests of Senator Brady. They are Councillor Anna Grainger, Séamus Kane from Longford and Tommy Conroy, who has come all the way from the United States. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann. Gabhaim buíochas leo for being here.

I commend Senator Cosgrove on introducing this Bill, and her colleagues. It is worthwhile. Sinn Féin supports the Bill because it does a basic thing, provides for equal pay for equal work. Anything other than that is discriminatory, exploitative and amounts to cheap labour. It is open to abuse by some employers.

Young people, whether they are 17 or 21 years old, pay the same rate of tax, PRSI and USC. They are entitled to be paid the same rate for the same work. The whole concept of a reduced rate minimum wage is outdated and old fashioned. It was introduced to encourage people to take up part-time work, but not to leave school. As Senator Harmon outlined, times have changed significantly. We have one of the highest rates of secondary school completion and one of the highest rates of uptake of higher education. Costs have changed as well. Young people have significant costs. We cannot expect parents to cover their phone bills, transport costs and accommodation costs, especially if they are in education and living away from home. The cost of living in general affects young people as much as it does any of the rest of us. It also affects families, all of whom are feeling the pinch.

My party colleague Paul Gavan introduced similar legislation when he was a Member of the Seanad. I have colleagues in the Dáil who are considering similar legislation for introduction there soon. These reduced rates have been abolished in Germany, Spain, Belgium, South Korea and Canada. We need to follow suit. My son was working recently in a hotel. When he started to work there, he was under 18 years and was paid €9.45 an hour. When he reached 18 years, his pay went up to €10.80. Other people in the hotel aged 19, 20 and over were doing exactly the same work. The work did not change when my son turned 18. He was able to carry out the same work as anybody else aged 17, 18, 19, etc. It is not fair that somebody is paid over €4 an hour extra just because they are a fewer years older when they are doing precisely the same work.

Often, the work young people do is very hard. They work unsociable hours, weekends and late nights in pubs and takeaways. They are often subjected to abuse from people coming into those establishments. They deserve to be paid properly. We do not have gender discrimination; we should not have age discrimination.

On internships, it is now the case that only the wealthy can take up internships. People cannot afford to live without being paid. They cannot afford to take up an internship where they are being paid little or nothing for the year because of the cost of living, the cost of accommodation, etc. It is only people from wealthy families whose parents can support them who can now take up an internship.

In relation to apprenticeships, we need to increase the number of people participating in apprenticeships, especially in the construction sector. We need houses. That is not happening, however. Poor pay, particularly in the first two years, is not enticing people to enter apprenticeships. One young man who lives near me left school at 17 or 18 years old, did something else for a few years and then decided to do an apprenticeship as an electrician. He was receiving just over €7 an hour in his first year. That went up to something over €8 an hour in his second year. That is not sustainable.

There are many older people who are considering taking up an apprenticeship, but they cannot afford to do so. They could be married with children and a mortgage and have additional costs. We need them to take up apprenticeships. The pay is a disincentive, however. There are other issues as well and we are addressing those in the committee on higher education. We need to incentivise people to take up apprenticeships and make it attractive to do so, especially as three out of five of our young people are considering leaving the country currently. We need them to stay here. We need to incentivise them to take up apprenticeships or work here. We were talking about a change of use for the National Training Fund. Maybe we should be looking at the fund as a source of funding to support our apprentices in getting better pay for the work they are doing.

Sinn Féin supports the Bill.

I am very happy to support the Bill introduced by Senators Cosgrove and Harmon and other Senators from the cross-party group. It is incredibly disappointing to see it is not being supported across the House. That sends a deeply disappointing message to young people and young workers in Ireland.

I am interested in higher education. When there is wage inequality and a systematic measure that allows for the cutting of costs, those measures are used and exploited. We hear a lot about business costs. To be clear, we are asking young workers, namely those aged between 17 and 19, to supplement the profits of a business by working at a lesser rate. The costs do not disappear. Rather, they are being put on to younger workers who are giving of their time, which is as precious as anybody else's time, and face the same costs. In many cases, they are paying for food and rent. They do not pay lower rent. Those who are paying towards family rent do not pay less because they are aged 18. In some cases, people under the age of 21 are managing a household on their own or have dependents.

The cost of living does not go down. By definition, we are discussing a minimum wage rather than a living wage. If the Bill goes to Committee Stage I might signal another issue on which I have tabled a Bill. We already have a problem with the minimum wage directive legislation in that it does not consider adequacy. The factors taken into account when considering and deciding on the minimum wage each year include the impact on the economy and businesses. A whole raft of factors go into determining that there is a wage that can be borne by business and the economy. Currently, those calculations do not include the extent to which that wage is an adequate wage that people can live on. The word "adequacy" is missing in the legislation. That is a separate day's discussion.

We have a process whereby we determine that there is a minimum wage and say that is what everybody can expect to earn. Business groups are represented at the Low Pay Commission where that is determined. They get to have a say in the discussion. In fact, the Low Pay Commission, which includes representatives from all sectors, including businesses, unions, academic experts and others, not just anecdotal stories from people in individual businesses, has twice recommended that subinimum rates be removed. It made that recommendation in 2024 and called for urgent action. It recommended it again in July 2025. The commission includes experts from across every sector. Not all come from a union perspective; far from it. I think unions are under-represented on the body. The commission, along with the ESRI which has also examined this, has said the evidence does not add up and there is no case for subminimum rates and, in fact, there is a case against that rate.

All of the experts, including the Government body, have set the minimum wage. However, let us be clear. There is an attitude that organisations feel they can get away with paying younger people less. If businesses can get away with paying younger workers less, the great thing is that they cut their costs a little bit and can perhaps keep hiring younger people. The idea that younger people are being paid low rates because they are being brought up to wonderful jobs is incorrect.

If businesses are letting the bottom line set policy – bad policy in this case – that bottom line will continue firing 21-year-olds and hiring another 19-year-old. That does not happen in every instance, but it happens in certain industries. Some of the industries we have heard about during this debate have poor practices in terms of retaining workers and giving them a proper period of time and ladders to build up experience. Businesses paying some workers a lower rate is bad for all workers. It undercuts all workers and damages entry level for everybody. It minimises the opportunities for a 24-year-old who wants to go into a new sector, compared with an 18-year-old. It puts them at a disadvantage in entering a new field.

It is an anomaly in the system and a problem that needs to be addressed. The Bill does that. This is a problem for society. There are clear exemptions. In the case of genuine training or educational programmes, the Bill allows for internships in those circumstances that may not be remunerated. If we are simply asking people to work for free or cheap in an industry without any education or training context, we are saying that only certain people will get onto that rung on the ladder, namely those who can afford to do it for little or nothing. It will be disadvantageous in terms of the variety and diversity we need in every sector if we make rungs of the ladder of progress unavailable to many in society. I support the Bill and recommend and commend it to the House.

I welcome my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, to the House. I recognise the great work he does in his Department and how proactive he is. I look forward to hearing his views on this matter. I congratulate Senator Cosgrove and her colleague on introducing the Bill. It is a great thing that they have initiated this debate.

I believe in principle and will commend to the Minister of State, and in other forums to my party, that we have to make this a position that we want to achieve. We have to implement a minimum wage for all workers, irrespective of age, status, etc. By and large, they do the same work. I will come back to all of that.

There are a few interesting things in the Bill. I attended the briefing today. There are some interesting statistics and I would like to hear the response of the Minister of State. Roughly five out of six employers already pay the minimum wage to all of their workers. A small section do not. That is a relevant statistic. Of course, a change in the rate could be challenging for some employers. We will have to find ways of supporting those employers. We went some way towards that with the VAT rates set down in the budget. There were initiatives in Covid around rates, etc. There will have to be ways to deal with this.

Nobody wants to put employers out of business. I live in the real world and meet a lot of people. I would be the first to recognise that this is challenging for particular employers. In those instances, strategies have to be devised as part of the solution. The solution for those employers is not to put them into a different category of wage rates from the general ones. They should instead be put in tandem with other employers who already paying particular rates. That is a very important point. The argument that we should recognise the small number of employers who will have difficulty and that we need to support them holds up very strongly.

The other side of the House has made the point that children and young people are no longer in a position whereby the lower rates are an important disincentive to leaving school. Cultural attitudes and values have changed fundamentally in society in this regard, and thank God they have changed.

We have to recognise that. That is an unnecessary canard at this stage.

The big issue that has jumped out at me, not just at the briefing I attended today, but on common sense and observation is the whole question around apprenticeship. This is a critical issue. The Minister of State would have much more knowledge in this sphere and he might comment on this. My understanding is that, by 2030, we will need 80,000 more craftworkers to achieve our infrastructural and housing ambitions. If that is to be the case, we have to encourage apprenticeship. There is no logic in saying to young people that they should become apprentices. There is nothing glamorous about getting up at 6 o'clock in the morning to go in a van to Dublin. Yet it is a wonderful thing to do an apprenticeship and achieve a trade, but you have to make it attractive for apprentices. There is no way out of paying them. Quite apart from a moral and ethical position on this that everyone is equal under the law, under God and in society, there is a more economic need to do this because we need to attract apprentices. We need to train up electricians and craftspeople across a whole range of people. Those are the arguments. I am interested in the Minister of State's response.

The last thing I will say on this is all work is equally valuable. My understanding is that it is the case, as Senator Tully said, that if somebody goes into catering or whatever work they go into, they fundamentally do the same work from day 1. There will be a short learning curve, but they are fundamentally doing the same work. My good colleague and friend, Senator Crowe, would have much more expertise in this area. It is my understanding that they basically do the same.

I look forward to the Minister of State's response. It is something that we should be committed to achieving and to put in the processes to get it done.

I said to my two colleagues, Senators Cosgrove and Harmon, that there was a time when I thought Labour had lost its soul. I am delighted to see that it has a soul and is prepared to nail its colours to the mast here. There are young people in the Public Gallery today. If ever they needed a reason to join a trade union, they are hearing it tonight. They are hearing it because the animal instincts of capitalism are alive and well. They have heard the nonsense statements that have been made. No worker should ever work the same hours or do the same amount of work for less money than their colleagues. I do not care whether they are working in a shop, a hotel or on a building site. My colleague, the last speaker, spoke about people getting up at 6 o'clock in the morning to get onto a dirty, cold building site for a few miserable euro per hour. Who is benefiting from it? The employer.

The bottom line on it is this is a wonderful Bill. It is a short Bill and there is not a whole lot to it, but it highlights the inequality that exists in our society.

By the way, apprentices and interns have been mentioned, but we are missing out on the professions like the legal profession and accounting profession, which exploit young people who go into work. The exploitation of young people has been the bane of this country. It is wrong in every way. I am aware of apprentices who had to buy cars in order to travel to the sites they were working on. They could not afford to have a car and a social life. It was one or the other in order to get themselves trained.

Apprenticeship is a bit like religion. If you believe in it, you will be rewarded in the next life. That was the way it was. I started my working life as an apprentice. I earned £1.50 a week. That was 59 years ago. I got a better job as a barman for £2.50 a week, so I packed it in. Why would I bother picking up a qualification, a skill that would have left me wealthy for all of my life? I packed it in because I could get more money as a barman, which led to 16 different changes of career throughout my life, the last one being in Seanad Éireann, thanks so much to Fine Gael for electing me on that day.

The truth of the matter is I know that somebody somewhere is pulling the string here. We are hearing all the things about legal advice and things happening time. My first colleague and good friend from Galway said that this would be looked at in 2026. Why reject and oppose the Bill? Why not just say that we will bring it back in 2026 with whatever amendments are needed? Why kill it tonight? It is being killed in front of trade unionists and young people - future voters. I would say to those voters that they see what the left thinks and what the capitalists think, and they should make up their own minds. I am an Independent. Always support good Independents. We are very good.

Some of those in this building will know that interns have worked for Members of this House and got nothing for it. That is wrong in every sense of the word. I had a student when I was teaching in Blackrock. I placed him in a company in Galway for his work experience. At the end of three weeks, the employer turned to him, thanked him and said he would send a nice report back to the college. The young fellow rang me and said he had been doing a lot of work for this guy and had seen the employer invoicing for the work the student had done. He asked what I thought. I asked what he thought. He said he thought he should be paid for it. I said to him to tell the employer that. The employer called and told me that the cheeky little so and so I had sent to him had asked to be paid. The employer said he was giving him work experience. It was computers he was working on. I asked whether he repaired the machines. The employer said he did. I asked whether the employer had invoiced people for the work the student had done. The employer said he had. I asked whether the employer thought the student's labour was worth money. He said I was right, and he paid him. Immediately after the course finished, he hired him. The guy and the employer got on very well together and had great work. That is respect for a worker.

I think Senator Cosgrove mentioned mum and dad funding people's apprenticeships. I am delighted to say I have two children and I never funded anything for them. Once they hit a certain age, they went out and worked their way through life and got their professions. They worked hard and I have no doubt that they were exploited at the early stage of their careers.

It is so wrong to reject this Bill. The Minister of State has the power to stand up in this House tonight, reject what the party and the Government are saying, take his courage in his hands and tell these two wonderful Senators that he will defer further discussion on this Bill until 2026, when we will all come back here, have a wonderful get-together and deliver for apprentices in this country. The Minister of State can go west this weekend as we head towards Christmas, meet apprentices in the Welcome Inn in Castlebar and say he stood with them. He can do that, or he can say two Labour Senators tried to run a Bill past me so that the apprentices could have Christmas. The bottom line is we need to wake up and deliver for young people. I beg the Minister of State to take his courage in his hands.

I echo the show of appreciation to my colleagues beside me for introducing this important Bill in the House.

I am going to focus on the apprenticeship side of this Bill. Apprentices are the backbone of our economy and, in many respects, the backbone of rural Ireland. They are the electricians, plumbers, carpenters and mechanics we depend on to build homes, maintain infrastructure and sustain local communities. Too often, though, they are expected to survive on wages that do not reflect either the value of their work or the cost-of-living crisis. This is felt most acutely in rural Ireland.

Apprentices frequently have no choice but to travel long distances for work and training. They are being hit at every corner by rising fuel costs, increased transport expenses and higher everyday living costs. For many, these pressures make apprenticeships financially unviable, forcing talented young people out of trades we desperately need or, even worse, to emigrate abroad. Sinn Féin has always been clear: we support measures that improve pay and conditions for workers. Paying apprentices fairly is not only a matter of equality and dignity. It is essential if we are serious about addressing skill shortages and delivering the housing and infrastructure the country desperately needs.

At the same time, we recognise that this must be done responsibly. Any changes must be accompanied by appropriate interventions to support the employers, particularly the small and medium enterprises, so that apprentices are not unfairly dismissed or passed over as a result of improved pay and protections. Fairness for workers must go hand in hand with sustainable employment.

Ultimately, this Bill moves us toward an Ireland that works for all. If we value apprentices as workers, invest in them properly and support employers through the transition, we can build a fairer economy and stronger rural communities. It is stark to hear that 20%, if not more, of our young apprentices leave their trade before they are fully qualified. I find it a bit depressing and hypocritical to hear Senators on the other side of the House say we do not need to pay them and then, on the other hand, they say they will do everything possible to get us out of the housing crisis. However, they are not going to pay the workers who will get us out of this housing crisis. That does not make any sense. Well done to my colleagues for bringing this forward. I hope the Senators opposite listen to my colleagues on this side and stand up for what they should be standing up for.

I welcome to the Gallery guests of Senators Paraic Brady and Dee Ryan and the Minister of State, Deputy Neale Richmond, especially the Quigleys from Limerick. They are guests of Senator Ryan. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.

Some weeks ago, I attended the Kilkenny and Carlow Education and Training Board apprenticeship awards ceremony in Kilkenny. It was a proud day for those young men and women and their families. The ceremony added greatly to the significance of their collective achievements. I do not need to tell the Minister of State how much we need these young apprentices in our economy right now, an economy that is running at full tilt. I saw in a previous role, particularly in the heritage sector, young apprentices in thatching, sign writing and stonemasonry working side by side with professional contractors. The contractors were paying them well because they knew they would stay, and they needed those young people.

This Bill is about creating parity and equality and ensuring they are valued as apprentices from day one and feel they are part of a team and a bigger picture. Other Members have spoken about the drop-out rates, which are significant and should be of concern to the Government, not just from the perspective of an economy going at full tilt but from the perspective of the well-being and self-esteem of those young people. This Bill will not bring those drop-out rates to zero, but it will ensure that young people - apprentices in precarious financial situations - will be able to make better and more informed decisions, not based simply on being able to afford to keep going. That could set young people back a great deal in life.

I thank Senator Cosgrove and my other two comrades in the Cross-Party Group. I thank the trade unions for supporting this legislation. I am disappointed that Government has chosen to oppose it, but I am proud to work with the Cross-Party Group to bring it forward.

I am proud to support Senator Cosgrove's Bill. Dignity and equity at work should not be something you age into. That young workers are paid less than their peers but expected to do the same work is simply labour exploitation. It is as simple as that. You can be working the same job with the same responsibility and effort but receive totally different pay because of your age. subminimum wages discriminate against young people. It really is that black and white.

Instead of looking at ways the Government can support employers through lower energy costs, lower insurance rates, affordable rents and targeted supports to SMEs so they can manage the increased salary impact it might have on their businesses, the Government still chooses to neglect workers, many of whom are working to support themselves through college or saving up for college. In fact, with the cost-of-living crisis we have in this country, there are unfortunately young people working to support their families to pay energy bills and put food on the table. That is the reality for people across this country. We might not like to face that reality that families are struggling so much that teenagers are having to go out and put money in their parents' bank accounts.

On the question of apprenticeships, the average starting age for an apprenticeship these days is between 23 and 30 years. These people have rents to pay. They might have children to support. The landlord does not give a discount based on subminimum wages. They do not get 30% off their grocery bills.

Bringing in a minimum wage for all employees in apprenticeships, regardless of age and occupation, is only the first step. I also remind Senators that the national minimum wage is significantly below the living wage. Highly profitable multinational fast-food operators will save millions, thanks to the newly reduced VAT rate gifted to them in the Government's budget. Will we see these extra profits funnelled towards the real value makers in our society, that is, the workers? Does the Government believe, in 2025, that working for subminimum wages somehow builds character? When meaningful, well-paid employment is hard to come for young people, who would not look for alternatives such as emigration and going overseas?

ICTU's 2024 survey of apprentice pay is shocking. The average hourly wage for first-year apprentices across construction workers, electricians and mechanics is €8.67. The drop-out rate is 20%. Almost all of those who drop out cite low pay as the reason. While most employers are good employers, the fact of the unregulated, wildly inconsistent apprenticeship scheme means some employers have complete freedom to exploit young workers should they wish to do so. Unfortunately, we have lots of horrifying examples of young people being exploited in the labour market.

The State is crying out for skilled construction workers. We are crying out for electricians, stonemasons, mechanics, bricklayers and carpenters. Although the number of apprentices has risen on previous years, we need that figure to increase by another 30%, or almost 3,000 apprentices per year. How are we encouraging people to do that? This is not simply a matter of fairness. This is about facilitating high-quality apprenticeships and jobs that encourage people into the construction workforce, which we so desperately need. This is why it is essential we pass this legislation to end the exploitation of young workers, interns and apprenticeships. It is worth pointing out that if we do not pass this Bill, we will not comply with the EU directive on the adequate minimum wage. If it is not passed today, the Government may well return to this issue if we are not in compliance with EU legislation.

I fully support Senator Cosgrove. She has been systematic in her support both for young people and on labour rights, especially since becoming a Senator. As Senator Harmon said, this is a sensible and logical Bill. If we do not do this, we will be returning to this issue again because there is no rationale for us not to do it. As we have heard tonight, the question of 16- and 17-year-olds having less pay was only introduced as a means of keeping people in the education sector in the first place. We have fantastic rates of education retention for people going through to college, so why would we not pay people who unfortunately are suffering by working to pay their family's bills? It is not simply summer jobs we see young people working in. That is the reality of the cost-of-living crisis affecting families across the country.

I thank Senators Cosgrove and Harmon for bringing this Bill forward. It is important legislation because I and other Senators come into the Chamber every week to talk about the cost of living. Everything has become so expensive. We have seen increases in the cost of energy, groceries, motor tax, tolls and fuel - you name it. People from Cavan are spending approximately €30 per day on return trips to Dublin for work. As Senator Pauline O'Reilly said, young apprentices in our town leave at approximately 5.30 a.m. They spend two and a half hours in traffic sitting on the M50 and then return. It is a huge cost to them.

I genuinely believe there is value in having to work your way towards a goal and in learning on the job, but the current rate of pay for young people and apprentices is degrading. A first-year apprentice is earning only €7.67 an hour. It is hardly surprising that there has been a 20% drop-out rate among apprentices over a three-year period. How can we tell people to go into the trades when four hours of work will just cover the cost of the fuel to get to work? There are people who want to change careers and are interested in potentially becoming an electrician or a carpenter, but they cannot do so because the financial blow would be too great to bear.

Internships are also a great opportunity for young people but, unfortunately, they can be exploited. We see young people working full-time hours and getting little to no reimbursement. That is totally wrong, and it excludes young people from brilliant opportunities if they cannot afford to go weeks or months unpaid. It is just nonsense that a 20-year-old and a 19-year-old could be doing the same job but only one of them gets the minimum wage. I encourage the Government to support this Bill and if they are hesitant to support it, they should please try to imagine what it is like to live on €8 per hour.

I thank all the Senators for their very insightful and important contributions to this debate. I congratulate Senator Cosgrove on the introduction of her first Bill to the Seanad, Senator Harmon on seconding it, all the Bill sponsors and those groupings who have supported this. I have no doubt significant effort, time and consideration went into the drafting of the Bill. We acknowledge that. This is an important issue. The subject of pay entitlements for young people, apprentices and those working as interns is really important. It is something that Government wants to continue to support.

When considering any changes to the national minimum wage regime, we have to make sure we strike the right balance between a fair and sustainable rate of pay for low-paid workers that does not have a significant impact, or negative consequences, for employers and competitiveness. In that regard, from the outset, it is important to note that the Government continues its commitment to fair wages, specifically for low-paid workers in our economy, and the very real progress it has made in raising the national minimum wage in recent years by way of substantial increases. I am astonished that no one has acknowledged the significance of the 33.7% increase since 2020 in the national minimum wage, from €10.10 to today's rate of €13.50. In 2024, we saw a significant uplift of 12%, or €1.40, in the minimum wage, while this year the minimum wage will increase by 80 cent, with an increase of over 6%. From 1 January next year, we will see the national minimum wage increase again by 65 cent, which represents a further 4.8% increase to €14.50. By any yardstick, that is significant and is recognition of our commitment to continue to support low-paid workers and ensure they get fair wages. These increases were and are ahead of inflation and projected wage growth and have brought about substantial real wage growth for low-paid workers in our economy. Our current rate of €13.50 an hour means that Ireland has the second highest minimum wage in the EU, second only to Luxembourg, and is among the highest in the world. That is recognition of where we have travelled since 2020. When we look at adjusted purchasing power standards, we have the fifth highest minimum wage in the EU.

The Bill proposes to make changes to the National Minimum Wage Act. The Government's view is that this a significant policy change in the operation of the Act as it is currently drafted and may be counterproductive to work under way at national and European level. On this basis, I propose that the House opposes the national minimum wage Bill 2025.

I will address the sections of the Bill separately to explain the rationale behind each of the recommendations provided. I will turn to the first group of workers that are the subject of this Bill, that is, young people. I acknowledge everyone who is in the Gallery tonight. Subminimum youth rates are the age-based regime of the national minimum wage, where those aged 19 and under can be paid a percentage of the national minimum wage. Employees aged 18 and 19 are entitled to a subminimum rate of 80% and 90%, respectively, of the overall national minimum wage. The subminimum rates for employees aged under 18 are set at 70% of the national minimum wage. The current regime of subminimum youth rates was introduced in recognition of the statutory restrictions on young workers' working hours and conditions, to protect youth employment and to avoid incentivising early school leaving.

We know that the majority of young people are not in receipt of these rates and are instead paid the full minimum wage. We also know that this is a very complex and nuanced issue. For example, the incidence of subminimum rates varies considerably among those of that age. Senator Joe O'Reilly referenced the statistic that five out of six employers do not pay the subminimum wage. If we look at those in receipt of those rates, we see that only 7% of those aged 19 receive the subminimum rate, but 46% of those aged 18 or under are paid that rate. There is a disproportionate concentration in different sectors and ceilings. We also know that subminimum youth rate employment is disproportionately concentrated in areas such as the accommodation, food and wholesale and retail sectors.

Earlier this year, as part of measures designed to support and build resilience in businesses and support competitiveness, the Government agreed to defer a decision on subminimum youth rates until 2029. This decision was considered in the context of the recent significant increases in the minimum wage. We should also remember that the current system of youth rates is based on a percentage of the full minimum wage. When the minimum wage increases, these subminimum rates also increase, with young people in receipt of those rates seeing a commensurate increase in their wages. My Department recently published an economic impact assessment of the Low Pay Commission's recommendations to abolish subminimum youth rates of the national minimum wage. That report echoes the Low Pay Commission's finding that this is a complex issue that will require the full deliberation and consideration of Government.

I will consider the treatment of apprenticeships under the National Minimum Wage Act. When the national minimum wage was introduced in 2000, it was determined that apprenticeships would be excluded from that Act. Apprenticeships were and continue to be excluded from the national minimum wage in recognition of the unique nature of apprenticeships and the fact that a long-established practice for determining rates, which adequately protects apprentices, exists. Apprenticeships offer a unique combination of education and work experience. When the national minimum wage was first introduced, it was recognised that providing an exemption for apprenticeships would promote and encourage employers to focus on training apprentices and offer opportunities for them while at the same time recognising the cost to employers in terms of time invested and productivity forgone.

Apprentices are employees and all of the 78 apprenticeship programmes are undertaken under a contract of employment. For the majority of apprenticeships, the rate of pay is agreed between the apprentice and the employer, with the employer paying the apprentice during both the on-the-job and off-the-job training elements. For the 25 craft apprenticeship programmes, the minimum rates of pay applying under the employment contract are either agreed within the relevant sector or are set out in legally binding sectoral employment orders recommended by the Labour Court.

I am fully aware of the importance of apprenticeships as an education and training route for our people, and of the importance of apprenticeships in our economy. Many have recognised that importance. The Government is strongly committed to continuing to grow and strengthen Ireland's apprenticeship system. We have demonstrated this with substantial investment in expanding apprenticeships in recent years, with investments of €67 million, €77 million and €79 million over consecutive budgets from 2024 to 2026. This amounts to a more than doubling of the annual allocation since 2020. This investment will deliver significant results. Annual apprenticeship registrations have increased from 5,326 in 2020 to 9,352 by the end of 2024. Furthermore, the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science is committed to developing a new action plan for apprenticeships to cover the period from 2026 to 2030. This new action plan, which is a programme for Government commitment, has a headline target of 12,500 annual apprenticeship registrations by 2030, with approximately two thirds concentrated in craft and construction-related disciplines.

A public consultation will seek the views of all stakeholders on how the system can be improved and then made more inclusive and better aligned to our national skills needs. That will commence shortly. We want to hear back from the sectors that desperately need these skilled apprenticeships and very much hope this will be an inclusive consultation process. Any evidence submitted as part of this consultation will inform the development of the action plan and the development of evidence-based policy on the exemption of apprentices from the national minimum wage.

The final category of workers covered by the Bill is interns. The Government believes all workers should be rewarded for the work they perform and that no individual should be exploited by performing work and not being rewarded fairly. The Government strongly believes genuine internships, based on a training opportunity, can be mutually beneficial for interns who gain first-hand real-world experience, and for employers who gain from having another individual to perform tasks, often with a fresh perspective in the case of current students and recent graduates. It is important to protect genuine internships and, in this regard, we have been careful with any legislative change we consider. I understand the Private Members Bill is particularly concerned with arrangements where a person is undertaking work of benefit to an enterprise or other host organisation with the danger that such internships could be exploitative. Arrangements which may be described as internships are not defined by Irish legislation. The designation "intern" by itself has no bearing on the determination of the employment status of an individual engaged. Under current employment law, a person is either a trainee, a volunteer or an employee, where employees are protected by the National Minimum Wage Act and are accordingly entitled to the protections of that Act. Therefore, while the Government acknowledges the intent of this Bill, it does not necessarily provide any additional and enforceable rights to interns not already available in the current legislation.

All individuals engaged under a contract of employment are covered under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and are thus entitled to the national minimum wage. An important point is that a contract of employment is defined as any contract, however it is described, whereby an individual agrees with another person to do or to perform personally any work or service for that person or a third person. There is no exemption in law from the obligation to pay the rates laid down in the National Minimum Wage Act when actual work is being performed. Therefore, national minimum wage rates apply to work experience placements, work trials, internships and any other employment practice, regardless of the duration of the engagement. The right to receive the minimum wage when work has been performed cannot be waived in a contract, and any provision in an agreement to do so is void as a matter of law.

It is also important I highlight the work being done at EU level on the EU traineeship directive. The Commission proposed the directive in March 2024 with two objectives: to improve and enforce the working conditions of trainees as workers and to combat regular employment relationships being disguised as traineeships. For Ireland, it is important the directive does not create a third category of worker. A trainee with an employment contract or employment relationship is entitled to the suite of employment protections, the same as any other employee. We want to ensure the directive does not create a third category of worker which could entitle trainees to fewer or greater employment protections when compared with others.

While the intent of this Bill is commendable and its subject matter deeply important, we must ensure the legislative response is robustly assessed, informed by evidence and provided for within an appropriate legislative framework. It is for these reasons I have recommended this Bill be opposed. Given the reasons I have outlined, particularly the recent Government decision on subminimum youth rates of the national minimum wage, the forthcoming public consultation on and development of the action plan for apprenticeships, the current protections of interns and the negotiation of the EU traineeship directive, I urge the House to reject the National Minimum Wage (Inclusion of Young Persons, Apprentices and Interns) Bill 2025.

To say I am disgusted is an understatement. Clearly, all of us are equal but some are more equal than others. I do not know how the Minister of State is able to stand up in front of all these young people and trade unionists who I invited to come. Fair play to Senator O'Reilly for showing up today. He came and listened to the voices of the people representing those working in trades. He listened to ICTU's arguments about pushing forward and supporting this Bill and he listened to representatives from the National Youth Council of Ireland. He was able to have the bravery to stand up and say they are right, this is exploitation of young workers and we are not treating people the way we should be. People are doing the same level of work and they should be treated fairly.

Since being elected to this House, I expected a timed amendment because, as the Minister of State said, it is so complicated. If it is that complicated, why did he not give us a timed amendment and 12 months to discuss it? Is that not what committees are supposed to be about, so we can discuss this? The Minister of State asked us to engage and I invited him to do so but he did not show up. All the Opposition showed up, and I thank the Members for doing that and showing up in masses to the briefing today. It was a really important briefing and was obviously able to change the mind of someone like Senator O'Reilly. Government talks about engagement but this is not engagement; this is becoming like a dictatorship. Everything we introduce into this House is rejected. This is our fourth Private Members' Bill we have introduced and I thought this one would, like the other three, go into the filing cabinet of timed amendments, but it has not. It has been totally dismissed and the Minister of State encouraged people here to reject it. I know people on all sides of the House want to vote with their conscience because they know this is the right thing to do. We can see from the low representation on the Government benches here today that people want to vote for this.

I agree with Senator Craughwell that this is within the Minister of State's gift. He could decide to push it out for a year. Surely, this is what timed amendments are about. On the argument of 16-year-olds or 17-years-olds, at 16 years of age, you can drive a motorbike and get a pilot's licence. You can drive a tractor at 16. At 18, you can get married and vote. This idea that, because of your age, you will be paid less for doing exactly the same job as someone older than you is outdated, unfair and discriminatory. We are in the middle of an absolute housing catastrophe and 20% of apprentices are dropping out in their first year. How is this solving the housing crisis and how is this engagement? If the Minister of State had come here today and listened to Connect Trade Union and its representative, Paddy Kavanagh, he would have seen that, with the neoliberal politics and this circle of privilege the Government is driving and continues to drive, 47% of apprentices dropping out in the UK in the first year. We are heading off a cliff. If we keep going this way, where we are bringing Bills from Opposition and Government is just rejecting them, we are heading off a cliff. We are all in this together. That is why I got elected, by saying we are all in this together and we are here to work together, but clearly we are not. Three out of five young people are thinking of leaving our country because of the housing crisis and cost-of-living crisis, and although we need apprenticeships more than ever, they are not taking up these jobs. I do not know how the Government cannot listen to this and reconsider pushing it out to 12 months, which I would accept.

The Minister of State talked about the apprenticeship action plan. Will this be the same action plan as the disaster that has been the housing action plan? Is the minimum wage going to be in that for apprenticeships, and even if it is and if we get the perfect action plan, what about young workers? Will they still be exploited? Even within young workers, it is exploitative of women workers. I heard in the briefing today that young hairdressers in apprenticeships are not even getting an incremental amount of pay, so they are being doubled down on with discrimination.

I am disgusted, to be honest. I commend Senator O'Reilly for listening and I encourage other people on the Government benches to do the same.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.