Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to refer to the amendments put forward by an Teachta Doherty, specifically the one concerning home heating oil. It is not, as some might suggest, a rural-only issue and, in fact, it affects many people in my constituency. Many of them will be scratching their heads when they learn that the Government has accepted, the argument having been won by myself and others, that businesses that depend on kerosene should be assisted. I have welcomed that and the Minister was here earlier when I did so. However, they will be wondering why, if the argument can be won on behalf of business, it could not be won on behalf of people who heat their homes with kerosene. If the time allows, the Minister might advise us on his thinking in that regard. I fail to understand why the Minister left them out of TBESS in the first place. Notwithstanding that, although it took a while, eventually the Minister listened and that mistake has been rectified, and we await the details of that. What I cannot understand is why those who heat their homes rather than power their business with kerosene and home heating oil are going to be penalised.

For many people, it is the only way they can heat their house. It is not an optional extra; it is how they keep their home warm. When the cost goes up in the way it has, and then up again and again, while they might normally put in a full fill of oil, they might now put in half a tank because that is all they can afford, but then they realise that half a tank is actually the price a full tank was last year. If the time allows, the Minister might explain to those people what they have to do to win that argument with the Government. They do not have a choice. Not everybody in Dublin has access to gas and many people, particularly in my constituency, heat their homes with home heating oil.

I want to refer to amendment No. 1 to resolution No. 3 in regard to linking the extension of the VAT reduction to the establishment of a joint labour committee. There is no disputing that hospitality and tourism is a sector where low pay and poor terms and conditions are rife. We hear all of the arguments coming from employers, for example, that it is students or people doing it for a bit of pin money, and it is not a real job. It is a real job. If anyone has ever worked in catering or hospitality, as I have, they will know it is very much a real job. Certainly when I did it, I spent my money on what my family needed at home. It was not pin money for me. It was money that I needed to heat my house, pay my rent and pay crèche fees and all of those other things.

Just so the Minister is aware of the terms and conditions within that industry, the survey carried out by Unite found that 55.6% were paid less than living wage. Over 70% of workers cited low pay as being very much a defining feature of their employment. Some 75% do not receive premium pay for a Sunday and, very often, for those working in hospitality, Sunday can be the busiest day. Some 70% cited a lack of breaks during their working day; 72% said their workplace is deliberately understaffed, leading to an overload of tasks and demands on workers; and 70% experienced bullying, with up to 55% not reporting the incidents due to a fear of repercussions or lack of trust that anything will change.

Some 80% of workers declared working in the industry had a negative impact on their mental health and well-being and 52% of workers believed migrant workers were treated worse than non-migrant workers in their workplaces. This is further underlined by research conducted by Dr. Deirdre Curran. I again encourage the Government to engage with Dr. Curran's research because it is very instructive for us in here. She talks about how we address, and how workers can address, the issue of low pay and poor conditions. She says a way to address the issue of low pay and poor conditions is collectivisation within a trade union. This was indeed recommended by the tourism committee in its report.

Everybody acknowledges the tourism and hospitality sector has come through quite a challenging time over the last number of years. Nobody disputes it has been tough for many employers. The sector is not without its decent employers. I worked for some of them many years ago. However, there is absolutely no disputing the assertion the sector has an issue with low pay. I am not at all opposing what the intention of the amendment is but I caution against linking workers' rights to benefits for business. I have said before that if the Government or anyone tries to buy workers' rights, the price will eventually become too high and the workers will be the ones who lose out. Therefore, the only way workers can ensure they secure their rights at work and that they secure themselves a loud and effective voice at the level of their own workplace is to join their trade union and be active in it.

I appreciate the Minister is not accepting the amendment but I ask that he engage with his colleagues at Cabinet and urge them to progress the legislation on collective bargaining. It is something workers in the hospitality sector would very much benefit from. The collectivisation brought about by trade union membership is very low in the tourism and hospitality sector and that is something that needs to be addressed. I think we are all agreed there is an epidemic of low pay within certain sectors in this State that must be addressed and cannot go unchecked. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment - which as I have said I have my own difficulties with, though I support the intention of it - I urge him to engage with this colleagues and encourage them to bring forward legislation on collective bargaining to ensure workers' rights can be protected at their workplace.

See this speech in context