Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I also thank everyone for their presentations. They were similar and there was a great deal of repetition, which is reflective of the nature of the businesses in which they are all engaged. I cannot help but note the irony that over the years, working lives have changed. Work practices have changed and there have always been objections from employers to benefits that might accrue to workers. When an attempt is made to introduce legislation that might improve the lot of workers, employers always throw their toys out of the pram.

I read the debate on the Factory Act 1833 in Britain recently. It was implemented to limit child labour. Similar arguments were made by employers then. They said the legislation would make life impossible, and it would ruin employment and competitiveness and decimate profits. I do not wish to compare any of the representatives with the terrible employers of the post-Industrial Revolution era who had children up chimneys and on factory floors but, nevertheless, the pattern is that when legislation that could benefit workers is brought forward, employers tend to complain bitterly. While I welcome it, it does not go far enough.

I would like to take some of the facts in the presentations to task. It is wrong to say there is no evidence that there is a connection between low pay and low hours; on the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence. The CSO has published studies, while TASC and Social Justice Ireland have published evidence that there is a direct link between low income and low hours. We attended a briefing last year when the Bill was brought before the House. A Dunnes Stores worker described her working life and that of her colleagues. She said:

Three quarters of the 10,000 Dunnes Stores workers are employed on what they call "flexi-hour contracts" with a minimum of 15 hours per week. Despite this, most of us work above that. Some of us work 25 or 35 hours, some work less but the average hours are between 25 and 30. All we want is a new contract that reflects the hours we actually work so that we can have an income we can depend on from week to week. Our income can fluctuate from €400 one week to €150 the next, entirely at the discretion of the local manager, and this makes it impossible for us and our families to plan our lives. Many of our colleagues have been denied loans with credit unions and mortgages because a bank looks at the amount of money we have, then looks at our contracts and sees how unreliable they are and how low the hours are.

That is one of many people who have given evidence in this regard. It is, therefore, ridiculous to say there is no relationship between low pay and low hours.

There is a worrying and shocking prevalence of low pay in the State. Approximately 24% of the entire workforce is officially deemed to be low paid and we are one of the highest low-paid economies in the OECD. Legislation such as this is necessary both to protect livelihood and lifestyle of workers and to protect the income they can earn. I ask the witnesses to consider the consequences of doing nothing. Reference was made to the need to think about this and one witness stated the way we are going about this business is flawed and leaves a lot to be desired. If the witnesses think that, then perhaps one or two of them should put themselves forward for election the next time on the basis that they could do this better. Our business is protect workers and to enhance their lives. Currently, the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers are being severely impacted because of anti-social and anti-family contracts and a lack of contracts in many cases. My worry is that the contracts in place are becoming increasingly precarious and difficult. For example, Deliveroo only takes on workers on the basis of work being available. Otherwise, they are considered to be self-employed and they do not even earn the minimum wage. They are subject to accepting work through an app and it is extremely competitive. There are many "maybes" for workers and families. This issue affects one quarter of the working population. This matters and data show there is a relationship between low hours and low pay.

If zero-hour contracts are not prevalent and if they are not such a big deal for their industries, why are the representatives so worried about the impact of legislation that will give workers limited access to a contract that will allow them to approach a credit union or a bank and to be able to depend on their income and their working life? If, on the one hand, people are saying there is no such thing as zero-hour contracts and the UL study is flawed, what is the panic?