Ms Edel McGinley:

I want to go back to a few things on research. We did research in 2015. I do not have it with me but I can forward it to the committee. There is very little research on exploitation and non-compliance in general. From our experience in urban versus rural situations, exploitation tends to be hidden anyway. Just because it is a rural situation does not mean that it is not also an urban situation. Exploitation is often hidden.

On flexibility, rostering and flexibility should not be confused with security. A roster is a roster that one is on for a certain amount of days. What we are talking about is creating security for people such that they have a guaranteed set of hours. If one's contract says ten hours but that person is actually working 20, it does not make sense if one is working 20 hours over an eight-month period that one is not then given the correct contract to reflect that. It is not about trying to be inflexible for both the employee and employer. Rostering is a challenge in itself because it is complex, as I am sure the committee would know. It is not about trying to curtail a rostering scenario, but it is trying to guarantee security to people and to reflect what is happening in the market. If the work is there and people are getting the hours, it seems nonsensical that they would not be put on proper terms and conditions of employment. We have good employment legislation in the country, and I agree that we have good employers. I am not painting every employer in a bad light, but we have non-compliance and that needs to be stated strongly because it needs to be tackled.

Cleaning is a huge area where one-hour contracts are seen. Cleaners go into people's homes. That often happens in both rural areas and in urban areas. That would be a key area where one-hour contracts are prevalent.