Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his questions. I will deal with the second issue, the 18-month period, first. The UL study suggested a six-month period. We have consulted significantly with IBEC and ICTU and 48 submissions were received regarding the study. Doing that was important. Most of those who made submissions were players in this field.

We decided on an 18-month period in the first instance because we needed to take account of seasonal fluctuations and normal ups and downs. Take, for example, Waterford, where the Chairman is from, and Tramore. If an employee works at a seaside resort, that may only be on a seasonal basis and he or she might not work in October, November and December. Therefore, using a six-month period would not give a true reflection of the hours that person worked. The same can be said of teachers or others in the education sector whose year is different. We picked 18 months because it takes into account the academic year as well as ups and downs.

We believe it gives a true reflection of the hours that person worked over that 18-month period. I think that was accepted by ICTU and IBEC as reflecting the reality of the time the person worked. That is why we stipulated that 18-month period.

The Deputy also asked about the Sinn Féin Bill. I can only state what the Bill provides regarding the six-month period. That person would get extra hours if they wanted to get into a band. It is open to that person to do that every six months. That would put considerable pressure on employers and could put them into severe financial circumstances. They would have to go to the WRC to prove they are not in a position to do so. That is what the Sinn Féin Bill provides for. We believe it is poorly drafted and not what was supposed to be set out. It was supposed to put people in banded hours that would reflect the hours that person worked over a prolonged period of time.