Ms Maeve McElwee:

In response to what has been said, it is important to highlight that the 2.6% on variable, part-time hours does not quantify who is on that 2.6%. The UL report conflated every type of part-time and variable hours working. It made no distinction between those who chose to be on variable hours and were satisfied with them - who would refuse additional hours were they to be offered - or whether they were low-paid or precarious. They will have captured people on very high rates of pay who may be working very small numbers of variable hours, perhaps lecturing or taking up very short periods of specialised nursing care on an ad hocbasis. We have not considered who is actually being affected in a detrimental way by the issue. Before we proceed with any legislation, it is important we quantify it. The UL report is very light on detail. It was more of a collation of observations than any significant hard evidence. We have very significant concerns about how it came together.

As has already been outlined, we have a very strong workplace relations system, a very effective and well-functioning dispute resolution process and a very well resourced inspectorate in terms of NERA. Given the scale of the issue - by virtue of the UL report we know we have no zero-hour problem but we potentially have some issues around variable hours - NERA is the most appropriate way to deal with it in the workplace and in the context of the issues that face the workplace. We have not spoken or engaged directly with Deputy David Cullinane. At the request of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, we have been working with the Department in the development of the Government Bill.