Ms Maeve McElwee:

I wish to comment on the point made earlier by Senator Gavan regarding the changing world of work and how we have moved from much longer working hours over many generations to where we are today. It is also worth recognising that, over recent years, we have introduced very significant legislation to ensure people have a better work-life balance. There will be another directive from Europe on this but we have also seen significant improvements in all kinds of statutory and carer's leave to enable people to have a better work-life balance. This is something we should not forget in the wider conversation because these are very important flexibilities. They are also very important issues for employers in terms of managing and directing work on an ongoing basis.

When we look at some of the challenges, the issue raised by Deputy Bruton regarding a two-tier structure and polarisation within our workforce is something about which we are also concerned.

We can already see that there is remote working internationally in professional classes. Most often these people are in very well paid roles and they have a much greater opportunity to work remotely than many other people who need to turn up to their place of work to perform the duties that they perform on an ongoing basis. In terms of layering on a four-day work week, again what we will see, potentially, is further issues around polarisation because it will be that same cohort who are more likely to avail, and certainly in the medium-term, of reduced working hours over the longer term.

When we consider the long-term future there are issues that we must think about very carefully. One issue is the area of demographics and the current structure of society. It is quite right to say, in the comment that has already been made, that we will see shifts with advancing technology with more of our work being realigned into areas like the caring sector. A larger proportion of the population will also require care. Without a significant growth in the population we will have into the future, and we have it at the moment, significant labour and skills shortages. To be able to backfill and introduce those roles on a cost-effective basis, we have got a real challenge around the cost of implementing some of those. Private sector organisations and agencies that deliver social care, intellectual disability care, broader disability care, home care nursing and so on cannot be managed more efficiently on a reduced hours basis so will require really significant additional resources.

Let us consider the Icelandic trial. First, we probably need to adjust our discussion to whether this is a four-day working week or reduced hours. I say that because the Icelandic trial was about reduced hours and not necessarily a four-day working week overall. The people who conducted the trial acknowledged that there had been a significant increased cost of €24 million in the care sector. The trial only covered 1.3% of the Icelandic population so the findings mean that there would be a significant cost if one were to scale that up across a much greater percentage of the private sector that would operate within a larger ongoing four-day or reduced hours working week. We need to recognise that those costs exist. We need to think about the long-term realities of being able to attract and retain skills, and being able to produce those skills in a cost-effective manner. It would be the current workers who will have to pay for that on a long-term basis. That is a huge imposition of additional tax costs into the labour market. There are really significant questions about the affordability of that and the overall attractiveness of Ireland as a work location unless we see us moving in tandem with a global change. The really instructive piece is if we consider what has happened in France where a 35- or 36-hour work week has been implemented. We know that their professional cadre do not work those hours. On average, they work much more significant hours but that is a huge cost to employers where the state or the employer is having to pay overtime, and additional leave because it is time in lieu. The state pays really significant subsidies in order to advance that 35-hour work week and it presents challenges. The reality is that because the rest of international trade has not shifted, the French model is really making workarounds of that 35-hour work week in order to operate competitively at international level. When one moves outside of the framework of the individual firm and considers it as a much broader national issue, all of those things would come to the fore and must be very carefully considered.