David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I do not doubt that the Bill's authors are well intentioned and want to address a serious issue. I commend them on at least allowing us the opportunity to debate this matter. It is always helpful when people introduce Bills and solutions. If we believed that there was any chance that the Bill could be improved, we would have allowed it to move on to Committee Stage. Previously, we supported Opposition and Government Bills, including some moved by Fianna Fáil, when we believed them worthy of our support or capable of being improved. However, we must also be honest on this occasion. In this instance, the Bill is so fundamentally flawed and regressive that we are not in a position to support it.

Au pairs have fought a battle to be seen as workers. Recent WRC decisions have confirmed that they are workers and entitled to the full protection of the law. In introducing a Bill on if-and-when contracts last week, we showed that workers' rights needed to be improved. We must approach the question of au pairing not just from the point of view of children or those who employ au pairs, but of the au pairs themselves.

The attempt in the Bill to reframe au pairing as something other than work indicates that employment rights are not at its centre. Interestingly, it was a Fine Gael Minister of State who first mentioned employment rights in this debate, which shows that politics has well and truly been turned on its head. The Bill replaces the minimum wage, which is a statutory rate, with the phrase "pocket money", which is not given any legal definition in the Bill. Nor does one exist in any current legislation. What constitutes "pocket money"? Is it €10, €20, €50 or €100 per week?

The Bill would establish an independent public authority for accreditation of au pair agencies, but no details are given as to how that would work and no powers are transferred to the authority. All of this is to be worked out by the Minister in question, with the main sanction placed not on the family exploiting the au pair if such a case arises, but on the agency that allocated the au pair to the family in the first instance. This means that a family could break its contract with an au pair in terms of pocket money and not receive any sanction whatsoever. Currently, the family is at least responsible for payment of the minimum wage, whereas the Bill's legal come-back is on the agency, which may receive a written warning from a board that has yet to be established.

I wish to be constructive, but Deputy Troy stated that some people who were critical of the Bill had done nothing. Was he referring to the MRCI, which has rightly articulated its concerns, other organisations, the Government, the Opposition or the trade union movement, which has offered reasonable objections to a broad Bill? I want him to correct the record of the House. I hope that he is not referring to the MRCI, which has lobbied all of us and has strong views on this issue.

I am the Sinn Féin spokesperson on workers' rights and if I believed that the Bill could be improved on Committee Stage, I would support it. We gave this issue due consideration, but we are not in a position to support the Bill because it is flawed and regressive. That said, I acknowledge that its authors are well intentioned in wanting to address this issue. Perhaps the relevant committee can re-examine the matter, find different solutions and propose a Bill or other measure that receives the support of the House.

See this speech in context