Katherine Zappone (Dublin South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This House has rejected exploitation time and again. It runs contrary to our beliefs to undercut wages, abuse labour laws and trample on the rights of others. Such behaviour runs contrary to the ideals and vision of the heroes of the 1916 Rising which has been commemorated and celebrated this year. I believe the Deputies opposite share these values. Next Friday which marks the 89th anniversary of the death of Countess Markievicz I will join others in marking the role of women in 1916. As feminists, we will celebrate equality. We have been on a long journey in the past 100 years. We have achieved the right to vote, the right of married women to work and the right to equal pay for equal work. With these thoughts in mind, I appeal to the Deputies across from me to look again at what is being proposed in the Bill.

I want to be clear about whose rights we are talking about. As others have suggested, we are not talking about young European women in a gap year or part of a cultural exchange. Generally, we are talking about women between the ages of 30 and 35 years, a significant number of whom are from Brazil. Other Deputies have mentioned that the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland, MRCI, the front-line organisation in this regard, has reported that as many as 98% of these women are in their 30s, with half of them coming from South America. The MRCI's research which is supported by Pobal, the Department of Justice and Equality and the European Commission has some other disturbing findings. Over two thirds of those surveyed received no contributions towards English classes. Approximately 80% of them either had no contract or merely a verbal contract. One third of them had been asked to work while sick. The MRCI concluded that the levels of exploitation were staggering. Similarities could easily be drawn with the exploitation of Irish women who were forced to leave their homeland in past decades. As a proud feminist, I cannot stand over the removal of their rights.

Six months ago the then Fianna Fáil spokesperson on children, Deputy Robert Troy, who spoke earlier in this debate shared the concerns I am outlining when he called for employment law to be extended to au pairs. The proposal before the House to exempt au pairs from employment law runs contrary to the ruling of the Workplace Relations Commission, as other speakers have identified. It also runs contrary to the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Bill seeks to distinguish Ireland as the only country in Europe which does not have a legal definition of "au pair", while ignoring the European Court's definition of "employment". The European Court is clear that "employment" is when "for a certain period of time one person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration". The International Labour Organization, ILO, defines "domestic work" as "work performed in or for a household or households". Surely the work of au pairs is covered by that definition. According to the ILO, such workers must enjoy fair terms of employment. As a Parliament, we must not water down these rights. There is no legal gap for the rights of au pairs.

While the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation holds the lead responsibility for employment rights, I would like to speak about the issue of affordable and high-quality child care in my capacity as the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Some Members referred to this issue. For three decades I have campaigned tirelessly for accessible child care. During this time I co-established An Cosán and the Fledglings child care centres which not only serve communities but also provide employment for over 100 people. In the light of this experience, I was very happy to see the vision of child care set out on Fianna Fáil's website. The Deputies opposite and I share many common goals and I look forward to working with them to achieve them. Fianna Fáil's pledge to ensure child care providers are paid a living wage is a worthy one and something we should set out to achieve. However, are au pairs to be excluded from such a laudable goal?

I agree with the Deputies opposite on the need for a second free preschool year and that is now happening. I was delighted to confirm last week that an extra €2.5 billion had been secured to bring the total allocation for capital grants to those providing free preschool hours to €6.5 billion. From September, up to 60,000 children and their families will benefit. On average, children and families will be entitled to an additional 23 free preschool weeks. This will increase the total average entitlement from 38 weeks to 61. This extended provision will reduce parents' child care costs by approximately €1,500, thereby bringing their average saving on child care costs to €4,000.

I think we are united on the need to ensure children with disabilities have access to preschools. Last month I launched the access and inclusion model, known as AIM. As Deputies will be aware, this model provides for services to be made available to children with additional needs without having to go through the process of seeking a diagnosis. The sector has warmly welcomed this initiative which will benefit up to 6,000 children. I hope all Members will help to raise awareness of this important scheme. The first enrolments will start in September.

Overall, we will provide €345 million for child care services this year, an increase of 30% on last year's figure. This is contributing to a public service and a public good. We are establishing quality accessible child care services. However, I do not see a role for this legislation. The issues that arise go beyond employment law. Issues such as the quality of care provided and the well-being of children arise in this context. It is worth noting that if the au pair agency envisaged in the Bill were to be established, it would cost an estimated €500,000 a year. I assure the Deputies opposite that we are on a lot of common ground. Our energies should be put into working together for the benefit of children, families and communities. I fully appreciate that families throughout the country have serious concerns about the high cost of child care.

It is a personal priority for me and my Government colleagues to make child care more affordable. We are moving in that direction while at the same time taking necessary steps to improve the quality of child care, so families can be assured that their children are being cared for and educated to the highest standards.

Data that has been made available to me from the Growing Up in Ireland study, which is sponsored by my Department, show that approximately 1% of families in Ireland rely on au pairs for at least part of their child care. I accept that many treat au pairs as part of the family, as Deputies have mentioned, affording them the dignity and respect they deserve. I also appreciate that many families have already honoured their au pair entitlements as employees and recognise the protection that is afforded to them under both Irish and European law. Nonetheless, abuses are taking place and it is wrong to ignore that. While the Bill seeks to protect au pairs from some abuses, it does nothing to protect their fundamental rights as employees which they already have.

I always appreciate the input of Members and have an open door to their suggestions, ideas and policies, but I ask the Deputy to look again at the Bill and to return to the position outlined last year by Deputy Robert Troy. In a statement on 22 December last, he said that au pairs are currently working in up to 20,000 Irish homes with many being subjected to exploitation and abuses of labour law. He called for au pairs to enjoy the protection of employment law. I share those grave concerns. As I said, this Bill is not consistent with the affordability or the quality child care agenda being pursued by the Government. I note the suggestion by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Breen, relating to a question to the Low Pay Commission with regard to the rates for board and lodging in terms of examining rates of pay, especially if that is included in the work of a worker. That might provide us with possibilities for a way of moving forward on this.

However, the Bill is not consistent with our movement towards a quality agenda for regulated child care. In light of the considerations I have outlined, the Government is opposing the Bill.

See this speech in context