David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State said that employers should assess the risks but, as Teachta Adams said, he ignored the reality that Met Éireann assesses the risks and all the information it works with determines the weather event we are facing and the ability of emergency services to respond. Once staff analyse all the information they have, which is difficult work, they then adjudicate on the colour of the weather warning. When they say "red", they mean "red" and they give clear direction. The fundamental problem is the Government wants to outsource responsibility to some employers who might be unscrupulous but who are not the experts to assess the risks and to make the decision.

Teachtaí Adams and Munster referred to the key paragraph in his contribution in which the Minister of State gives the game away. It is about not upsetting businesses and competitiveness, which is a code for profit. That is paramount and workers' rights and the protection of workers is always secondary. The difficulty in that regard is the Bill seeks to put workers front and centre and protect their interests. In his closing remarks, the Minister of State mentioned IBEC and ISME. They are well able to represent themselves and they will articulate their concerns. It is not the job of Government to be lobbyists for those organisations or to put their rights above the rights of workers. It is the responsibility of the Minister of State to represent everybody. The problem is - and it is always the same when it comes to the party - Fine Gael represents the interests of business and they come first, above and beyond the interests of workers. IBEC and ISME are also opposed to the Government's Bill, as weak as it is, on if-and-when contracts. Should it not proceed with the Bill because they have concerns? That argument does not make sense.

It is farcical that the arguments for opposing the Bill are not fundamental to it. The Minister of State said the Bill is well-intentioned and he takes exception to some issues, the vast majority of which could be dealt with by amendment. For example, he referred to the lack of definitions of "essential work" and "work, that by its nature, requires continuity for it to be maintained". That could be addressed easily. The Minister of State could insert definitions through amendment. We would work with him, as we would on any Bill, to perfect the legislation if he has difficulties.

The Minister of State also said, "The proposed amendment is framed as an absolute obligation on an employer to close all places of work in the affected area". The legislation does not call for all places of work to close; it refers to non-essential services. He was disingenuous in how he presented his arguments. As Deputy Munster said, he scraped the bottom of the barrel. He came up with arguments that do not stack up. When we dealt with the criminal sanctions element of legislation for people who engage in reckless behaviour, the Government asked for submissions and we said we would work constructively to deal with the issue. Equally, we ask the Government to work with us.

Earlier, I pointed out that we brought forward a Bill having listened to people who have concerns as well as to IBEC, ISME and trades unions and family members of people who lost their lives in weather events. They asked us to do something about this and we brought forward this legislation. The Minister of State's response was poor. He did not listen to what we had to say and dismissed the legislation. He will not work with us when he could have taken the opportunity to not be patronising and tell us our Bill is well-intentioned and to work with us to improve the Bill, if that needed to be done. However, he did not do so because the crux is that when it comes to this Government the profits of businesses will always come first and the safety of workers will always come a poor second.

See this speech in context