Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to say a few words. Let us be honest: this debate would not have come about if Sinn Féin had not sought it. It is a pretty sad state of affairs that we had to request a debate on this matter, and on the broader issue of what is being done with this Bill. An amendment is being inserted into the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, which in effect inserts a whole new piece of legislation into this Bill on its final Stage. It inserts what should be a stand-alone piece of legislation on remote working. This decision means bypassing key legislative stages in the Oireachtas.

Legislating to deliver a legal basis for remote working has been a priority for workers and representatives for a long time. Despite having nearly two and a half years to deliver this important legislation through a stand-alone Bill, the Government and the Tánaiste have failed. As a result, we now have a situation where the Government is trying to circumvent its failure by allowing the Tánaiste to annex his remote working legislation onto the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth's Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. The result is that complex legislation, which should be delivered by way of a stand-alone Bill, is being introduced by way of amendment. By introducing the legislation as an amendment on the final Stage, the Government is bypassing three key stages that a stand-alone Bill would have gone through in the Dáil, namely, Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report Stage. The Government and the Tánaiste are pulling a fast one in relation to remote working and are denying us, as elected representatives, the opportunity to query or raise concerns regarding these complex legislative changes around remote working. This accusation will be reinforced later this evening when Report Stage of the work life balance Bill will be guillotined.

There are a number of questions regarding the recently published amendments that need to be answered. The new section 18(2) states that an "employee’s approved remote working arrangement shall not commence before a time when the employee concerned has completed 6 months continuous employment with the employer concerned." Why is the six months of continuous employment still being persisted with? Looking across the water, just this week the British minister with responsibility for small businesses has removed the clause requiring six months' continuous employment for workers requesting remote working. In announcing he was doing this, Kevin Hollinrake said it was a "no-brainer" to extend the existing right to request flexible working after 26 weeks with an employer to all employees from day one, as it would help to balance work life, help in terms of home life, help those with caring responsibilities and create a more diverse workforce. All we are asking is that the Government try hard to be as good on workers' rights as the Tories.

The proposed section 18(3)(c)(i) provides that a worker must state the reason they are seeking remote working arrangements. This is referred to as "the employee’s needs". Why should workers have to talk about their personal circumstances? Why should their personal circumstances form part of the consideration for a remote working request? In my mind there is a paternalistic aspect to this, which will mean requests for remote working will not be equally considered. Furthermore, section 18(3)(c)(ii) refers to the need for a worker to provide details of the proposed remote working location. So long as the worker is based in the State, what business is it of the employer where they will be located for the purposes of their work? The worker needs to be sure they can conduct their work and respect the confidentiality of the work. We are talking about adults here. They are not kids. They can come to that arrangement without people having to give that sort of information. If the work duties are being completed and if, on the days that the employee is requested to be on site, they are on site on time and are performing their duties, why is it any concern of the employer what their personal living arrangements are?

In the new section 23(2), what constitutes reasonable grounds for believing an employee is abusing remote working? How will this be proven? For instance, if Kevin is working remotely, and he is on top of all of his work, but he is seen in SuperValu at 3 o'clock in the afternoon buying milk, baby formula and a newspaper, can this be used as reasonable grounds to accuse him of abusing remote working? Kevin is working well, he is hitting all his key performance indicators and his work is fine, but he takes 20 minutes to get baby food and a newspaper. Could he be accused of abusing remote working? What are the checks and balances here? The Minister said that ramming all this legislation through together will simplify the process for employers and employees and reduce the administrative burden on businesses. It will not. There is absolutely no justification for that whatsoever. On and on the questions go, but we are denied a Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report Stage debate on this. The result is that democratic oversight is curtailed and the ability to amend and improve these aspects is interfered with.

My amendments to extend the paid leave for victims and survivors of domestic abuse were ruled out of order. As the Minister knows, we have a long-standing position in our party, similar to the position he used to have in his own, that ten days, which is the international norm, should be the benchmark. Ten days is what is available to people working in higher education institutions and in banks. For some reason, the Government saw fit to cut this in half. The Minister has not yet answered my questions as to how that is going to be dealt with within the Civil Service and public service, where there will effectively be two tiers. Some people will have ten days and some will have the statutory minimum of five.

See this speech in context