Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

This is typical of what we see in December and it is hugely disappointing. There are many issues to be had with the Government's Report Stage amendments to the Bill and to have the debate this evening guillotined to 60 minutes is a joke. We requested extra time for the debate at the Business Committee, as did other parties, and that was refused. A few of the amendments were completely outside the scope of the Bill and we are having a debate on that for an hour while the actual debate time largely remains the same. Clearly there was room for a longer debate on the Bill but the Government was not interested in allowing it. The Government was pushed into having a debate because there was not a consensus essentially allowing the motion to go ahead without debate. The Bill contains a variety of issues which deserve a lot more scrutiny than they are being given.

One of those issues is domestic violence leave, which the Government has capped at five days. It was made clear by witnesses and experts at the children's committee that five days is not sufficient and it must be ten days. My colleague, Deputy Cairns, tabled an amendment on this, which was ruled out of order. The West Cork Women Against Violence Project and Women's Aid outlined the importance of having ten days as a minimum, especially for women in rural settings who face additional barriers accessing services. The committee was told that a minimum of ten days was the international norm and that it was needed. Domestic and gender-based violence is endemic and the scale is terrifying. We could see that during Covid-19 particularly. We also know that the minimum leave possible should be ten days. It is inexcusable that the Government is suggesting five days. While rhetoric is strong in addressing issues around gender-based violence, actions are essential but this goes against international standards.

It is an absolute disgrace that the Government is attempting to slot the Tánaiste's Right to Request Remote Work Bill into Report Stage of this Bill. The Tánaiste's proposals on the right to request remote working are, to put it mildly, pretty useless. It is less a request for remote working and more a right to be told "No" in writing. No one was happy with the Bill. The unions and the Irish Business Employers Confederation, IBEC, did not support it and the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment flagged a long list of issues with it during pre-legislative scrutiny. Instead of listening to that, withdrawing the Bill and going back to the drawing board, the Government has decided to completely disregard the legislative process and progress the contents of Right to Request Remote Work Bill directly through this Bill on Report Stage. It is completely inappropriate and indicative of the Government's absolute disregard for the legislative process. Second and Committee Stages would have saved the Tánaiste's proposals on remote work. They need to be scrapped completely. A right to request working from home does not go far enough. The default position should be that flexible working is permissible. It should not be at the whim of employers to accept or reject it. A change like this could be truly transformative, particularly for women, disabled people and carers, many of whom have been forced to give up work or locked out of the jobs market because of the absence of a statutory right to work remotely. A legal right to work remotely would also have helped the Government meet its climate targets. I would have thought this would have been one of the central points the Minister would have made. The climate action plan envisages car travel being reduced by 500,000 journeys per day by 2030. A legal right to work from home would help meet these targets, reducing the need to commute by private car. The right to remote working is also of crucial importance to ease housing pressure in urban areas and facilitate urban regeneration. Instead, the height of the Tánaiste's ambition seems to be a version of the underwhelming legislation from the UK on the right to request working from home, which was widely acknowledged to be of very little use, particularly to workers.

We need a good deal more ambition than that. The pandemic already taught us that many jobs can be done remotely without the loss of productivity. The Government should not pretend otherwise. It needs to do more than make minor incremental changes in this area. There can be no going back to the old working practices. To ensure overdue and long-lasting reform, plans must include a legal right to work remotely.

In addition, last week it was announced that a limited trial for a four-day week was overwhelmingly successful for the 12 companies that took part. Of those companies, some plan to continue with that model into the future. The trial resulted in increased productivity for the companies and significantly improved benefits for staff, including reduced stress, improved family time and better sleep. If the Government wants to show any ambition in this area, now is the time to roll out a much broader pilot project to examine moving to a four-day week. It will not be possible for everyone but certainly a wider pilot is necessary. It is now nearly 100 years since we moved from a six-day working week. Technology and work practices have utterly changed in the intervening period, not least since Covid-19 sped up dramatically the roll-out of remote working. A four-day week is a win-win for workers and businesses. The Government should now build on the success of this initial trial and develop its own pilot of a four-day working week.

See this speech in context