Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Senators who have introduced the Bill. It is an excellent and really constructive proposal. I welcome the representatives of Mandate and acknowledge the strong and important work they have done, work that has very much been led by workers. I have had the opportunity to meet representatives of the National Women's Council and work with some of the strong women working in the unions and who are leading the charge. Sectors such as retail and hospitality have been particularly affected by the spread of the contract in question.

Senators have commended the report produced by the University of Limerick. The university's research was excellent. The authors consulted widely and went into the issues deeply. Some have stated the report does not make specific recommendations on if-and-when contracts. That is because the terms of the research were such that the focus was on zero-hour and low-hour contracts. As advocates, we were talking about the concerns we already had about zero-hour contracts, yet the research found even worse circumstances that were becoming even more prevalent. I refer not only to those left on standby waiting to know if, when and where they will be working but also to those entirely subject to if-and-when contracts and those who are not even afforded the basic and already inadequate protections for those on 15-hour minimum contracts. This is a very important issue.

When Senator Gerald Nash was in his ministerial role, he engaged in follow-up consultation, to which we were all very happy to contribute, on the recommendations made. Therefore, there has already been a strong process. Not only has the University of Limerick made strong recommendations but there has also been public consultation on them. I join those who are saying we have the ideas and proposals. A suite of measures have been put forward by Senators, including Sinn Féin Senators, on banded-hours contracts. There is a strong set of proposals which we should all try to expedite.

These contracts are an interesting study of how, while good practice can often move painfully slowly, bad practice can spread like wildfire. When we talk about these contracts, it is important to recognise that, as legislators, we are not talking about upsetting the rules and practices of ages but about a new and negative practice that moved very speedily across a number of sectors in the past five to ten years. It has moved with particular rapidity across sectors in which women tend to predominate. We have seen that a majority of those on low-hour, short-term precarious-hour contracts, particularly part-time precarious-hour contracts, are women. The Low Pay Commission has acknowledged this. The programme for Government contains a commitment to which I shall draw attention. It is important not only to address casualisation in this area but also the problem of in-work poverty. These contracts are a massive contributor to the reality of in-work poverty which has a strong gender component.

This legislation offers very important measures. First, it reflects the reality of the working environment. It allows for contracts that reflect the reality. It allows for transparency regarding the reality of how businesses are planning their work and demands transparency in that regard.It addresses the key issue of predictability. I agree with Senator Gavan on child care. People who do not know from one week to the next when or where they will be working are in a bind. Many women, with reduced-hour availability because of poor child care, find themselves having to pay in advance for numerous hours of child care without knowing if they will need them or use them. They have to plan predictable lives for their children without having a predictable or manageable working life. To get the balance right a priority must be to allow citizens working in Ireland to get the balance right in their lives. We need to give them the skills, the security and legislation they need to allow them to plan and build predictable lives for themselves and their families. There is a huge emotional, as well as financial, cost to this kind of contract and there is huge insecurity. It cuts people off from education or training because if they say "No" when they get the call they may not get the hours they need again. It hinders people from developing themselves and affects their access to credit and mortgages.

The hotel and catering industry was mentioned as a place where casual flexibility may be needed but Senator Nash was clear that where there are sectoral agreements in hospitality and health, which are essential, those agreements can be designed to facilitate appropriate and predictable seasonal work. I do not believe this legislation is contradictory to that in any way and the predictability needed by workers in that sector can be managed through the JLC process.

The Mandate trade union has carried out research which highlighted the concern that unpredictable hours can be used, and are so used by a majority of firms, as an instrument of power in contract negotiations. Some worrying power dynamics creep into many sectors when if-and-when contracts become the norm and there are questions to answer for companies, a majority of whose contracts are of the if-and-when variety. These contracts set up a competitive dynamic in which people have to seek the agreement of somebody who determines schedules and this is very unhealthy.

Three years ago the ESRI did some research on the quality of work in Ireland which highlighted a sense of control over people's working lives. That research may be useful as our debate progresses. There are also concerns on hostile scheduling, in which people are scheduled to work in ways that affect the predictability of their lives, something which particularly affects those who take a stance on certain issues. I may table an amendment on this issue and I look forward to the debate.