Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Bill has many positive elements and there are sections that I commend specifically. There may be opportunity on Committee Stage to go through some of those sections. I am happy to see the narrow bands in the banded contracts. There have been some good decisions on this and that should be retained.

I had the opportunity in April to launch the TASC report “Living with uncertainty” which examined the social implications of precarious work. It examined the context of pressure, abuse and exploitation, its very significant impact on health, family life and security, and on capacity to plan for the future, as others have outlined. There is also a knock on-effect on communities in their social fabric and cohesion, because it is not only people’s own family lives that are affected but also their capacity to engage with others, and build society. Recently, that report has been followed up with the report “Precarious Lives”. The impacts are very significant and are not only cause for serious concern among the individuals affected but all of us in society.

As I am trying to be brief, I will discuss only two or three of my concerns with this Bill, although I am extremely supportive of it, welcome it and wish to expedite its passage through the House. There may be areas in the Bill which, though not designed as such, might prove to be loopholes in future. The University of Limerick’s excellent research was mentioned. I learned something when I read this Bill. We have always been told that people got 15 hours but looking at the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 it can often be less than that. There had been a perception that that was the default form of contract when, in fact, if and when contracts prevailed. The University of Limerick report gave great insight into the ways in which loopholes were being used in a way that was not being monitored. I would be happy to work with the Minister on this, but I want us to build some form of review or capacity into this Bill so that we can examine some of the areas that may become loopholes in the future and ensure that we do not wait a decade for university research to identify them. The areas for concern that I have seen are if and when contracts, questions of how hours are determined, such as whether it is usually 15 hours, or if there a default. There is the matter of the caveat that allows an employer to secure an exemption if the employee is not available for any other reason. There is the question of casual work and protection against penalisation. I may come back to the Minster but there are a few areas where we could schedule a review to ensure that the Bill is functioning as planned.

Self-employment has been addressed. I would not like to see that delayed because of the committee but we will continue to press on it. There is also the matter of appeals on scope determination of self-employment which is something that we can progress without legislation. There is concern about the overturning of scope determinations of employee status.

Finally, I urge that the Minister would consider accepting amendments on the request for more hours which is a crucial issue. Employees should have the right to request extra hours. The committee has seen people having to access family income supplement or finding themselves one or two hours short of accessing family income supplement. This might be addressed on Committee Stage.