Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to clarify a couple of points. I accept, to a degree, the point on the coherence of the language. I still have concerns on it. I do not accept that my amendments would have in any way inadvertently disadvantaged employees because my amendments solely related to the definition of “needs” in respect of employers and that there be clarity.

On flexible working arrangements, the hope would be that the code of practice would then provide clarity on how the needs question gets interpreted in a meaningful way, for example, making it clear that it should be the needs in relation to the functioning of a business or the performance of a employee’s functions - the kinds of things that I have looked to put in the primary legislation. Am I to understand that the Minister believes that those kinds of concerns can be addressed through the statutory code of practice and the guidance it will provide on the decision-making process for the flexible working arrangement?

On the question of remote working, they are quite different. One is, as the Minister said, transposition and there is a need for it. There is a clear needs frame. I have not challenged the fact of a needs frame for the employee regarding the flexible working arrangement. However, remote working arrangements are very different. I would ask that the Minister consider whether the needs framing is the appropriate framing in remote working arrangements. That is not bound by the concerns of the EU directive. That is probably the one where I have the greatest concerns.

I have one amendment that I will press but I indicate now that I will bring further amendments on that section on Report Stage. Simply saying “coherence” and that we used it in one place is not a good enough argument for saying that the Government wants to use the same frame to deal with a completely different situation later on. The right tool for the right task is what is appropriate.

A better tool regarding the consideration of requests for remote working could be found. I would urge that rather than cut and paste across, we find something targeted and relevant to a positive approach to remote working. I would also check whether the statutory code of practice will be separate for each or if one code will cover both. Perhaps that could be clarified as well.