Paul Murphy Questions IBEC on High-Level Lobbying for Remote Work

Thanks a lot, Chair and thanks a lot for the presentations. Just firstly to ask Ms McElwee, Ms King on behalf of IC2 earlier on spoke about the very limited engagement that IC2 had with the government in terms of the issue of remote working. Could I ask what engagement IBEC has had with the government on that issue? Deputy Murphy, very largely the same engagement that Congress has had. We have had engagement through the Labour Employer Economic Forum. We have engaged through the various different public consultations and engaged through the committee here. So it is a matter that we have raised on a number of different platforms, but in terms of tripartite engagement, that's largely where it's been and that's formed the bulk of our engagement with the government on this particular bill. There are over a hundred lobbying returns from companies, including five from IBEC, multiple from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on the issue of remote working and remote working. Was that not engagement on what went on to become the heads of this bill? Ms McElwee, So as I say we have had engagement through the Labour Employer Economic Forum that would be seen in the lobbying returns. We have submitted our submissions. We would have addressed, I can check for you specifically which lobbying returns relate to each of the issues. So we will have addressed issues to the Data Protection Commissioner around remote working and so on, looking for that guidance that we've spoken about. Ms McElwee, So as I say, a lot of the main part of our engagement will have been through the Labour Employer Economic Forum. Thanks a lot. Let me just ask about one particular lobbying register item, which is down as a virtual meeting. The date isn't given. It's between the 1st of September 2021 and the 31st of December 2021. And it's, you're listed as the person primarily responsible for lobbying. And those people who appear to be at the meeting, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, include Minister Varadkar, Minister English, Minister Troy, and then Brian Murphy, Chief of Staff in the department, John Shaw, Assistant Secretary in the department, Claire Dunn, Assistant Secretary in the department, and Matthew Lynch, Special Advisor in the department. Was that a virtual meeting about the question of remote working? I would have to check the specific meeting itself. If it is registered in that way, it was certainly one of the issues that we would have raised. And I would expect that that was a meeting that came up through a subcommittee of the Labour Employer Economic Forum. But I can check the specific reference. I don't know off the top of my head. I don't have access to open it here. Sure. So I think what's listed on the lobbying return as intended results are ensure understanding of business position on proposed statutory sick pay and right to request remote working. But it seems that, I mean, you really met with the whole caboodle. It wasn't just some special advisor. It was the minister and the two ministers of state in the department. That's quite a high level meeting for IBEC to get its position across, is it not? Well, again, I can't comment specifically because I actually don't have the record. But those are typically Labour Employer Economic Forum. So they would be tripartite meetings that we would participate in where they would be shared. So as I say, Deputy, I'm very happy to go back and confirm for you which meeting exactly that was. But it wouldn't be unusual that we would meet through LEAF and talk about these issues that would be on the agenda of subcommittees. There is no mention of LEAF or of being tripartite on the lobbying register. Just quickly to ask Patricia King, did ICTU have such a meeting whereby you had the minister and the two ministers of state present to discuss remote working in advance of the heads of bill coming out? No, the only engagement we had was with the Labour Employer Economic Forum. And there is a subcommittee of that, which is chaired by the Tánaiste. And on one occasion that I can recall, those two ministers did attend a subcommittee. But I just want to make it clear at those meetings, the substance content or detail of a remote working bill was never discussed with us. The issue that they were bringing and preparing and working on producing heads of bill. But there was no discussion ever with us on the details of those heads. Just want to make that clear. Nothing of that nature. Thanks a lot. And can I go back to Ms McElwee and ask, is that the case for IBEC? That is the case in terms of any of those meetings that we were not given the detail of the heads of bill. We are afforded an opportunity to address the fact that the legislation was being brought forward and the impact that we feel it may have for the labour market as is appropriate to the remit of the Labour Employer Economic Forum. We did not discuss or negotiate in any way the heads of the bill, as Patricia has said. They were not made known to us. In that meeting, is it likely the case that you did ask for the grounds of refusal for employers to be very broad and general, asking probably for a general business ground for refusal? Did you ask for appeals to be only on procedural and not on substantive grounds? Well, Deputy, again, I will check back, but I can tell you from recall, because we did not have sight of the heads of bill. We would have been speaking in broad terms that would have, exactly as I'm saying to you this morning, it would be important that there would be balance and flexibility within the legislation. And certainly we would not have been discussing anything like the kind of detail around whether there was a substantive or just a procedural appeal. That never came up for discussion in any meeting that I can recall. Would you say it is fair to say that your position has very substantially shaped what is in the Government's proposal? That it is very close to what you were in favour of? I mean, you are clearly against any legislation at all, but if there is to be legislation, your position is that basically the employer has the absolute right to say no with no substantive appeal. I think what we would say in relation to this is the Government have recognised that there are real challenges for employers and that every situation is unique. And that the difference between an individual who would have an ambition to work remotely and the overall obligations of an employer from the background of all of the legislation we have to be governed by, but also the rights and obligations we have to every other employee within the business are very difficult to marry up under a single piece of legislation. And that is what we have been discussing and engaging with publicly around the issue. So it is trying to understand the fact that your right to request remote working impacts on your colleague who sits beside you. As an employer, we have responsibility for that. Thanks. Can you go back with a final question if I can? Very quickly. Mr. King. How much of ICTU's position do you think informed the drafting of the Government's bill? Very little, if any. In fact, I would probably struggle to find any one piece that took account. But the only time that we shared in detail was through our public campaign document and through the public consultation. I personally believe that they probably didn't even read our public consultation document or give it any great attention at all. Because if they did, it is not reflected in the heads. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Deputy. Thank you, Deputy. Thank you, Mr. King. Thank you very much. Thanks, boss. Now, we have some questions, to have you. Thank you. Mr. King.