What we have here is a philosophical difference between the Minister of State's Government and the Labour Party and others in Opposition on workers' rights. For a moment, let us set aside all the climate benefits, the work-life balance benefits, the benefits for commuter towns and economies and the anti-congestion advantages. We will set them aside because philosophically, that is something we on the left would say. Let us set aside all the really good, strong evidence that has been accumulated through multiple studies by the trade unions, including SIPTU, Fórsa, the Financial Services Union, FSU, and others. Of course trade unions would say that; they are, philosophically, on the left. Let us look instead at the evidence from agencies that would be philosophically more in line with the Government. Let us look at what IBEC is saying. Even IBEC recognises the benefits of flexible work. It says it wants anchor days in the office but it knows there are economic and productivity benefits to flexible work. Let us go even further by looking at the International Monetary Fund, IMF, and Harvard Business School. Neither of them are bastions of workers' rights, but both of them have produced reports stating that productivity increases and improves for companies when there are strong, flexible work rights. This is something the Government should be leading on, based on that alone, but it is not. Its failure to legislate is based on vibes and not on evidence. The evidence is on our side on all levels - productivity, work-life balance, anti-congestion, improved transport and improved climate benefits. The evidence is all on our side. Yes, Covid-19 turbo-charged this but I remember being in a working group with Deputy Nash when I was a councillor, along with then Councillor Mark Wall and others in the Labour Party. We came up with a commuter strategy in 2017 or 2018 that had working from home as a central plank. We have spent nearly a decade trying to make this into a real right. This Bill would also strengthen equality. Flexible work particularly benefits parents, carers and people with disabilities. Without legal protections, these workers often negotiate from a weaker position and sacrifice career progression but, again, in line with consistent policies from this Government, these groups are left behind. The only people who are disadvantaged by the right to work from home are the owners of office buildings in large cities and large towns. The Government is not looking at the bigger picture. It is not looking at protecting the workers - the people who keep this country going. A defined legal framework, such as that set out in this Bill, would limit disputes and create better workplaces for all. Rather than providing for the right to refuse work from home, as stipulated in the current legislation, we must ensure hybrid arrangements are set down in a proper law. If we look at the impact of flooding on our road networks in recent weeks - car parks in our major commuting towns and the arterial roads coming into our major cities have been affected - we will see that no number of extra lanes on our roads, which is what this Government wants, will work. We want to see a greater improvements in buses, high-frequency rail links and metro links. All of that needs to be done, but our right to flexible work - the right to work from home or from within one's community at community work hubs - can be strengthened almost immediately. That would have a real impact in terms of improving congestion. The Government is standing still. It is not legislating based on evidence; it is legislating based on vibes and it is letting workers down again.

Sentiment score: 0.23