Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If any members or witnesses participating remotely experience sound or technical issues, will they let us know through the chat function? Otherwise we will proceed. As this is a public meeting, the chat function on MS Teams should only be used to advise participants of any technical issues or urgent matters and not for general comments or statements. I remind members who are participating remotely to keep their devices on mute until they are invited to speak. When they are speaking, I ask that where possible, they have their camera switched on and be mindful that we are in public session.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. We ask everyone participating in the committee room to exercise personal responsibility in protecting themselves against Covid-19 and I ask them to keep their masks on unless they are speaking.

This meeting is to carry out detailed scrutiny of the Organisation of Working Time (Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2020, which is a Private Members' Bill sponsored by Deputies McDonald and O'Reilly. I welcome Deputy O'Reilly, who will brief members. This will be followed by questions and answers from members, which must conclude no later than 4 p.m. Before I invite the Deputy to speak, I want to inform her that the committee is finalising the list of stakeholders it will engage with on the Bill and the Deputy will be advised of the final list. In accordance with the suggestion of the Business Committee, the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment has been consulted with regarding the detailed scrutiny of the Bill and a link to today’s meeting was also issued to its members.

I advise the Deputy of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. The Deputy is protected by absolute privilege in respect of her presentation to the committee. This means she has an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything she says at the meeting. However, she is expected not to abuse the privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if the Deputy’s statements are potentially defamatory towards any identifiable person or entity she will be directed to discontinue her remarks and it is imperative that she complies with any such direction.

We have allocated five minutes of speaking time. I wish to remind members that their five minutes includes the response to their questions. I will pass over now to Deputy O’Reilly.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the members of the committee for facilitating this hearing. I also want to say a special word of thanks to Sinéad Ní Bhroin for all the work she has put into this legislation. Gender-based abuse and violence is not just a justice issue or a health issue; it is a housing issue, a children’s issue, a worker’s issue and a worker’s rights issue. When a person is subjected to domestic violence, abuse or coercive control he or she is robbed of his or her dignity, confidence and sense of safety. This trauma seeps into every aspect of their lives, and that includes the victims’ working lives. Those who suffer domestic abuse are our colleagues and often our friends. Some carry the physical and emotional impact of the violence with them into the workplace. They do so because they fear losing out on badly needed pay or do not want to run the risk of disruption to their careers. Many cannot face going to work, some because of physical injuries - the all-too-visible bruises, black eyes and cuts - and others because of the deep mental scarring. As a result, they lose income and fear that questions will be raised about their reliability. Others are painfully aware of and understandably sensitive to the stigma that comes with being abused and victimised, especially when it happens at home, in the place they should feel the safest. The importance of this legislation was summed up for me in a comment a woman made to me in a social media message. I will not give her name but she told me:

I hope this gets done. When I went to the refuge I used holidays and tried to make up the time but I could not make up all the time. It was so much pressure.

Employers also lose out from the absence of employment protections for victims of domestic abuse. Absenteeism, lost productivity, administrative costs, and job churn have a real impact on organisations. There is an accepted lack of workplace awareness of domestic violence. Marrying enactment of this legislation with a national workplace awareness of a domestic violence campaign can and will make a tangible difference for victims and their employers. The perpetrator of the violence should not be allowed to take any more from the victim, nor should it be that a victim’s only option is to take annual or unpaid leave. The last thing a victim of domestic violence needs is the stress of a phone call from his or her boss, a light pay cheque or even the prospect of losing his or her job. They also need privacy and confidentiality. Being pressured or coerced back into the workplace before they are ready only adds to the distress.

The Organisation of Working Time (Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2020 seeks to offer victims of domestic violence up to ten days' paid leave annually. It is a comprehensive and thorough Bill, prepared in consultation with the domestic violence sector and providing protections for employers in line with those contained in the paternity leave legislation and it was drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Legal Affairs. If we are to end the epidemic of domestic abuse in this State, we need a whole-of-society response that both supports and protects victims. This legislation is an important strand of this. The legislation provides that workers do not have to prove their abuse or give an employer documentary evidence for the leave needed as to do so will act as a barrier to victims seeking the support they need. This is an important provision.

There is also an economic cost to domestic violence and the sums involved are eye-watering. Research published by Safe Ireland and National University of Ireland, Galway, NUIG, last year estimated that the national cost is €56 billion over a 20-year period. That is close to the entire tax take of the State in 2018. The research also highlights the complex relationship between poverty, social exclusion and domestic violence. Employment should be an avenue out of abuse. New Zealand, Australia and provinces in Canada have already introduced forms of paid leave. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and others have called on the Government to ratify the International Labour Organization, ILO, Convention No. 190 on violence and harassment in the world of work. Article 18 of the accompanying recommendation identifies the provision of paid leave for the victims of domestic violence, flexible work arrangements and awareness-raising about the effects of domestic violence as appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts of it in the workplace. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment confirmed last month that the Government is committed to working towards being among the first ILO member states to ratify Convention No. 190. This will require employment protections as set out in this Bill.

I wish to acknowledge the existing cross-party support for the provision of a statutory entitlement to domestic violence paid leave. The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth stated last month that the introduction of this leave is a personal priority for him. In 2018 Fianna Fáil committed to introduce a statutory entitlement to ten days' domestic violence paid leave. The Labour party, the Social Democrats, Solidarity - People Before Profit and Independents all expressed their support for the legislation during the Second Stage debate, which was a positive example of the Dáil working together in common cause.

It is important for the committee to note that in both the public and private sector, some organisations and companies have already introduced this leave or are considering the introduction of this leave. Last year NUIG launched its policy and this has also been in place in Vodafone and Danske Bank. The need for paid leave from work for a range of reasons, including caring and parenting, is well established, and this piece of leave needs to be added to that. This legislation is an important addition to existing workplace rights. It is a workers' rights issue. It is an issue that affects people at work and it is almost impossible to deal with this issue in the absence of this legislation.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Reilly for coming before the committee this afternoon to discuss her work on this really important topic. I want to acknowledge the merits of the Bill as a response to victims and survivors who need to take time off work. I have two questions for the Deputy on her consultation and engagement with stakeholders and support groups. I ask her to take us through what was involved in that process. Who did the Deputy meet and who did she engage with? Did she engage with any employer representative groups? If so, what was their feedback? What is the provision of up to ten days paid leave based on? Is it international best practice or is it based on other jurisdictions that have introduced similar legislation?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Dillon for his questions. We had a series of round table engagements. I will briefly outline the history of this legislation. It was introduced in the previous Dáil but it fell when that Dáil was wound up. Up to that point, we had engaged with people who were providing services within the community. I refer here to people running the refuges as well as representatives of Women's Aid, Safe Ireland and other organisations. We also engaged with victims and survivors. Some of that happened organically because once we started talking about this issue, people came to us and that gave us a very real perspective on the issue. That work was done.

Feedback from employers and through employer forums has been very positive. Vodafone and Danske Bank are leading the way on this. They have already done it because they recognise a number of important points. First, in an ideal world, nobody would need this legislation but they have found that in terms of attracting employees, having this leave as part of a suite of measures that make people feel safe at work is very positive. We also know that Safe Ireland and the National University of Ireland in Galway, NUIG, have conducted research into the cost and there is a cost to employers in not providing this leave.

The reason for the ten days is very simple. That is what has been done in other jurisdictions. If one looks at NUIG, it chose ten days which it judged to be both proportionate and fair. It considered it fair to victims and survivors and proportionate in the context of employers.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Deputy O' Reilly to this meeting to discuss this important Bill. I very much welcome this legislation and do not have any questions on it. I support the Bill and would urge others to do likewise. I have been working with local organisations and Safe Ireland in support of this type of legislation. It is not a question of whether or if but rather when and how fast we will implement it. I congratulate the Deputy on her work and will give way to my colleagues now. My support for this legislation is 100% because it will help women and men who are suffering domestic violence and who are unsafe in their own homes. We must take every available opportunity to make their world safer and better for their families and themselves.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I commend Deputy O'Reilly and her colleagues on bringing forward this important Bill. I am delighted to express the support of the Labour Party for it. We are delighted to support this Bill which is a very important measure in the context of worker's rights and women's rights. We all know just how gendered the issue of violence in the home and in domestic settings is and indeed, we have been reminded, all too painfully, of that recently with the focus on violence against women in the context of the horrific killing of Ashling Murphy. We are delighted to support this legislation.

I have taken on the role of chairing the Oireachtas Special Committee on Gender Equality which will be looking at other measures to support women in the workplace. The Labour Party has brought forward a reproductive health-related leave Bill which also builds on the Organisation of Working Time Act structures, as does this Bill. I appreciate that is why Deputy O'Reilly has used that structure and I take her point about the ten days leave.

I have two questions for Deputy O'Reilly. She referred to similar leave provisions having been introduced in New Zealand, in some Canadian provinces and in Australia. Which is the best model? Has she looked at which is the best of the jurisdictions? New Zealand is the one we have tended to focus on but is it ten days in all of those other jurisdictions? Second, given that this committee is currently considering which stakeholders to engage with on this and that Deputy O'Reilly has already done consultation herself, who would be most useful for us to engage directly with in the context of pre-legislative scrutiny?

Again, I wish to express my strong support for this really important women's rights and worker's rights measure.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Bacik for her support. My understanding is that the model in New Zealand is ten days and that is seen as the optimum because it gives enough time for victims and survivors, should they need it, and enough comfort to employers that it will not be excessive. It also means that it is possible to do a certain amount of planning.

On the question of stakeholders, I would see this as being very clearly a worker's rights issue and an employment related issue. The Chairman of this committee has some experience in this area and she knows from representing workers that abuse can follow them into the workplace. Very often, people are left without any skills to cope with that. They do not have the language and do not know what they can offer a person who is a victim. There may be someone working in an organisation and the shop steward knows or can sense that there is an issue. However, the shop steward does not know what it is that he or she can practically offer to that person. In that context, I would encourage this committee to hear from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and specifically its women's committee. That is not to say that this is only a women's issue but it is an issue that predominantly impacts women. It would be remiss of me to give the impression that this legislation is only for women because it is not. It is for all victims and survivors but the sad and awful fact, as we all know because we live in the real world, is that women will be the majority beneficiaries. I would definitely encourage the committee to talk to ICTU. I would also encourage the committee to talk to NUIG and Vodafone, which have done this already. They have stepped ahead and as has been said previously, sometimes politicians are only running along behind the people. Often the people are ahead of us and we must make that effort to catch up. People have already arrived at a position where they are asking, "When?". They have established that it is necessary, they understand that it needs to happen and they want to know when it will be done.

I specifically put the provision into the Organisation of Working Time Act because I want domestic violence leave to go in the leave folder. Anyone who is familiar with human resources offices will know that there is a leave folder in the HR cabinet where organisations keep leave forms and information about the various forms of leave. I would like this leave to be there, to be mainstreamed. Perhaps mainstreamed is the wrong word but I am sure Deputy Bacik knows what I mean. I would like it to be another form of leave, rather than separate or special or one that requires going to a different room to apply. I want it to be part of the normal leave structure which is why I tried to house it in the Organisation of Working Time Act.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputies O'Reilly and McDonald on getting this legislation on domestic violence leave to this point. I also want to acknowledge the work of Ms Sinéad Ní Bhroin, who has been very helpful to me since I have been elected on matters related to this issue. I know how difficult and rare it is for Opposition Deputies to get legislation this far but we are where we are.

At least once a week a woman gets in touch with me, as a public representative, in relation to domestic violence. The lockdown last year highlighted the difficult situations women were in simply because men were at home.

That was the simple reason for it.

On that note, I thank Saoirse women's refuge for taking calls from me and affected women. I thank it for its response and the opportunity it gives women to breathe and allow themselves a break. I thank the refuge for that.

In her opening statement, Deputy Louise O'Reilly mentioned that the National University of Ireland Galway launched its own policy last year. Could she elaborate on that a little?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and I were present at the virtual launch of the policy, which is being spearheaded by Dr. Nata Duvvury in the gender studies department of the university. Those involved in its creation noted it was something that was already happening in the private sector. They asked themselves whether they could introduce such a policy. They had been working with Safe Ireland to analyse the impact on the employer and the €56 billion cost. They took elements of this legislation and incorporated it into their policy. I had several meetings with Dr. Duvvury and the human resources department of the university. I have talked to the people who will be using the policy. It was incorporated into existing policies. They did it as we are proposing to do it, that is, as part of normal leave. They also undertook awareness training and a publicity campaign across the college, which they felt was positive. They only did this last May so we are not yet in a position to look back in enough detail to be able to say how it has worked and not worked thus far. However, my understanding from speaking to them is that it has worked very well and has been a positive experience for them. Certainly at the launch, they were very positive about it. They had used the provisions of this legislation and incorporated it into their own leave. That was how they did it.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were reports on the news last night - I am sure the Deputy saw them - about the 10% surge in domestic violence cases. There are still nine counties without refuges. We also heard that the Garda responded to more than 48,000 calls of instances of domestic abuse and there were over 4,000 criminal charges. This is an everyday occurrence and one can see how bad it is at the moment.

The Deputy touched there on the Organisation of Working Time Act. Will she elaborate on that a small bit? I know she spoke about it a moment ago but I would ask her to speak about it a little more.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My experience in my previous life included being a workplace representative. That is the perspective from which we came to this issue. This legislation is an amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act. Deputy Bacik has similar legislation. This legislation is intended to be there as an addition to leave that exists already. One of the things that does is to bring the conversation from the margins into the centre, which is important because it is a workplace issue. This issue nearly always affects women. If a woman is experiencing domestic abuse, she might come into work and be met with a question from a colleague about what she did at the weekend which she does want not to answer because the weekend was hell and she does not want to refer to it. The colleague asks her again the next week, the week after and the week after that. Eventually, the colleague stops asking because the woman does not respond but everyone in the office or workplace knows there is an issue. We are seeking to put this leave in with other forms of leave. There is no shame in taking parental leave and there should be no shame in taking this leave.

Our intention was to house this leave along with other forms of leave that are taken as a matter of course in the normal working year. The hope is that we would give people the language to not be afraid to talk about it. I have experience of this as a politician, as has Deputy Ward, and I had experience in my previous life. People want to help but they do not know how to do so. This is a practical way to help and it is not separate, different or over there in another corner. It is a part of the leave arrangement. It allows us to tell people they have an entitlement to this leave. This is not a grace and favour arrangement. I am not offering to go to the boss and tell him or her that X is having a bit of trouble at home. This is people's entitlement and it is in the leave folder along with all the other forms of leave. That will avoid any addition to the stigma, shame and marginalisation that someone might be feeling in any event.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo everything that others have said about how important and needed the legislation is. It is brilliant. I have one or two queries. I want to avoid being too particular or specific. If a woman ends up having to go to a refuge a fair way away from her workplace, is there scope within the Bill to cater for extenuating circumstances and allow that woman to apply for additional leave? Is the amount of leave to be set at ten days, after which a woman cannot apply to extend it even if she was put into a refuge an hour away from her workplace and could not drive or whatever the circumstances might be that would make it impossible?

My other questions relate to the scope of the Bill. If an employee discloses an instance of domestic abuse, will there be a training or information campaign targeted at employers so they know how to manage the situation and understand what is expected of them and what is not expected of them? In some cases, that might mean ensuring an employer does not overreach and make a situation worse because somebody has disclosed a certain situation. Is there scope within the Bill to provide support to employers or some sort of information campaign directed at employers so they know how to manage these situations? I understand what the Deputy has said about the leave being seen in the same way as any other leave but it is hard to know what way an employer will respond to a person saying he or she is taking domestic violence leave. We must ensure that employers understand what is and is not expected of them in that situation.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. On the question about flexibility, I will say that the ten days can be broken up. If a woman's refuge is far away from her workplace, she would have the opportunity to take that leave parcelled up. I would be open to having a discussion at the next stage about how we could extend it in certain specific circumstances. That is a worthwhile conversation.

The Senator asked what is to be done around an information campaign. Part of ILO Convention No. 190, which I referred to earlier, is on tackling domestic abuse in the workplace. Part of it states there must be an information campaign. The Minister of State, Deputy English, has said it is his intention to ratify that convention. I assume and understand that work is ongoing. If that is ratified, the information campaign comes with it. However, when there is any form of new leave introduced, the people in human resources departments must get training on how it works. No matter what kind of leave it is, once new leave is introduced, human resources must get trained on it. That would be a good time to bring in the information campaign. We could do simple things such as posters in the workplace and information leaflets in the canteen. All of that is extremely important.

Having the leave in place means that an employee is not asking for a grace and favour arrangement. The employee is entitled to the leave and the only question is when he or she takes it. That must be key because it is scary. It is also scary for people who are in work and see someone in this situation, desperately want to help but cannot think what practical things can be done. The practical thing that can be done is to show the people concerned the posters in the break rooms and tell them what they are entitled to. Thereafter an affected person can go to the human resources department and the discretion is there. As happens with any new form of leave, there must be training for how the leave is applied for and how the applications are handled. Training in how the confidentiality aspect is handled must be key.

The Senator is right that people might make a situation worse while trying to make it better. I see some Deputies nodding because we have all been in situations where we wanted to help but did not know what we could practically do. This is not the beginning, middle and end of the solution but it is an important piece of the jigsaw to ensure people have a practical means to help anyone affected by domestic violence. The training that goes along with it will have to be specialised. It is not a matter of telling someone to log on to a portal and that is how the matter is dealt with. The training will have to accompany the new leave. With the ratification of the ILO convention, training will necessarily follow. However, we do not have to wait. The discussions we are having today and the discussions the committee will have at a later date will inform public discourse, which means that the more people are talking about the issue, the less it is in the shadows.

The more we shine a light on it the better chance we have of nobody ever having to use this leave.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to join in the call to provide statutory entitlement to domestic violence paid leave. It is a practical intervention that responds to the needs of victims and survivors of domestic abuse. Safe Ireland has rightly called domestic violence an ongoing epidemic and only last week we learned that the Garda responded to almost 50,000 incidents of domestic abuse last year, an increase of 10%. Support providers, even down to local rural ones like West Cork Women Against Domestic Violence, have seen significant rises in the number of calls they are receiving. Cultural and social changes are essential but we need to bring every measure, resource and focus the State can muster to respond to the epidemic. For too long domestic violence has been treated as a private matter which does not impact on work life and we know that is not true. Domestic abuse and violence result in unimaginable physical and psychological impacts which affect all aspects of people’s lives. Financial abuse is a real but under-reported feature of domestic abuse. The National Women’s Council of Ireland highlighted that 94% of survivors experience financial abuse and that employment sabotage is experienced by 78% of survivors. Deputy O’Reilly’s Bill recognises those issues and the realities faced by women and children in trying to escape violent and coercive situations.

I have a few questions so if there is time I would like to come back in with more. Could the Deputy outline why the Bill is related to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997? It seems the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth described this as not being the best vehicle for such a scheme during the Second Stage debate, which the Deputy disagreed with. Could the Deputy elaborate on that?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My experience tells me that the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 is the place for it. There is no fundamental disagreement between the Minister and me and we all agree that the legislation should be drafted and brought in. If the Minister was here I would tell him that I have a Bill that is ready to go, that has been drafted by the parliamentary legal advisers, that has been scrutinised by people in the sector and that I believe will work. It does not go any further than the proposals I understand are coming from Government. The difference is one of time.

The reason I housed it within the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 is that this is a workers’ rights issue and an issue of leave. The intention is that the leave would be mainstreamed with other forms of leave and would not be separate, in the margins or in the shadows. Rather it is intended that it would be a form of leave that one has an entitlement to. When I think about it I go back to when I was a shop steward and in this situation with somebody in work. I think about what I could do beyond giving them a cup of tea, a hug and a listening ear. This leave can be provided. It is not special leave; it is leave that workers have an entitlement to in the same way as bereavement or parental leave. Some of us may never use that leave. In an ideal world we would all be sitting here thinking that is a nice idea but that we do not need this. However, that is now where we are and this is necessary.

My thinking and the thinking of the party on this is that the best vehicle for it is to put it with existing forms of leave. All of those come from the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and it is about how one organises one’s time in work so that it is put as a workers’ rights issue. That is not to say it does not have other elements. It is a housing, health and justice issue and a whole range of Departments are covered but, for me, from the people I have spoken to and from my experience, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 is where one would go for other forms of leave. I keep using the phrase “mainstreaming” and I do not mean to because this should not be mainstreamed but the Deputy understands what I mean when I say it is not a separate form of leave that is special over there. It is here in the folder or book for leave and workers can avail of it because they have an entitlement to it, not because there is a special case being made. That is the key to it. From talking to people in the trade union movement, worker representatives and people from human resource departments, their view is that this is the best way to do it simply because it means it is in the same place as other leave.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For all of us to understand the impact and for anyone watching, could the Deputy outline the impact of similar legislation in jurisdictions like New Zealand and Canada where it is already in place? It has had a profound impact on people once it has been introduced.

In practice, how can we envisage the Bill working? To an extent it depends on the degree of trust between employers and employees. I hope we would all envisage that employers would give leave and any allowances they can to employees in those circumstances but the Bill allows for employers to refuse an application for leave if they have reasonable grounds for believing an employee is not entitled to the necessary violence leave concerned. That is probably a necessary provision as well. How can we ensure that an already vulnerable person is not denied leave that he or she is entitled to by an employer acting in bad faith? That might be an unusual scenario but I wonder how it will play out if this leave can be refused.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was privileged to speak at a conference where I heard from stakeholders from New Zealand. They said that the practical impact is in place and being able to take time off is in place. In surveys there, people reported back that they felt like their employers understood and that they did not have to go and bare their souls after having suffered a trauma. They felt they had that right and that it was given to them as one adult to another. It was not questioned in the way some might have envisaged it. As well as that, they pointed to the extent to which a national conversation started.

It is not just the legislation, which is important and we agree that it is necessary but it is not just that. It is the posters that tell people there is a new form of leave. When changes are made to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 or to other forms of leave a publicity campaign generally goes with that to tell people that their rights in work have changed. That sparks a conversation at the level of the workplace which could not even be quantified other than to say it has value beyond measure. That means people are talking so that instead of the victim and survivor being somebody in the workplace who is marginalised, she – it is not only a female but it very often is – is then brought into that conversation because people are talking about the new form of leave. Awareness goes up and along with awareness of the leave the awareness of domestic abuse goes up. They found that was the value.

In practice there is a lot of trust involved in this and there has to be because we are dealing with people who have suffered trauma. When it is questioned whether somebody might take advantage of this leave when he or she did not need it, I would usually respond by asking someone if he or she would take leave he or she was not entitled to. I would not and I will answer for Deputy Cairns because I know she would not either. Deputy Murnane O’Connor or Senator McGreehan would not do so either, nor would the Chair. Who are these people who will take advantage? This is a specific form of leave and an awareness campaign will nearly police itself. We cannot retraumatise people by making them tell a story that is personal and that is the cause of trauma in their lives. I 100% accept that there is an element of trust involved but I have that cheeky response when people ask, which is always to put the question I referred to earlier. I will not say exactly what I would say but the Deputy can imagine the language I would use. I would ask people if they would take advantage of this leave if they did not need it. The universal answer from my experience is always “No.” I know every member of the committee and in this room agree with me so who are these people? I do not believe that leave of this nature would be abused. However, I am not naïve enough to believe it could not be abused so there is a mechanism in place, in the way there is for a person who might try to take parental leave when he or she does not have an entitlement to it.

There is a mechanism there for an employer to go to a third party. There is also a mechanism there for a worker to go to a third party should he or she need it. We know from the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, following the Zalewski judgment, that all of these hearings have to take place in public. That is the default. I would say that there is a compelling case for these hearings to take place not only in private, but quickly. Again, that involves resourcing the WRC, although I know that I am straying into another area here. However, there is sufficient reason within the legislation for employers to be relaxed. We only have to look at Danske Bank, Vodafone and other employers in other jurisdictions that are moving ahead with this anyway, as well as in a positive way. They are giving positive feedback. As well as that, we know that the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council, NCPC, has said repeatedly that there will be issues around attracting talent to a workplace. Having a decent set of terms and conditions for the people one is hoping to attract is a good place to start. Many employers are now waking up to this fact.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to clarify, my question was more about if people were wrongly refused leave, rather than trying to get the leave without needing it.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise, I took it as a general question about whether there could be abuse of this. If people are wrongly refused it, there is a compelling case to be made for these hearings to all be held in private, both for the privacy and the dignity of the person who is requesting it. Apologies, I took the Deputy's question to mean on both sides. I understand that now.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Reilly. Like other speakers, I am fully supportive of this proposed legislation. As the Deputy has said, timing here is crucial. It is important that we are here today as all political parties that are fully supportive of ten days domestic violence paid leave. Deputy O'Reilly has said that she has had good responses from Ministers, which is crucial. We also have to look at timing.

The Deputy said that there is an accepted lack of workplace awareness around domestic violence. I think she is right. When she speaks about leaflets and getting the awareness campaign out there, will funding be needed for that? If so, we need to make sure that we get it. Has the Deputy looked at this?

In 2021, the Amber Women's Refuge conducted a research piece on the impact of domestic abuse on the workplace. Some 200 women and men who worked outside the home in Carlow and Kilkenny were surveyed. I have the findings and I will send them to Deputy O'Reilly. I wonder if she has contacted many refuges; I am sure she has done so locally. That is welcome, too. However, when we get this through, it will be important that we have a national campaign, particularly covering areas such as refuges, where they need more support. We see that with children as well. Supports for children are needed because they can be so much affected.

It is important that we get this into all workplaces. Does the Deputy see any obstacles in her way? She has mentioned a number of companies and that is welcome. We need to make sure that every woman who is in a domestic violence situation can access this, so that those ten days paid leave are given to her. Does Deputy O'Reilly see barriers? Does she see some companies taking it up and some not? We have to try to make sure that everyone takes it up.

I want to say "well done" and that I fully support this.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Murnane O'Connor. She mentioned the Amber Women's Refuge. The Chair of this committee has me fully across all of the work it does. She has been in touch on a number of occasions to sponsor her and I fully expect that that will happen again. The Amber Women's Refuge has great support from all of the local Deputies and Senators in the area, just as Aoibhneas has in my own area. We have engaged with the refuges, because that is where this information needs to get to.

Deputy Murnane O'Connor touched on interesting point. As a general rule, when there is a new form of leave, there will be an information campaign. That will usually involve the relevant Department producing the leaflets, the posters, the information and making sure that that gets to the level of the workplace. The Deputy raises a very good point, which is that we should be looking beyond that, by getting the information to the level of the refuge as part of the information campaign. I am sure that we have all engaged with the people who are running the refuges. You will always see an information table or an information stand that has leaflets in the refuges. We will need to get the information there. That is important and that is a useful suggestion. As part as any information campaign, when there is a change, there will generally be national advertisements, as well as local. They will not just happen at the level of the workplace. One will generally have national advertisements.

The biggest barrier that will be faced, which I fully accept, is that employers might be nervous about taking this on. They may wonder how they will afford it. That has to be part of the awareness campaign. It is not just a case of "How can we afford it?" It is a case of looking at, as Deputy Murnane O’Connor says, the work done by Amber and the other organisations on what the actual costs are. It will be about looking at how much it costs, as well as how much it will cost to implement it.

Although we talk about domestic abuse and gender-based violence as an epidemic or endemic, we also need to remember that these are small numbers at the level of a workplace. This means, therefore, that we will not see mass disruption within each workplace. However, we need to listen to employers if they are nervous. We need to be able to go to where they are at and have that conversation with them. We need to do this in the context of the actual costs at the level of the workplace to the employer, as well as the cost to the people who are working alongside the victims and survivors when there are unexplained absences.

If someone finds themselves in this situation and has exhausted annual leave entitlement, they may be required to attend court, go to a doctor's appointment, attend an appointment with their solicitor or whatever. If they have exhausted their leave and do not have any other option, they will find themselves having to ring in at the last minute. That is very disruptive, whereas with this leave and with the provision of this leave, absences can - not always because of the nature of the leave and how it may have to be taken at short notice - be planned. This means that an employer can plan. It means that they will be able to mitigate against any potential impacts. However, I fully respect the fact that there may be nervousness and anxiousness on the part of employers. The committee will hear not just from workers, but employer representatives and they can speak of their fears, as well as talk about the positive way that they want to approach this. I have not encountered any negativity coming from employer representatives on this.

John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murnane O'Connor has touched on a few of my points. I agree with Deputy O'Reilly on the issue of trust. We have all dealt with people who are in domestically violent situations. I have never come across a case where there was not some form of abuse taking place. It does self-police to a certain extent.

I completely agree with the proposal. This would be a hugely positive step for Ireland to take and it would be timely. The issue is cost. I was trying to get the Deputy's documents up on my device and I could not get them. Does the Deputy have any rough idea of what we are potentially talking about? I am talking about the practical politics, which is a bit grubby, in a sense. However, we all know the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform operates. We know how businesses operate. There could be possible trade-offs between them in how the costs would be carried. I presume that this would apply to public sector companies as well as private sector companies.

The other issue that I have found in my 20-something years as a public representative is that sometimes domestic violence is not just one spouse against another. It can be other people who are living in the household. I presume that they will be covered by what we are talking about here as well?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is all I have to ask.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Phelan. They are covered. I did have a quick look. I have the note, although I do not have it with me. I apologise and I will send it to the Deputy straight afterwards. What we do know is that over 20 years, there is a cost of €56 billion to time lost. I apologise for not having the figure with me. I thought I had it with me and I will supply it. I would say to employers that there is a huge value in having the capacity to plan and for this leave being taken in a planned way. There is also a huge value in the retention of experiential learning.

What you learn on the job, and this could be any job from a barista to a CEO, you have with you and some of it cannot easily be passed on to someone else. When an employer loses a valued member of the team, the employer does not just lose the physical presence, the hands, the eyes and the physical activity: the experiential learning is lost also. This can be quite detrimental to a company. In an ideal world this leave would not be needed at all or it may only be needed or availed of once, but it must be considered in the context of being able to maintain someone over the course of their career, the impact of such leave over the course of that person's career in keeping them in the workplace, and ensuring that the employer does not suffer that loss of experiential learning. I fully appreciate that this is not an exact answer to the question, but I will get it.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, quite rightly keeps a close eye on the finances, and I would expect that it does, but several State agencies and organisations are already moving ahead in this regard. NUIG has already implemented this policy. I launched it last year with Deputy Phelan's colleague, the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris. NUIG has already moved on this and it is my understanding that all of the universities, or the vast majority of them, have indicated that they will bring this in during 2022. There is a positivity there and it is great to see the public sector leading the way. We then need to see not just the bigger organisations but also smaller ones coming to the fore and having their questions answered. There will be questions and I do not for a moment imagine that this will be plain sailing. It is another form of leave and I do not believe it is at all grubby to mention the concern for employers around the bottom line but it must be looked at in the round. One must look at the opportunity costs and the costs that are lost.

John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy mentioned training.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it can be about simple things like training somebody to replace that person. When people have worked in a place for ten years, they can be on autopilot. They know exactly where everything is and the new person takes twice as long to do everything. It does not mean that they will not learn, it just means that it takes a while. So there is all of that as well. Certainly, having talked with people in industry, there is a real competition for talent. A company having this kind of compassionate policy within its suite of HR options says something about the company as an employer. It also says something about us as a State if we can do that. This is why I am very hopeful. I am heartened by the response and I am very hopeful that we can get this through.

John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy mentioned earlier on, in reply to Deputy Murnane O'Connor or to Deputy Cairns, a mechanism for referral to a third party. Will she outline a little bit more on that please?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be done in the same way as parental leave. If there is a refusal to grant it in what would seem to be reasonable circumstances, the worker takes the case. If, before the leave is taken and the employer suspects that the leave is not required and there is no objective reason for it, then the employer can make the referral to a third party for that examination. My point was that all of these hearings now must happen in public as a default. There is an option, however, for a hearing in private. The Zalewski judgment had not been issued at the time we drafted this Bill but now that it has, when we are having discussions at the next Stage - and fingers crossed we will get there - we would look at making sure it complies with the Workplace Relations Commission and the Zalewski ruling, and that there is a tendency towards anonymity on this case. I do not believe that anyone would want to put people into the situation where they would have to be public about it.

John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy would look at how they handled the matter.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly. I believe that would be very important, given that it is not just a spousal thing and it is for people within the family. It is important that we would have that. I would have to talk to the Minister of State, Deputy English, about how we could do that. That would be an important thing to do also.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That completes the questions. I thank Deputy O'Reilly for her time and for answering everything. I must get agreement from the members to publish the opening statements to the Oireachtas website. Is that agreed? Agreed.