Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to address the House on Second Stage of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022.

The purpose of this Bill is to ensure Ireland fully transposes Articles 6 and 9 of the EU work-life balance directive, which are the final elements not already compatible with Irish law. The Bill also fulfils an important and long-standing commitment to extend the entitlement to breast-feeding breaks under the Maternity Protection Acts. With this extension, women returning to work after having a baby will be entitled to these breaks for two years after the birth of the child. Breast-feeding numbers in Ireland remain low, particularly for extended breast-feeding, and these breaks make combining the return to work and breast-feeding a bit easier. This will also normalise something that still can have a stigma attached to it. Today, my colleague Senator Pauline O’Reilly, in a motion before the Seanad, highlighted the importance of breast-feeding and the supports the State can put in place for breast-feeding.

I also confirm that I intend to bring Committee Stage amendments to this Bill to introduce a form of domestic violence leave, following the publication of the domestic violence leave report, which includes recommendations on how best to support employees experiencing domestic abuse. Addressing domestic, sexual, and gender-based violence, DSGBV, has always been a priority of mine, and I am very pleased to be able to bring forward these legislative amendments, which mean Ireland will become one of the first countries in Europe to introduce a right to paid leave for victims of domestic violence.

Domestic violence leave is intended to provide a key support to victims of DSGBV who are in real distress. A requirement for evidential proof that a person has been victimised could serve to undermine the operation of the legislation. Consequently, for the initial two-year period of the operation of the leave, there will be no requirement for a person to present evidence to avail of the leave. The application of the leave and the effectiveness of the legislation will be reviewed at that time, and if issues arise with respect to misuse of this leave, changes may be made to permit employers to ask for supporting evidence, should they so require it. I recently met with Jan Tinetti, the Minister for Women of New Zealand. She spoke very positively of how the introduction of domestic violence leave there had encouraged greater openness and awareness of domestic violence in all its forms.

I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 is a standard provision. Section 2 provides for a number of definitions related to the provisions of the Bill. These include a definition of "flexible working arrangement", which includes remote working arrangements, flexible working schedules or reduced working hours, and a definition related to significant care or support for a serious medical reason. Section 3 provides for further definitions, including a new subsection 3A to ensure employees who have had successive contracts with an employer fall under the new entitlements. Section 4 provides for necessary consequential amendments.

Section 5 inserts a new section 13A into the principal Act to provide for leave for medical care purposes. This new form of leave matches the provisions of Article 6 of the work-life balance directive on carer's leave. The Carer's Leave Act 2001 already provides for a form of leave for those with caring responsibilities but for a more extended period. To meet the requirements of the directive for a form of leave that can be taken flexibly and without a notice period, it was necessary to introduce leave for medical care purposes. Under these provisions, up to five days’ leave can be taken in any 12-month period. The leave can be taken in individual days or consecutively. The leave is available to care for a child for whom the employee is a relevant parent under the Parental Leave Act, and to care for a spouse, civil partner or cohabitant; parent or grandparent; brother or sister; or a person who resides in the same household. The leave is unpaid and, to provide the necessary flexibility required under the directive, it is not possible to provide a social protection benefit. An employer may also ask for information regarding the nature of the relationship with the person for whom the employee will be providing care and information on the need for the care, which may include a medical certificate or some other form of evidence.

Section 6 inserts new sections 13B, 13C, 13D, 13E, 13F and 13G into the Parental Leave Act. These sections outline the right to request flexible working and the procedures that must be followed by the employee and employer. These provisions give effect to Article 9 of the work-life balance directive. The entitlement follows the same lines as in section 5 for parents and carers. A request must be made in writing, setting out the form of the flexible working arrangement sought, and be submitted not later than eight weeks before the proposed commencement of the flexible working arrangement. As with the leave for medical care purposes, the employer may seek further information. An employer must respond not later than four weeks after the request has been submitted and approve the request, refuse the request and provide reasons for the refusal, or, where the employer has difficulty assessing the viability of the request, inform the employee that the four-week period has been extended. Under the new section 13D, the employer may postpone the period of flexible working for a period agreed with the employee where there would be serious operational challenges for the business. This mirrors similar postponement provisions for parental leave. The new section 13E allows for changes to the flexible working arrangement as agreed between the employer and employee, and section 13F allows for an early return to the previous working arrangement. The new section 13G provides for the termination of a flexible working arrangement where it is not used for the purpose for which it was approved.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 amend the Parental Leave Act to extend employment protections to employees availing of leave for medical care purposes. Section 10 makes some technical amendments to section 21 of the Parental Leave Act. Section 11 inserts a new section 21A into the Parental Leave Act, which sets out the directions that may be made in a decision under section 41 or 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 where an employer has failed to comply with the procedures set out on the right to request flexible work in the new section 13C. Sections 12, 13 and 14 make further consequential amendments arising from the provisions in sections 5 and 6 of this Bill.

Section 15 amends the Maternity Protection Act 1994 at section 2(1) to provide for a new definition of "employee who is breastfeeding", which extends the entitlement to breast-feeding breaks under the Act from six months to two years. As I outlined, this will fulfil an important commitment. This section also deletes section 7(2) and amends section 16(1) by substituting "woman or other person" for "woman". These amendments are necessary to ensure the entitlement to maternity leave is available to any person who gives birth. This language has been slightly amended from the general scheme proposals, following consultation with LGBTI+ organisations and women's organisations, and has been deemed the most inclusive form of wording with which we can proceed.

Section 16 provides for amendments to the Adoptive Leave Act 1995 which stem from changes made to the Act through the Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2021. Section 17 provides for necessary consequential amendments to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Section 18 amends the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to correct an anomaly that arose as a result of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 being enacted shortly before the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 2015 reflect the legislative intention behind section 176(f) of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015. The section also provides for circumstances where the mother of a baby has died and the other parent is not the baby's father, to allow that other parent to bring a complaint under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 to the Workplace Relations Commission.

This Bill brings to a conclusion the implementation of the work-life balance directive through the addition of two new important provisions, namely, a right to request flexible working and the right to leave for medical care purposes. It also addresses a long-standing commitment made by the Government a number of terms back to extend the applicability of breast-feeding breaks from six months to two years. Where a mother takes up the full term of her maternity leave, the six-month limit basically rendered that right non-existent. The Bill also deals with an issue that has been debated extensively in this Dáil and the previous one, that is, the introduction of paid leave for victims of domestic violence. Deputy O’Reilly raised this issue in both Dáileanna. There are four important central developments in this legislation. I look forward to hearing Deputies’ views on the proposals and I commend the Bill to the House.

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

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for the opportunity to speak this evening. A lot of what is in this Bill would not be before us and we would not be debating it if not for the fact that the Government has been compelled by the EU directive on work-life balance. Some of the changes are welcome but we must note that the Government has a lot of flexibility in how it is going to implement this directive. It can take the measures as far as it wants. The Minister did not address this in his opening remarks but maybe he will when he is making his closing speech. Are we talking about paid leave? The Sick Leave Act the Government has introduced effectively excludes a lot of middle- and low-income workers because, if people do not have the money to go to the doctor to get the medical certificate, then they cannot avail of the leave. That is regrettable. This Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on and certainly will not deliver for low- and middle-income workers if the leave is not paid.

The crux of the Bill is aimed at parents and carers - two very important groups. It provides the right to reasonable access to flexible working arrangements, which is welcome. The majority of caring and parenting responsibilities are undertaken by women. We know this. We do not need to keep saying it but for some reason, it is often said and stated but it is a fact. The committee's report on this Bill said we must ensure that flexible working is open to all workers so as best to address existing gender inequality in caring and parenting. It said that when flexible work is not shared between men and women or when by virtue of their design, interventions are unbalanced, this has the potential to reproduce existing caring and employment inequalities and reinforce gender stereotypes and differences between work and care. Research has shown that flexible working arrangements provide employees with enhanced job control. When I was a union official and shop steward, we would have campaigned for flexitime. I can tell the House that it changed the lives of mostly women because they happened to be the workers I was representing. It was a very positive intervention because they got access to flexible working but did not have a consequent reduction in income, which is where we need to focus things.

Where a worker has greater job control, it leads to reduced workplace stress. It has also been shown to reduce absenteeism and staff turnover while increasing productivity - not that you would think that to hear some of the chat earlier on in the previous debate. For most workers, it offers the opportunity to cut travel costs and allows them to manage their childcare and other caring responsibilities but flexible working arrangements cannot all be about caring and parenting. People have lives too. They have other things they may want to do and they want to be able to manage their work a bit more effectively to do that. Flexible working helps workers to work their full hours but also to square off time they might need for an event, engagement or whatever they want to do in their own spare time. This benefits the worker and the employer. It would be welcome if the Minister would speak with his colleagues in government about examining this.

I would also ask the Minister to speak to his colleagues regarding the idea of a four-day week - same job, same goals, same salary but over four days rather than five. This provides a huge opportunity. This move would grant greater flexibility for everybody. It could also be revolutionary in terms of gender equality allowing better distribution of caring responsibilities between mothers and fathers. Again, the key is not having any consequent reduction in income. This is especially important for low- to middle-income workers because they simply cannot afford to take time out and the Minister knows this. Many trade unions and workers' organisations believe that now is the time to take that leap to a four-day week or certainly even mainstream the conversation about it - take it out of the side and into the centre and have a very real and meaningful look at it.

I will speak briefly about the provisions of the Bill regarding domestic violence leave. The Minister alluded to this aspect of it. For years, we have been advocating for paid leave for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. I introduced what I would describe as comprehensive and stakeholder-led legislation in the Organisation of Working Time (Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2020 to do just that. It is very clear that if we are to end the epidemic of domestic abuse in this State, we need a whole-of-society response that supports and protects women. A key element of this is ensuring that victims - not always but mostly women - are protected in their workplace. Again, I go back to the issue of continuing income. My Bill would ensure that their income is protected. That is really important. If you have ever been with someone in work who is a victim or survivor of domestic abuse, the capacity of the abuser to exert financial control over this person can be huge. The liberating impact of having access to your own money cannot be ignored, which is why it is imperative not alone that the legislation is passed quickly, and Committee Stage of my Bill is next week, but that it is done without proof. I welcome what the Minister said, although he walked it back when he said there will not be any need for proof in the first few years but then we will introduce it. It would be preferable, and I think the stakeholders would very much feel it was preferable, if the Minister took it off the table altogether. I do not feel it is necessary. I do not believe people will abuse the legislation.

Ten days is provided for in my legislation. I understand that the Minister is talking about five days. I raised this matter with An Taoiseach yesterday and he said it is a very good start but we will revisit it. My question relates to the people in the third level sector. After the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and I launched the ten-day leave provision in NUIG, he wrote to the heads of the other universities and requested that they follow suit. Is the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth taking five days off those workers? They are public servants working in the university sector. Is he slashing their entitlement in half? Is he going to create two tiers within the civil and public service so that some people will have ten days because they just happened to come in before the Minister's legislation or will he accept what the sector, stakeholders, lobby groups, Sinn Féin and others in the Opposition have said? My legislation was at committee previously and there was no dissenting voice from any party. It is very important that we get clarity on that. I believe that ten days is the appropriate number. I understand that the proposal is for half of that. The simple question then is where the people who now have ten days will stand. Is it the Minister's intention to slash their entitlement in half? That would be very regrettable. This is a positive move that should have a very positive impact on the lives of victims and survivors. The way to do that is to listen to the sector and respond to what it is looking for and either back my legislation for ten days or make this legislation fit in with what the Minister's other Government colleagues are saying.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Covid-19 did not come bearing any gifts but it did bring us a new awareness of how we are living both for better and for worse. Many people have made major changes to how they work and live. I know there are many more who would do so if they had the proper opportunity. We also know that during lockdown, many fathers welcomed the opportunity to spend more time with their children and realised what both had been missing out on.

This Bill transposes an EU directive on the issue of work-life balance. It is both timely and welcome. The work development we read about - so-called quiet quitting - is so much more than a headline or soft feature. People are re-evaluating their priorities and working to live as opposed to living to work. The quiet in their working lives brought about by the pandemic made them realise that much of their working life is superfluous or busyness for its own sake.

As a culture, we sometimes put busyness on a pedestal where people try to outdo themselves saying how they worked through pneumonia or the flu and looking for medals. Other examples include women back at their desks days after childbirth and President Biden going to great lengths to tell us how he was working from home during Covid as if it is not just desirable but required. It is a case of work life first and life a very poor second. If we are to live and work well, flexibility is needed. This is especially the case when it comes to full participation by women.

The incentives outlined here are welcome but they must be matched by equal improvements in affordable and accessible childcare. I have lost count of the number of highly qualified women in north Kildare who tell me they are considering giving up work because they cannot get the childcare they need. Generally for the privilege of earning a percentage of what their male co-workers might earn because of the gender pay gap, these women hand over their children, generally to other women. Even taking into account the gender pay gap, they have to earn enough to pay two women just for the privilege of working. There is real solidarity in that act. The women who mind these children deserve to be paid well. Other mothers tell me they are thinking of giving up work because they cannot get a place on a bus scoile for their child to get to school. It is particularly galling for them because they were presented with this as though it was something they were getting for free.

The provisions of this Bill depend on getting many other things in the State right such as buses. We spoke about Go-Ahead Ireland buses this morning. We are so time-poor and are waiting for buses that do not turn up. We see workers fed up to the gills, late to work or facing final warnings from their employers so we have to get the balance right. These are the basics. Public transport and somebody to mind their baby would be a good place to start. I hate the phrase "joined-up thinking" but it would be good if we could get on with it.

My party has called for payment or allowance for medical care leave and that lone parents should be entitled to double the amount of leave for medical care purposes to account for the absent parent.

I put the Minister on notice that I will bring forward an amendment to introduce a ten-day fully paid leave for parental bereavement. The trauma of burying a child is a heartbreak that some people in this Chamber have experienced. An ordinary two or three days is not sufficient.

I am talking about ten a lot because I believe in decimalisation and leaving imperialism behind as a republican, and ten is the number we propose for domestic violence leave, which was introduced by my comrade, Deputy O'Reilly, and our party leader, Deputy McDonald. It does not appear in the Bill at this Stage but I hope it will appear on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will clarify that. Sinn Féin proposed ten days because that is now the norm in organisations and companies where that leave has been established, as well as in universities. Big companies such as Vodafone have ten days. New South Wales is moving from ten to 20 days, as I understand, but the proposal in this legislation is for five days.

At the Joint Committee on Gender Equality this morning, the Taoiseach seemed to indicate five days would be a given and that employers would follow what they considered best practice. We would love to have that clarified because, as Deputy O'Reilly said, for people who would have ten days leave now, will their rights be halved? Victims of domestic violence need to be able to rely on ten as their right: no favours, no kindness of strangers, just their right as employees. It would make that part of their life simple, when the rest of their life is anything but.

The Taoiseach made it clear to me this morning, and I was relieved to hear it, that despite IBEC's demands for proof and the Minister's report stating "Employers should retain the right to request reasonable proof", there will be nothing of the kind. Proof should not be demanded or required. I was glad the Taoiseach distanced himself so adamantly and publicly from the Minister's report on employers' rights.

The Minister is saying he will review it after two years, as if there is some kind of moral hazard from women - it is mainly women - who suffer from domestic violence. I try to behave myself when speaking in this Chamber, but the ghosts of dead women sometimes come into my head. A few hundred years ago women were held under water to check if they were telling the truth. As for this moral hazard around women experiencing domestic violence, just take it out please. Demanding proof of being a victim of domestic violence is not a wise move. I know "lessons learned" is a phrase this Government loves to use but it would show there are no lessons learned in Departments that are still mired in legacy issues regarding how this State has treated women, committing women because of what they did or might do, removing their children, sowing their pelvises as what passed for maternity care, refusing them life-saving abortions and fighting them in the courts on their death beds, using their own public money to do so.

I told the Minister before that I believe he drew the short straw. The greatest trick Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael pulled off during the Government negotiations was to leave it to the Green Party to clean up their 100 years' war on women. Physical, psychological, emotional and moral war was waged by successive Governments against women and children, especially their version of the wrong women, poor women and poor children, since the foundation of this State. I understand the Minister does not have it easy but he should look back at the Taoiseach in the Joint Committee on Gender Equality this morning. He was defiant in distancing himself from the recommendations in the Minister's report. The Minister should not do their bidding. I look forward to seeing ten days' domestic violence leave added on Committee Stage.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This legislation comes from the European Union directive. It is welcome that progress is being made on all of these issues. The notion of work-life balance always comes to the fore, as has been mentioned by colleagues, particularly for women who have to balance family life and incorporate work into that life. As the price of houses and the cost of living soar, few families can survive on a single income. Therefore, both partners in a relationship usually have to work. That means if the employer is difficult to deal with in situations like this, family life can often suffer. That needs to be brought into the legislation. Much in it is welcome. However, we feel it does not go far enough in many aspects.

I was thinking as I came down here of people living in rural Ireland. I come from a rural constituency. For the last month, I have had mainly women ringing me at all hours of the day and night about school bus tickets. I am sure the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach has had the same experience in County Clare. They cannot get their children to school. They ask what we will do and say they cannot get to work if they cannot get the children to school. The absence of forethought around family life to make that change is a reflection of a lack of appreciation of what is required for work-life balance in our communities, particularly for people who, to earn a living, depend on the school bus to get their children to school and have that taken away from them.

The other important issue is domestic violence leave. I recently dealt with a young woman who went through a very traumatic experience. One of the most difficult parts, because she needed her independence and to continue working, was that her employer was difficult around all of that. The demand for ten days is the minimum that is required in those circumstances.

In my area of justice, we often deal with victims of serious crime and the trauma that can bring into their lives. There are issues around how employers deal with that. While we should not always have to legislate for these things, unfortunately, because of the winner-takes-all capitalist society we live in, we often do have to legislate and force employers to do the right thing in the most difficult circumstances.

I was thinking as my colleagues were speaking of the event in Donegal, the tragedy that has befallen ten families in a small rural community and what that has done to them. We have to think of the difficulty death can bring for families. Many people in employment in those situations will need their employers to be flexible and will need elements of work-life balance brought into that. Unfortunately, we have to legislate for it.

Since Covid came in, we have seen many more people work from home. We have seen flexibility and employers have embraced that flexibility, in many cases, which is welcome and is moving in the right direction. Much more needs to be done. There is the right of people to be able to switch off at appropriate times when they have things to do. The Minister mentioned breast-feeding. It is welcome that that is put in place but the Minister needs to get clearer on the domestic violence aspect of this Bill, as to how long women will be given for domestic violence leave.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We welcome the Bill and the clear language from the Minister in respect of the domestic violence provisions. He states unequivocally that:

A requirement for evidential proof that a person has been victimised could serve to undermine the operation of the legislation. Consequently, for the initial two-year period of the operation of the leave, there will be no requirement for a person to present evidence in order to avail of the leave.

In the Minister's response, he may tell us why a period of two years was chosen. It seems to me quite an arbitrary period of time.

Notwithstanding the fact that the principle applies that no evidence is required, which is welcome, I question why it has to be two years. That is the first point.

My second point is on the wait period of 26 weeks and the flexibility around that. Subsection (5) of the new section 13B states:

For the purposes of this section, where an employee ceases to be the employee of an employer and, not more than 26 weeks after the date of cesser, the employee again becomes the employee of the employer, the period of service of that employee with that employer before the date of cesser shall be deemed to be continuous with the period of service of that employee with that employer after again becoming such employee.

I am trying to fully understand what that means but we will parse it in the coming weeks and certainly before Committee Stage. The Minister may further elucidate that point. Reading the language of the Bill, what comes across to me is that there is a greater degree of flexibility on the part of the employer to say "No" versus what we contend is the requirement to ensure the employee's right to access such leave is embedded in the legislation. I am trying to get a sense of what is in the Minister's head and where he stands. Were I looking at the constituent parts of the Government, I imagine the Green Party might be more in favour of the rights of the employee, whereas Fine Gael and probably some elements of Fianna Fáil would probably say there needs to be greater flexibility as regards the ability of the employer to say "No". I just want to get a sense of where the Government is coming from. I say that because the grounds for refusal outlined in section 13D seem very loose. We will seek to amend these grounds if we perceive that the arrangements are too loose and the Bill, in attempting to transpose the EU legislation, does not fully vindicate the rights of the employee.

Why have a cut-off age of 12 years, as provided for in section 13B(3)? Where a child is in receipt of a long-term illness payment, for instance, he or she qualifies up to the age of 16 years. I respectfully contend that the ages of 12 and 16 years are unrealistic and premature cut-off points. We will seek to amend those provisions. I ask the Minister to outline his perspective on them.

There are so many families in Ireland where fertility and miscarriages arise. The silence surrounding that is one of the hardest things for families when they go through fertility treatments or where miscarriages arise. This is open to further examination but I understand that around 14,000 women experience miscarriage each year and approximately one in six couples experiences fertility issues. Not all require or want treatment but for the many who do, we must ensure that the appropriate workplace leave is available. We will propose some amendments to meet those requirements because it is high time we as a society acknowledged that miscarriage exists. There are the beginnings of a greater openness around the conversation about miscarriage but it would be good if we legislated for a requirement in society that people could have leave in those circumstances. Where an employer is compassionate, there is never an issue around these matters but not every employer is compassionate. The Bill the Labour Party published in March last year, which would provide 20 days' leave for women who experience early miscarriage, with an additional ten days paid time off for workers who wish to access reproductive healthcare treatments such as IVF, is a sensible solution. If the Minister would respond to that shortly, I would welcome that. We will certainly seek to amend this legislation to recognise the fact that people require leave for miscarriage and fertility treatments. That would be the hallmark of a progressive society were we to do that. The Minister mentioned New Zealand, which received global praise for introducing paid time off for people in the workplace who experience a miscarriage. It would be a great victory for women and families if we were to follow suit.

I also note the specific provisions on breast-feeding which we fully welcome. I stand here as a man about to hit the age of 50 but I have a very young family. I have a five-year-old, a three-year-old and a little girl who was born in July, so I know something of these matters. I note the Minister made specific reference to the Green Party motion tabled by Senator Pauline O'Reilly in the Seanad today proposing to introduce lessons in schools on breast-feeding. I would be far more satisfied, as I think we all would, if there were more lactation consultants operating throughout the State. Some €1.58 million was provided to hire 24 lactation consultants. It is all well and good tabling motions in the Seanad, and they are laudable in their own right, but there is a responsibility on the Green Party in this regard. While it does not control the health portfolio, there is a collective responsibility on the Government to ensure those lactation consultants are hired. That would have a massive impact on families who need that advice. It costs over €100 for a private consultant's advice and not many can afford that. Where there are issues around breast-feeding, it is very easy for people to become discouraged if they do not have access to a public healthcare service which does not have the required 24 consultants. It is Government policy to roll out those 24 lactation consultant positions at a cost of €1.58 million. It is incumbent on the Green Party, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to make sure they do everything to recruit those consultants into the system. That issue is pertinent to this Bill.

I will leave it there. I have raised specific issues around the rights of the employee versus the flexibility that I read across this legislation in the tone of its language, which seems to me to tilt the balance of power towards the employer. That needs to be addressed.

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

This Bill is timely and welcome. While the Covid-19 restrictions were in place, we saw how those created a greater need for flexible working arrangements. While Covid-19 was and still is an extremely serious issue, the lessons we have learned from it should be key to our future approach to issues around caring, disabilities and equality. This Bill sets out a framework for flexible working arrangements which offers many benefits for employees and employers. These are important tools for better assisting women and people with disabilities to work. They promote greater gender equality, work-life balance and improved child and family well-being. Many aspects of this Bill are welcome. These include the right to flexible working, the right to request compressed or reduced hours, and the introduction of five days' leave per year for serious medical care. The extension of current entitlements to breast-feeding and lactation and breaks from six months to two years is also very welcome.

Unfortunately, however, another lesson we learned from the Covid-19 restrictions was the increase in the number of reports of domestic violence. I am a member of South County Dublin's joint policing committee. Only last month, we received a report stating one in three women experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. An Garda Síochána deals with between 500 and 600 calls of this nature weekly. This amounts to 30,000 such calls annually. In reality, this means that every 17 seconds a call is made to report domestic violence. This is a blight on our society.

While this legislation is a very positive development, we have several concerns, particularly regarding the domestic violence leave aspect. My colleagues Deputies McDonald and O'Reilly introduced the Organisation of Working Time (Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2020, which passed on Second Stage in December 2020. It is now going through legislative scrutiny in the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, of which I am a member. Any time this subject has come up, there seems to be cross-party agreement concerning what this Bill is about. Sinn Féin's proposed legislation, therefore, is comprehensive and was drafted in conjunction with the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisers, following extensive consultation. It provides ten days of statutory leave in cases of domestic violence, and proof of abuse is not required, which is extremely important. It also, however, protects employers where they believe leave is not being taken for its intended purpose. Similar standard provisions are provided for employees who believe they have been wrongly refused leave.

I reiterate, therefore, that while this legislation before us is a positive development, we do have several concerns about it. The entitlement to five days of leave falls short of the ten days provided for in Sinn Féin's 2020 Bill. We saw legislation introduced in the North with a provision in this regard of ten days, so this has been done in other legislation. This Bill is welcome, but it could be so much better with a bit of political will. We will be tabling amendments on later Stages and I hope the Minister will support them.

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

We need legislation that reflects social realities. Employment law needs to recognise the complexities of life, including those encountered in contexts such as caring for one's family, the importance of one's health and the experience of the victims and survivors of domestic and gender-based violence. Compared with other European countries, Ireland has poor worker's rights. We lag many other jurisdictions in family leave policies, with low rates of payment and a short duration of leave available. Greater flexibility in work practices enables women, disabled people and others to enter and remain in the workforce.

There are also many incredible employers of all sizes, from family businesses to multinational corporations, that have positive and progressive leave practices. This law is for the other type of employers, and we know those exist too. These provisions are intended for those businesses that will only ever provide the bare minimum. With this in mind, it must be ensured the legislation has robust measures to ensure workers get the leave to which they are entitled. It is easy to frame additional leave entitlements and workers' rights as anti-business when, in reality, these are tools that help to broaden the breadth of the workforce and to improve employee morale. There is no reason we cannot have successful and competitive businesses along with a healthy work-life balance. It is too easy for political parties to say they are pro-family when they do not support pro-family measures and employment rights.

There is much to welcome in this Bill. It must be acknowledged it originated as European legislation in another example of rights that have been achieved through our membership of the EU. The Government has transposed elements of the EU directive, but there are caveats and limitations in the Bill that must be addressed. In most cases, this legislation implements the minimum standard, in contrast to other EU countries.

We have already surpassed the minimum of recognising the importance of different types of leave. The first that is of concern relates to the right to request flexible working arrangements for caring purposes such as caring for a child, parent or spouse. The pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth was very clear on who is entitled to flexible working, that is, all workers with no restrictions or small print. We stressed the importance of applying this provision to all workers. Unfortunately, the Government has retained the requirement for workers to have at least six months' service before they can have this leave. This restriction will disproportionately affect certain groups such as lone parents and workers on temporary contracts. One Family highlighted that the six-months employment eligibility criterion will directly contribute to the ongoing high rate of poverty and deprivation for one-parent families. This provision in a Bill from the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth will make life harder for one-parent families. It is important to state that One Family will celebrate 50 years of existence tomorrow. The organisation does incredible work for one-parent families. However, I do recognise that there is a subsection dealing with the case of successive fixed-term contracts that acknowledge the cumulative total of the employment.

My second area of concern relates to privacy rights. The Department has repeatedly demonstrated an inconsistent and often disputed interpretation of GDPR, especially in regard to mother and baby homes and illegal adoptions. While in many of those cases the Minister has held that privacy rights is an issue surrounding access to information, in this Bill he shows little consideration for those rights. Under the sections dealing with leave for medical care purposes and flexible working arrangements for caring purposes, workers applying for these forms of leave would have to share information such as birth certificates and medical certificates relating to the person that needs care. However, unlike medical leave for oneself, this requires the sharing of personal information relating to a third party. For example, a parent who needs flexible working hours to care for a sick child or a child with a disability would have to produce a birth certificate to first establish that the child is his or hers and then share incredibly personal information about the child with the employer.

This law is for the employers who will interpret it, and only give what it permits, and in its strictest reading the perspective we have to take is that the Bill requires a third party to give up his or her privacy rights. This becomes most clear in the case of caring for adults. What happens if a worker knows he or she has to take leave to care for a sick parent, but the parent does not want other people knowing his or her business and will not give permission for that information to be shared? The pre-legislative scrutiny report specifically sought clarification on what happens when the third party does not consent to the sharing of the information.

In addition, we asked for clarification on the obligations of the employer regarding the processing, storing and destruction of that information. This is also absent from the Bill. The sharing of information also arose recently due to news reports on IBEC's submission concerning leave based on domestic violence. When we discussed such leave at the committee there was a strong consensus that there would be a good-faith system that workers would not abuse nor would employers seek evidence.

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

Deputy Gannon will be in possession when the debate resumes.