Dr. Nata Duvvury:

I thank the committee for this opportunity to make a statement. The Bill is a significant milestone, advancing gender equality in Ireland. It must be appreciated that the Bill is evidence-based legislation.

It is based on undeniable scientific evidence of the enormous human and financial costs of domestic violence and coercive control to individuals, families, employers, communities and the State. A recent Safe Ireland and University of Galway study estimated that the annual indicative cost of domestic violence for survivors is about €2.7 billion annually, or the equivalent of €56 billion over a 20-year period, based on the women who we interviewed. This level of loss is not surprising, given that a KPMG study of Vodafone employees found that 151,000 women employed in Ireland, or about 6% of the workforce, have had a lifetime experience of domestic violence, with 65% saying that domestic violence seriously or considerably affected their career progression, which leads to wage loss and productivity loss. These social and economic losses have significant macroeconomic implications which could potentially affect overall economic growth and the sustainability of the Irish economy. In the context of the current housing and cost-of-living crises, the repercussions take on an even greater salience. Domestic violence represents leakage from the economic system that needs to be stopped. This Bill goes one step towards that.

The proposed Bill is ground-breaking in its clear recognition that domestic violence is not a private family matter, but rather a public concern which has serious consequences across society, including in the workplace. Recognition of the collective effort needed by all stakeholders to prevent domestic violence, as well as to mitigate its consequences, is required. It is particularly important that the Bill is being introduced as part of the organisation of working time legislation. It places domestic violence as a central economic issue as well as a human rights violation. The proposed Bill marks a critical juncture in our recognition of the workplace as an important site of safety for women. If the legislation is passed, Ireland would join a handful of countries globally which have domestic violence legislation. It is important, therefore, to seriously consider the Bill and pass it.

When we consider legislation, we also need to understand whether there are issues that could affect the effectiveness of the proposed Bill. We need to consider the universality of the application of the law. While there is no reference to the size of the enterprise, there is concern about the extent to which this law would apply to small entrepreneurs hiring only one or two employees, or employees without contracts, such as volunteers or other informal workers. When considering domestic violence, it is important to understand that domestic employment or employment in a family enterprise puts more women at risk of experiencing domestic violence. These employees are outside the ambit of the Organisation of Working Time Act, so there should be special consideration for them. This applies equally to whether this legislation will be relevant to gig economy workers, who are often mischaracterised as self-employed independent contractors. Those who experience domestic violence are the least likely to be able to fight against this mischaracterisation. We need to consider the impact of this law for gig workers.

The review of legislation across the world has shown that the effectiveness of the law can be limited by the lack of proactive will among employers. Positive obligations have to be placed on employers to implement the law. This is done in New Zealand, where there is a financial penalty if the employer does not implement a domestic violence policy or domestic violence leave. There should be some limitations on employers’ rights to refuse domestic violence leave. A significant issue that has been highlighted is that there is sometimes, given that this is between employer and employee, a deference to employers in legislation and to their right to discipline their workforce and fire unproductive employees. This is not the case for women who are experiencing domestic violence. There should be adequate consideration of the obligations being placed on employers.

Leave by itself is insufficient. There have to be other reasonable accommodations. As ILO convention No. 190 points out, these accommodations include flexible working time, financial support, supervisory support to manage work performance, support to seek protection orders, and clear safety measures to maintain confidentiality and privacy.

The terminology in the legislation needs to be clearer, particularly with regard to coercive control. No clear definition of coercive control is given. It is a new concept and it is not well understood by policymakers or even by those women who experience coercive control. There is a lack of a definition of what constitutes serious alarm or distress. This is particularly important because women experiencing violence tend to minimise the effects of domestic violence. We must flesh out this term.

There is no focus on the perpetrator or abuser. This is important. As long as domestic violence leave policies only focus on the person experiencing the domestic violence, it indicates that the victim is responsible for addressing domestic violence. We need to bring the perpetrator into the picture.