Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for sharing their insights today. We are grateful to Deputies O’Reilly and McDonald for developing this legislation.

Unfortunately, in contrast to last week, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth tabled the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill without any provisions for domestic violence leave. He said he will bring those in on Committee Stage, but that would not allow us to discuss them properly or propose the inevitable improvements required. I do not agree that the Bill reflects the seriousness of the Government’s commitment to support people experiencing domestic violence. In fact, I think it reveals the opposite and the domestic violence leave component is an afterthought. It is just not being professionally handled in that sense.

Nonetheless, this Bill is the focus for today. I think we are all in agreement that victims and survivors of domestic violence are especially vulnerable and leave specifically for this reason is important. It recognises the realities involved and helps people in desperate need.

The issue around IBEC has come up in nearly every contribution. Needless to say, it was embarrassing and a disgrace for it to come out with those comments. We are all kind of in agreement that it is not relevant to the discussion that we are having here today. We are not going to introduce anything along those lines. However, it speaks to a kind of broader issue that is relevant to today, in that people do not seem to have an understanding of domestic violence for that suggestion to come out. People were wondering what it meant by “prove it”. Imagine - does one turn up with visual injuries? It is important to highlight as well some of the things that the witnesses said today, such as “private matter”. We still see it as a private matter and not a public concern. That is very true. The focus is on the victim and not the perpetrator. Despite the fact that domestic violence affects so many people, there just does not seem to be that awareness, as shown when we had IBEC coming out and saying that.

The discussion around the five days speaks to that problem as well. It is as if we still do not seem to quite grasp the reality of what it is like for somebody leaving domestic violence. I have encountered it, for example, when people are fleeing domestic violence and going to the local authority in need of emergency accommodation and then being asked to prove that they are homeless. If a person has just left a violent situation and has their children, bags, potentially their pets and whatever with them, it is not possible to prove that. Being met with that kind of hostility very often results in people returning to those violent situations because they feel that they have nowhere else to go. We have had witnesses before this committee and one of the ones that I just want to rewind to for a moment is Marie Mulholland, who came to speak to us from the West Cork Women Against Violence Project. She highlighted the unique barriers that women face in rural areas when they are fleeing domestic violence and the court days, trying to get the safety orders and all the different things. It is not a neat five days and the five days do not necessarily come one after the other. We also have to take into consideration that people are often making the transition into single parenting and doing things such as managing school runs and other extra-curricular activities. Five days is just not going to cut it in all reality. I just wanted to start with that.

My first questions are for Dr. Duvvury. She outlined the role of other reasonable accommodations, such as flexible working, a support to seek protection orders and clear safety measures to maintain confidentiality and privacy as being key comprehensive domestic violence leave legislation. Can she elaborate on the importance of the suite of measures that we might need to look at? In her briefing document, she outlined larger issues that surround this type of leave, such as lack of awareness or survivors perhaps not being able to take leave because of a feeling of insecurity around losing their job. Can she share some more insights from her research or other jurisdictions that could help address those issues? Her briefing paper also referred to protection for workers from their abusers while they are in the workplace. Can she outline what that would involve? Are there examples from other jurisdictions that we might be able to look at?

We know that know that the labour market traditionally has been a hostile place for women, with many ingrained malpractices and cultures that still remain. It is not that long ago that women had to leave work when they simply got married. In what material ways does Ms La Combre think domestic violence holds working women back today? She rightly highlighted how leave should be part of a broader domestic violence and work policy that would also support survivors in other ways. Can she expand on that point and give examples of those supports?