Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | 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.

See this speech in context