Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | 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.

See this speech in context