Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | 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.

See this speech in context