Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to see this legislation before the House because I worked on the directive for many years in the European Parliament, not just in its final stages when it was a draft document, in committee and in the Parliament itself, but in trying to ensure it got on the Statute Book in the first place. When I was first elected to the Parliament, Kathy Sinnott and I founded the carers interest group and that was one of its first recommendations the group made. I remained as chair of the group for between ten and 15 years, co-chairing some of the time. This was one of our main priorities.

In the European Parliament, as the Minister knows, there is no government or opposition so the Commission comes forward with proposals. I want to put it on the record that we worked with some excellent people from the Commission in trying to get this proposal to a point where it became legislation. Sometimes Members of this House and people elsewhere talk about members of the Commission as faceless bureaucrats. We met the best of people, ordinary people, those who have care responsibilities and individuals who have lives like the rest of us. They understood this. It was a long process because, with the crash in 2008, all social legislation was put to one side, which was a disaster for Europe. I understand people's concerns in that regard, but when we were able to recover a little bit, especially in my final term from 2014 to 2019, social Europe was much more to the fore and this was one of the directives that was meant to reflect that.

As I said, many people helped to bring this legislation to where it is today. It was one of the final directives we passed in the European Parliament in the April or May before I left. I am pleased about where it is at and pleased with whatever small role I played since its inception, which was a long time ago.

This is a broad-based directive. Not all directives are as broad based. As we have 27 member states with 27 difference systems of maternity leave, paternity leave, carers leave and other kinds of leave, it has to work with and not against these systems. Some countries, for example, have better maternity leave provisions than others. We often look to the Nordic countries and what they have in place. In truth, however, when it comes to these issues, Ireland is most certainly not behind the door. In fact, our carers leave system, whereby a person can take up to two years off work and receive carer's benefit, is seen as a flagship example in the EU and globally.

Many countries do not have that.

The system is not perfect. For example, carer's benefit should bear some relationship to whatever salary a person is on. Obviously, that could not be open-ended. Perhaps it could be based on a median wage or something like that. If it is not paid well enough, most people will not take it. For something to be meaningful, real and available, there has to be a certain level of benefit.

It is worth noting that we are well ahead of the posse. We may ask why we need this aspect, and other aspects of the Bill, something I will return to. It is because we need something to bridge the gap. Not everybody wants to take two years. One cannot take carer's benefit for less than 13 weeks. Not everybody wants or needs to take that much time off. They might want to take shorter amounts of leave. To some extent, as I said, the Bill helps to bridge this gap.

I have heard people question the Bill. In my view, it is important. It reflects the reality of many people's lives. It is far from perfect, but it will help to ease some burdens here and there. As I said, there are gaps, which I will mention, but it is going in the right direction. Many people are congratulating us on what we are doing, but we are a little bit late. It is to be hoped it will be on the Statute Book fairly quickly.

I will table a number of amendments for Committee Stage. The Bill refers to five days unpaid leave for a significant medical issue. That term is quite vague and open to interpretation. I do not know whether the Minister can tie that down any further. I do not know who will be the judge of that. All legislation should be as tightly worded as possible. The Bill also stipulates that leave cannot be taken for less than one day. I do know not know if there could be some flexibility in respect of half-days. Sometimes that is all that is needed. Perhaps it is not possible, but the Minister might think about that. On the provision regarding five days within the year, does that refer to a calendar year from when the first day's leave is taken? Could it be a rolling year? In certain professions, the length of sick leave a person can take can be rolled over for years.

The five carer's leave days provided for in the Bill are unpaid, meaning that the carer in question will have to assume a financial penalty. If a carer has to take an unpaid day off and perhaps needs to pay €60 for a certificate, that means that the person has not only lost a day's pay but is also out of pocket. Some companies have already said they will pay, but others will not or cannot. It is not a question of organisations being bad employers; rather, sometimes businesses cannot afford it. This is good, but it is not the perfect solution that everybody is saying it is because people are taking the leave at their own cost.

When we dealt with this at European level, in the Parliament we tried to say that the leave should be paid, but we could not get agreement with the European Council because some member states supported it while others did not. That, of course, would not prevent any country, in this case Ireland, from trying to ensure the leave is paid. I would be interested in hearing about the Minister's discussions with employers' organisations, what they said about this and the possibilities of paid leave. A review could be part of the Bill.

The Bill gives the right to request flexible working, but that is it. The employer can refuse. I note there are various protections and steps that need to be taken by an employer. It is a process, rather than someone saying they would like the time. Even at that, things are far from certain for many people. It is an employee's right to challenge a decision, but he or she has to go to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. We know there are long delays of up to 12 months. There is a sense that justice delayed is justice denied. To be fair, it is a further safety net. If people really feel their employer's decision is unjust they can go to the WRC. Would there be any possibility of some other system that would not take as long? That does not have to be put in place immediately. I am just throwing that out there.

The directive refers to flexible working arrangements being for a reasonable duration, but the Bill does not clarify what a reasonable duration might be. That is left open to interpretation. I understand that the Minister is trying to be as flexible as possible, but sometimes that means people lose out. I do not know if anything stronger could be put into the Bill.

I am concerned that the Bill requires an employee to provide to his or her employer information on the employee's relationship to the person for whom medical leave is sought and, which is of concern, the nature of the personal care or support required by the person in respect of whom the leave for medical care purposes is sought. Is there an issue around the general data protection regulation and sharing information with a third party? This is often sensitive information. By virtue of the person's relationship with the individual for whom he or she needs to get time off to care for, it is very easy to identify that person.

The Bill specifies the persons for whom flexible working or carer's leave can be applied for. They are a person of whom the employee is a parent or adoptive parent, the spouse or civil partner of the employee, a person to whom the employee is inloco parentis, the cohabitant, parent or grandparent or brother or sister of the employee and a person other than one specified in any of those paragraphs in the Bill who lives in the same household as the employee. That is broad, but the definition excludes applications in respect of care provided to non-relatives or relatives, such as uncles, aunts or cousins, who do not live in the same household. This is particularly important as the Irish family evolves. The family of choice, as we might call it, is much more common, in particular for the LGBTQIA+ community. It may also be at odds with the pending referendum on Article 41 of the Constitution to extend the definition of family. That needs to be taken into consideration.

The extension of breastfeeding breaks is important. It normalises it. It is a normal and natural thing, and that is how it should be.

I am very happy to hear what the Minister for Justice had to say about domestic violence leave. In truth, it needs to be introduced as soon as possible, not just the leave but the development of workplace policies to support victims.

I will bring forward some amendments on this, but it gives me some comfort to know the Minister is determined we will not be waiting any length of time for this, because we cannot wait.

My last comment is on the need to ensure maternity and paternity leave for all politicians in this House and for councillors, which was referred to by one or two of my colleagues. Earlier I spoke of normalising breastfeeding. This would simply normalise women's involvement in politics. It will not do it completely but it will go a long way towards doing so. It is interesting that we look up when a child comes in here because we do not often see children in this place. One of the first times we saw a child in this Chamber was recently. That is a good thing to see in itself because it normalises family life and who we are.

This legislation reflects the reality of people's lives and it will help ease some of the burdens. I strongly welcome it. I will submit amendments and I hope we will have a chance to discuss them further.

See this speech in context