Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted that we are finally debating Second Stage of this Bill. I warmly welcome the transposition of the EU work-life balance directive. I acknowledge that there have been a number of very important additions made to the Bill, specifically the extension of breastfeeding leave from six months to two years. The argument that it was madness to extend this leave to six months has been articulated. It would have meant that women returning to the workforce would have been unable to avail of breastfeeding breaks. The provisions on domestic violence and remote working are also important. I am glad the Government has finally seen sense and merged the remote and flexible work provisions in one Bill, even though we still have the ludicrous situation where we treat flexible and remote work separately. I know there will be a review of two years but it is ludicrous that they are separate.

Notwithstanding that the Bill transposes the EU work-life balance directive, it is about catching up with the events that have taken place within the world of work in this country and across the developed world over the last two and a half years. It puts remote and flexible work into a legal framework.We are all aware of the massive shifts that have taken place with regard to forced remote working and now hybrid working in remote instances. I draw particular attention to what has been happening to women in the Irish labour market over the past two and a half years and how access to flexible and remote work has been instrumental in this. Between the first quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2022, there was a 9.5% increase in the number of females in full-time employment. The rate of growth of female full-time employment is running at approximately 3.5 times the rate of growth for male full-time employment. Why is this? We know that part-time employment is defined not as working half the number of hours but as working for less than full-time hours. When many women reach a particular age, or because of the circumstances of their lives, they drop back from full-time hours to four days a week or fewer. The benefit of remote and flexible work is that they realised they are able to work full-time and still manage all of the other responsibilities in their lives, such as getting children to school. This is because they have flexibility.

The key issue with the Bill is how we do not turn back the clock but build on the great progress that has happened. This is not in any way to diminish what is also happening in terms of the struggles for some women in the workplace with regard to productivity because they have been trying to manage responsibilities at home. How do we not turn back the clock with this legislation? How do we realise the potential? Senators Currie, Gavan and others eloquently made the argument about the opportunities that are available to us now. I am thinking in particular of the 13.5% of people who are categorised by the CSO as being in the potential additional labour force category and who say that they would like to work but are not actively seeking work because of the structural barriers in their lives, whether childcare, disability or other issues. It is important to consider how the legislation might play a role in getting those people into the workplace.

When we compare Ireland with other EU member states, we discover that have the highest number of jobless lone parents and disabled persons in the labour market. How do we begin to ensure that lone parents and disabled persons have greater opportunities and access to the world of work? I think about all of this when I look at the provisions in the Bill. The Bill makes provision for a six-month waiting period to access flexible work. I have to appeal to the Minister. We cannot see flexible work as a perk for good behaviour. We have to build it in as a default right from day one; it should not be seen as something to be earned. The Minister has responsibility for equality and integration. I know he takes very seriously issues relating to the very high levels of unemployment among disabled persons. We have to look at how we make flexible work available from day one. The recommendation of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment is that we move to 13 weeks. I would not be happy with 13 weeks but it would be far better than the 26 weeks in the Bill. I would argue that it should be available from day one.

With regard to access to flexible work provisions, the cut-off age for caring for a child is 12 years. Any parent of a 12-year-old knows that they cannot necessarily be given a key to let themselves into the house. It works for some families but not for others. We should not presuppose that just because a child turns 12 that all of a sudden the parent's responsibilities and requirement for flexibility disappears. They do not.

I want to speak about caring roles. I have great difficulty with the Bill seeking to prescribe the circumstances in which a person is caring. If I happen to be caring for an aunt or my mother in law it is not provided for in the Bill. We need to put ourselves into a head space of recognising that people require flexibility with regard to hours of work and places of work for a variety of reasons that we will never be able to fully set out in legislation. It is disappointing that we do not have a full and comprehensive right to flexible work in the Bill. The Bill will work very well for those in jobs but does nothing for those looking to get a job. Where is our ambition, particularly for lone parents and disabled persons?

I warmly welcome the provisions on leave for medical care purposes. We have to ask whether the provisions as they are currently designed will benefit those who need to access the leave. Those who are salaried and higher earners tend by and large to have more flexibility as part of their work than somebody whose weekly wage is determined by the hours they work or those on lower incomes. We know those on lower incomes or more junior in workplaces have issues. Will the unpaid leave make a difference for them? They have the double whammy of paying for medical care if it is required and not getting paid. I urge the Minister to think about this. Domestic violence leave will not be at the full rate and will be set up by means of regulation. Those who are victims of domestic and sexual-based violence will have to think twice about taking the leave. This is a serious issue.

There was a big uproar at the start of the year because there would be no right to appeal a refusal by an employer if an employee sought the right to work remotely or work flexibly. There is still no real right to appeal an employer's refusal. I am looking at section 27.