Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 11, to delete lines 38 and 39.

Regarding amendment No. 8, there is a line in this Bill that inserts a crazily high bar on the delivery of this urgent need, which is leave for domestic violence purposes. I refer to the phrase "the state of the economy generally, the business environment and national competitiveness". The idea that the state of the economy in general would be a reason for providing or not providing people with leave in situations where they are experiencing violence or abuse or are in danger is a little bizarre. We do not put that kind of caveat on lots of things, but to impose it in this regard would be a real danger. This is not a luxury; having domestic violence leave is not something that we add on because if the economy is doing great, we can afford to give the women something. It is an essential and sensible provision to include.

In terms of the regulations, I am not objecting to the new subsection (7)(b), which refers to "the state of society generally, the public interest and employee well-being". That recognises that there are many other circumstances which might mitigate the need for this leave - if we have much better social supports, for example, or if there are much better other supports around persons experiencing domestic violence. However, the idea that competitiveness and the business environment would be determinants is problematic. If we were to attach that to every kind of leave or measure, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom because the economy is always in flux. We have had four or five crises of different kinds in the time I have been a Senator. It is a little bit of a hostage to fortune to place that as a caveat on something that is genuinely positive and laudable, that is, the fact that Ireland is stepping up and recognising domestic violence. This is part of a progression that began with the recognition of coercive control, which Seanad Éireann fought for and won. Domestic violence leave is part of a move forward but the language used in lines 38 and 39 is inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill.

This section relates to prescribing the rate of domestic violence leave pay and there are other issues which we will come to around leave pay. Amendment No. 9 seeks the deletion of the new subsection (7)(c) for reasons similar to the reasons behind my seeking the deletion of the new subsection (7)(a). This subsection refers to the "potential impact, including the potential for any disproportionate or other adverse impact, that the rate of domestic violence leave pay to be prescribed will have on the economy generally, specific sectors of the economy, employers or employees ". Again, if we are talking about something that is very particular because it is an emergency measure, then what we do not want is special pleading from a specific sector like hospitality, for example. We do not want arguments against decent rates of domestic leave pay because a specific sector of the economy cannot pay them. Hospitality is a specific sector of the economy and is great at special pleading. The Minister is looking at me sceptically, but these provisions are in the Bill. If we do not think these measures or provisions will be used, why are they in the Bill? Why include them? Why put in place caveats in respect of special sectors of the economy in the context of whether people will be given pay? Why include those provisions? It is better for the legislation to be clear that this is something we are doing wholeheartedly and clearly because we are focused on the rights of those experiencing domestic violence and it is not something that will be variable vis-à-viswhether sectors of the economy can afford to be decent.

Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert a new provision into the subsection (7)(e), which explicitly includes "service providers working in the area of domestic violence" in the expert opinion that the Minister may consider in the context of paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive. All of these amendments relate to the regulations that the Minister will make with regard to domestic violence leave and the rates of leave pay. The views of employer representative bodies and trade unions are included, as is the need to obtain expert opinion. However, one of the missing pieces, which may or may not be construed as part of expert opinion, is the specific opinion of service providers. Service providers, those which people are taking domestic violence leave to access, are going to be able to give the Minister very important information in respect of what kind of time people need and what is actually involved when somebody is seeking one of the services under this legislation. These service providers may be covered by the phrase "expert opinion, research, national or international reports", but explicitly naming them would be very useful. They are the bodies to which persons availing of this leave will be going and they have the greatest sense of what is needed.

Women's Aid wrote to Senators to raise issues relating to the rate of pay, and there are questions in this regard. There are differences of opinion on the idea of full replacement. I understand that Women's Aid is seeking full replacement. In general, there is a concern in the context of having unequal levels of payment in terms of who is getting what, but there is a unique circumstance relating to domestic violence leave that favours having full replacement, namely, that one of the main forms that domestic abuse takes - and we know this from coercive control - is financial control. The very fact of having a dip in one's income is, itself, a potential signal to an abuser. Those who are in coercive control situations, which are often tied up with domestic violence, do not have financial independence or full control of their own finances. One of the things that makes it very difficult for people to leave an abusive situation is the scrutiny of their finances and it is one of the reasons domestic violence is leave is so important. People often do not have control of what they are doing except for when they are at work. Those are the hours that are accounted for which allow them to make arrangements and that is why it is important that they take leave then because they do not have control of their evenings, in some cases. Every hour after work might be monitored by an abusive partner. Similarly, their finances may be monitored. Regardless of one's view on replacement rates in general, this is a particular circumstance that should be considered in the making of these regulations in terms of the rate of domestic leave pay. That is where that expertise on domestic violence hopefully comes in.

Amendment No. 11 also refers to the issue of service providers and their expert opinions. The strength of this is that it gives a wider level of input for them. I wish to indicate to the Minister that I might be tabling some more amendments on this matter for Report Stage because these regulations will be the crux of how this works, and whether it actually works. I do not want us to be dependent solely on the Minister's goodwill or the goodwill of a future Minister. I would like the regulations themselves and the criteria around them to be really clear and rights driven, rather than interest balancing.