Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the tool the Minister has described has been borrowed from another toolbox. It is not a tool designed for this situation. The Minister referred to balancing different interests. Are we tackling domestic violence and trying to introduce domestic violence leave? A rights-based approach recognises domestic violence as an egregious breach of human rights. We as a society should have no tolerance for it. Workplaces and all other parts of society are due to challenge and address domestic violence. Is that the approach we are taking? Are we balancing our approach to measure its effect on employers and employees? Tackling domestic violence is not just a nice thing for employees to have. It is essential to make our society more equal. It is central to making us a society that does not have the scourge of violence, domestic violence and violence against women in different forms. Those acts of violence occur internationally but have a long history in Ireland. This is a different matter from negotiating between interest groups. It is a rights-bases piece. It is not a matter of balancing the interests of employers and employees. This is something we as a society are trying to take robust steps to tackle. I do not know who is concerned about domestic violence leave in particular business sectors and I will not hazard a guess. The Minister has made it clear that the issue is not about whether the leave will happen but rather about the rate that will apply. If we balance interests in the way the Minister has suggested, we may end up with a meaningless rate of domestic violence leave with so many caveats that it becomes effectively unusable.

I appreciate the Minister has referenced on multiple occasions the section that mentions the state of society generally, the public interest and employee well-being. I am not trying to remove that part of the Bill. I like that section. In fact, I think the references to the state of society generally and the public interest are sufficient to cover the economic elements. Where there are economic issues that might affect the public interest of economic factors within society generally, section 13AA(7)(b), which refers to the state of society generally and the public interest, is sufficient. However, we should not be balancing the public interest, society and employee well-being against the specific preferences of different sectors, whether it has been a good or bad year for any one sector and whether companies in some sectors believe they can afford to offer this paid leave. I urge the Minister to consider section 13AA(7)(a) and some of the language that is used in section 13AA(7)(c). It is still inappropriate. The Minister is not an adjudicator around a balancing of interests. He is the Minister with responsibility for equality and is trying to address a social ill and ensure our employment regulations reflect and support that. That consideration needs to be centre stage in the mission. I urge the Minister to take a more ambitious and thoughtful approach and to use the right criteria. I also urge him to listen. There are separate issues around piece work, extra work and overtime, but we need the basic rate of pay to remain the same because of the safety issue. The Minister is recommending the use of a particular tool for a particular set of circumstances but the circumstance we are considering is one in which a person may be unsafe.

I know it is hard to bring forward these arguments. We argued in the Seanad for coercive control legislation and were told by a Minister for Justice that all the tools we had already would work. We kept saying they do not work. It took quite an argument for even the officials to understand that coercive control was particular and required particular measures to tackle it. I am glad there was a shift in understanding and a willingness to listen to the detail and reality of people's experiences and to design policy that works for people rather than taking existing policy tools and simply trying to ram them into a new situation. There was a real breakthrough on coercive control.

As the Minister has said, we have the opportunity to be leaders in respect of domestic violence leave. It would be a brilliant initiative if we had good legislation. Because we are leaders and one of the first to do it, we must do it right. Let us design it for the actual needs of those experiencing domestic violence. Let us set a good template rather than borrow an old template. Let us set a good template for other countries which I hope will follow and bring in similar leave.