Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 13, line 24, to delete “shall” and substitute “may”.

The Minister spoke about the review. In a way, we have already had a trial period because of Covid. I worry that if we lower our ambition for two years and let the status quo sink back in, we will be on the back foot. We had a trial period for remote and flexible working and it largely worked. There were some learnings or improvements to be made, but we are losing some momentum by making flexible work available to some people some of the time, based on needs, after a period when it has been a widespread practice. I worry that we are narrowing that down. We should not be at a point of piloting this idea. We should try to take the momentum and move as far as possible.

One problem is this concessionary mind-set that wrongly assumes flexible working is always going to be a burden on an employer, whereas there is much evidence it does, as Senator Currie outlined, deliver very positively. It also means we can keep a lot more women in the workplace who have been shown by the figures to fall out of the workplace at various points.

While I do not think this is the intention, the way in which section 13B(3) is framed suggests a hard measure whereby the flexible working arrangement for the care of a child "shall" end not later than the date on which the child has achieved 12 years. Why is the State requiring that this flexible working arrangement end? If an employer and an employee are happy to have this continue, why would we provide that it must end not later than a certain date? That is the language used here. The amendment, which is a simple one, will simply replace "shall" with "may" in order that this will become the point at which the arrangement may end. The evidence for this came through when lone parents were required to have their care work become invisible within the system in that they became ineligible for the jobseeker's transitional payment when their child reached the age of 14, a point that relates to my other amendments, which concern the age provision, by making them have to be available full time from the point at which their child turned 14, in contrast to other parents in the State. It did not look to the reality that teenagers often still need care, and that while the parent may have some availability, he or she may still need flexibility. Those hours between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. might be very important. There have been cases, for example, of hostile scheduling, where older workers, who might have slightly better rates of pay, find themselves always scheduled for the evening shift. We have seen this in retail, where older workers were always being scheduled for the evening shift because the employer knew they had teenage children whom they did not want to leave unsupervised between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. Perhaps one 14-year-old would be fine and would be able to be at home on his or her home, whereas another one would not be. Similarly, in the case of 12- and 13-year-olds, the idea of ending the provision at that point is very blunt. When a child reaches the age of 12, that may be a useful point to negotiate a flexible working arrangement, but the idea of the flexible working arrangement ending, and bluntly being required to end, at that age is not appropriate. When we send out a signal like this, it almost acts as a perverse measure that encourages employers to end it at that point. I recall that when the Department of Social Protection sent out a circular stating that child support did not have to be paid after a certain point, that led, of course, to a fall-off in child support payments. When a signal stating something "shall" end is sent out, that is very negative.

A number of other Senators also tabled amendments in this grouping, so I will give them some space. My other amendments relate to the provision concerning children with a disability. Again, it is not clear why the age of 16 years is specified. It should be 18 for all parents. Children of 16 years cannot apply for the disability allowance, as I understand it, and do not qualify for their own payment at that age.