Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, back to the House once more to deal with the Report and Final Stages of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022.

Before we commence I remind Senators that they may only speak once on Report Stage. If they propose an amendment, they may reply to a discussion on the amendment. Each non-Government amendment must be seconded.

Amendments No. 1 to 3, inclusive, in the names of Senator's Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn cannot be moved as the Senators are not present.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 4 is in the names of Senators, Warfield, Ó Donnghaile, Boylan and Gavan and arises from Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, to delete lines 15 to 43, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 10, and substitute the following:

“(5) The pay in respect of an employee’s domestic violence leave shall—

(a) where applicable, be paid to the employee in advance of his or her taking the leave,

(b) be at the normal weekly rate, or as the case may be, at a rate which is proportionate to the normal weekly rate, and

(c) in a case in which board or lodging or, as the case may be, both board and lodging constitute part of the employee’s remuneration,

include compensation, calculated at the prescribed rate, for any such board or lodging as will not be received by the employee whilst on

domestic violence leave.

(6) In this section, ‘normal weekly rate’ means the normal weekly rate of the pay of the employee concerned determined in accordance with

regulations made by the Minister for the purposes of this section.”.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will be aware that there is a very significant concern in respect of the domestic violence provisions in this Bill and the failure to date of the Minister to follow through with the commitment that one of his officials gave in the past week, which was to propose an amendment to do away with the provision of a reduced rate of pay for domestic violence leave. I note that there is no such Government amendment proposed to do that. I am genuinely shocked by that.

I spoke yesterday evening on a related matter and I explained that I understood the Minister was going to propose an amendment to deal with this issue, to ensure a victim of domestic violence would not suffer a pay cut, with respect to payment for domestic violence leave. I was under the impression that everyone understood and was in agreement on this point.We raised it this morning on the Order of Business when we found out that there was no such amendment scheduled for today and we asked that the Government pause this Bill until such time as the amendment was tabled. Unless the Minister says to me, and I hope he will, that he will accept my party's amendment No. 4, which deals with this issue, I will be at a genuine loss because as matters stand there is no amendment from the Government to address the matters raised by Women's Aid, the National Women's Council of Ireland and the Fórsa trade union.

I am told the Minister confirmed in the Dáil today that the reduced pay provisions will remain in this Bill. That is entirely unacceptable. The amendments the Minister has put down in relation to this issue are minor and simply mean that the Minister must have regard to the views of domestic violence services when he cuts victims' pay.

I am genuinely at a loss as to why the Minister has not done what his official said he would do and address this issue and get rid of the reduced pay provisions. However, I recognise that Senators from all parties across this Chamber have called on the Minister to address this issue. Senator Chambers endorsed the view of Women's Aid and said that priority should be given to ensure women's safety. Senator Seery Kearney said that the legislation should be reviewed and she would strongly advocate for it to be changed. The Minister of State, Deputy Madigan, and Deputy Emer Higgins said the legislation should be reviewed, and the Minister of State, Deputy Madigan, said victims should get full pay as "it is not their fault".

Here is the difficulty. If we do not fix this now, when we have the opportunity to do so, Deputy O'Gorman will not only be failing in his duty as a Minister and failing the women and, indeed, men of Ireland who are victims of domestic abuse, he will be failing politics because everyone here knows what the right thing to do is, and for the life of me, I do not understand why the Minister does not do it.

I appeal to the Minister and to my colleagues on the Government benches to support this amendment. The Minister should not let this opportunity pass. This is the last chance to do the right thing on this issue. The Minister has the power to do so.

The Minister is making a political choice. At present, he appears to be making the wrong political choice. Let me stress again that nothing in the amendments proposed by the Government today deals with this issue. The reduced pay provisions remain in this Bill unless we agree, here and now, to remove them. The Minister should do so.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call other Senators, I welcome Mr. Ralph D. Day and Mr. John Shannon from the United States of America to Leinster House. They are guests of Deputy James O'Connor. They are both welcome to Leinster House. I hope they enjoy their evening.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support amendment No. 4. I note my party's amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order. I do not understand why given that it is, to all intents and purposes, the same as amendment No. 4. Nonetheless, my party will support amendment No. 4.

On the previous occasion, I said clearly that my party welcomes the introduction of domestic violence leave. All of us in this Chamber want it to work but we have to look at the details ensuring that it will work. As Senator Gavan and others said, Women's Aid, the women's council and the Fórsa trade union support it.

Women who have come to us have said that they have found themselves in this situation and that if they have to think twice about taking this leave, they will not take it.

I acknowledge something has been done in the Minister's amendments in terms of the criteria regarding the regulations but, frankly, it is tinkering around the edges. The one significant change is that the Minister is deleting "the state of the economy generally, the business environment and national competitiveness;" in amendment No. 7. At the end of the day the message that must go out from this Chamber is that if a woman or a man finds herself or himself in a domestic violence leave situation, she or he is afforded the protection that should be there with that leave and that she or he gets full pay.

This is a fantastic progressive move in terms of the introduction of domestic violence leave but it will not be worth the paper it is written if we do not get the detail right. We have to get the detail right. The right message has to go out from this House to a person considering taking this leave. The Minister should bear in mind that for those finding themselves in the situation, it will not be an overnight decision. People will have to think about this because usually they will have been in this situation for a period of time. If they have to think twice, they will not take it. We have to make life as easy as possible for those in domestic violence situations in the context of their workplace and ensure they get full pay.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason I came in to join with my colleague on this issue is that I took some time today to speak to some people who are survivors of domestic violence. Obviously, we tabled our amendment because we felt it was meaningful and worthwhile. I am speaking to amendment No. 4, which, as my colleague said, for all intents and purposes, is the same amendment as amendment No. 5. As people gave of their time to speak to me and to share their experiences, what they wanted to see come out of this legislation and how they believed this legislation would have impacted them had it been around when they were experiencing this, I felt I needed to speak on this.

The main message I got was that any legislation we enact or anything we do cannot put victims in further jeopardy. It must always be about underpinning support for those victims and support for people who are leaving the situation. As we all know, getting to the stage of leaving that situation can take quite some time. It can take an enormous toll on the victim, on their family and often on their children. The people I spoke to felt that 70% of pay was not looking at this from a compassionate perspective. They also spoke about the ten days, the amount of time they would have, etc.

Some people will not be able to afford to be on 70% of pay. They are already faced with leaving a situation. A person I spoke to talked about financial abuse being a key element of what happens in a domestic violence situation. Of those leaving their family situation because of domestic violence, the figure I was given was that 70% will also be experiencing financial abuse. They are already at a financial disadvantage. They are already stepping away from their financial unit. I do not see how we can stand over saying that they should only get 70% of what they would have had before. The women I spoke to said they do not see how we can stand over that. It would be a disincentive to avail of it because they do not believe they would be able to financially survive on 70% of what they have.

What comes with leaving such a situation are legal fees, counselling and accommodation, all of which are prohibitively expensive. Many of these women will be leaving with children which, obviously, increases the costs significantly. Women who are experiencing domestic violence are also likely to suffer from loss of earnings due to taking sick leave and all of the other elements that come with that.

I felt it was important for me to speak given that these women took the time to speak to me about the impact of this legislation and how they felt we should pass legislation that is not fit for purpose.They feel that 70% provision, as it currently stands in the Bill, is not fit for purpose. I am jumping between two amendments because ours was ruled out of order. They spoke to me beforehand and I thought it was important to come before the House and say they wanted this legislation to be fit for purpose and not to be a disincentive. Everything has to be underpinned from the perspective of ensuring the woman is safe, meaning that she is physically safe, that she is safe in accommodation, and that she is financially safe and is not at a financial loss for whatever reason. We have to make sure the legislation underpins that. I ask the Acting Chair to forgive me if I am jumping between two amendments.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister and I exchanged messages earlier. I will obviously support the Government’s position. The privilege and the difficulty of being on the Government bench is that while you may not always agree with or like what goes through, you support it.

On Monday of this week, I sat for a long time with a woman in the context of a completely different conversation that I will come back to in the coming weeks. This woman spoke of the level of abuse in a relationship over the last number of years and its consequences. She was never subjected to physical assault. Everything was a psychological assault and a financial assault on her. It was to curtail her finances, to beset her, to watch her and to monitor absolutely everything about the woman’s life to the extent that she was so psychologically traumatised that she had no confidence in making any decision about anything. It has taken a lot of support and counselling for her to build up and be able to discuss anything.

In the context of sitting with her and listening, I saw just how short and challenged the responses of the State are to a person in those situations. When you look at a Bill that has domestic violence leave in it, you think it is a massive step forward and that it is fantastic. The nature of Report Stage is that we do not have the backwards and forwards engagement for which I would have wished at this point. The Minister has tabled amendments and I would have liked to have been able to hear his amendments and to have been able to engage with them backwards and forwards. Since we get one shot at it, I would like to hear some reassurance from the Minister that we cannot put in place a leave and make mandatory, statutory provisions that could potentially cause harm or could potentially render us in a position where people cannot avail of that leave. It seems to be an entire waste of our time. I am not quite sure what it is, but there is no point in providing for it unless it is effective. There is no point in putting something impotent on a statutory footing, when everyone in the field is saying they will not avail of it. The level of this detail by which the man watched and monitored this woman was extraordinary. As I sat listening to her, all that went through the back of my head was exactly this type of leave. These are the situations where a sudden drop in wages would actually have been spotted, would have been queried and would have led her to an even more vulnerable place in that context.

I urge the Minister to provide us with some sort of mechanism or reassurance as to how that will not be the case, how this will not be an impotent Bill and how it will be an effective tool to assist victims of domestic violence. We must bear in mind that from the Tusla perspective, domestic violence is physical assault, emotional and psychological abuse, financial abuse, sexual violence, social abuse, harassment on social media and honour-based violence. It covers all the psychological and financial abuse that the very provision we are putting in for may give rise to causing in a relationship or for a vulnerable person. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on it. I will stand firm that I do not think it is right for us to have a 70% provision. I do not think it is right. I will vote with the Government but I will do so with an incredibly heavy heart.