Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth debate -
Tuesday, 18 Oct 2022

Organisation of Working Time (Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2020: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Senators Lynn Ruane and Seery Kearney. In today's meeting, we will resume our scrutiny of the Organisation of Working Time (Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2020. This is a Private Members' Bill sponsored by Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Louise O'Reilly. We are joined, from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, by Ms Carol Baxter, assistant secretary, and Ms Jane Ann Duffy, principal officer. We also joined by representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, Mr. David Joyce, equality officer, and Ms Mandy La Combre, senior industrial relations officer of the Financial Services Union. From NUI Galway, we have Dr. Nata Duvvury, director at the Centre for Global Women's Studies. I welcome our witnesses and thank them for attending. We invited representatives of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC. However, due to other diary commitments, they were not in a position to attend.

I remind those joining us remotely that the chat function on MS Teams should only be used to make the team on-site aware of any technical issues or urgent matters that may arise and should not be used to make general comments or statements during the meeting. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate if he or she is not adhering to that constitutional requirement. Any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member participating via MS Teams to confirm, prior to making his or her contribution to the meeting, that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

In advance of inviting witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I wish to advise them of the following in regard to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses who are participating from the committee room are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. For witnesses who are appearing virtually before the committee, there is uncertainty as to whether parliamentary privilege applies to their evidence if given outside of the parliamentary precincts of Leinster House. Therefore, if directed by me to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter, it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The format of the meeting will comprise three opening statements. Each witness has five minutes and we ask witnesses to adhere to that timeframe in as far as possible. We will start with Ms Baxter, followed by Mr. Joyce and Dr. Duvvury.

Ms Carol Baxter

Apologies, Chair, my colleague Ms Jane Ann Duffy is giving the opening statement.

Chairman

That is no problem.

Ms Jane Ann Duffy

The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth holds responsibility for the development of policy and legislative proposals on family leaves. As the committee will be aware, family leaves have undergone significant expansion in recent years. Since 2019, this has included the introduction of paid parent’s leave and its extension to seven weeks for each parent of a child under two years of age and the extension of unpaid parental leave to 26 weeks in respect of a child under 12 years of age.

The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022 includes provisions for leave for medical care purposes and the extension of breastfeeding breaks. The Government has decided to bring forward, as part of that Bill, legislative proposals which will introduce domestic violence leave. These proposals are based on recommendations made as part of the domestic violence leave report.

The programme for Government contains a number of commitments aimed at addressing domestic violence leave, including the commitment to investigate "the provision of paid leave and social protection provision to victims of domestic violence." In response to this Private Members' Bill, the Government agreed to examine the feasibility of establishing a statutory entitlement to paid domestic violence leave and to provide a report. Work on the development of the domestic violence leave report began with a consultation process with relevant stakeholders, in particular service providers and victims' representative groups, through the monitoring committee of the second national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. This consultation had the aim of gathering their views on how best domestic violence leave should operate to address the needs of victims most effectively.

Consultations also took place with social partners, including employer representative groups and trade unions, to get a better understanding of the needs of employers and employees in terms of introducing such leave. These consultations explored the current approach taken by businesses to support employees experiencing domestic violence, including where there were existing domestic violence workplace policies in operation and lessons from how those operated. Submissions were also invited through the national equality strategies and other stakeholders who represented minority and other seldom heard voices, including the national strategy for women and girls, the national Traveller and Roma inclusion strategy, the national LGBTI+ inclusion strategy, and the migrant integration strategy. Alongside these consultations, research was undertaken into the international experience around the introduction of domestic violence leave. A number of countries have some form of leave for this purpose, both paid and unpaid and with different criteria.

The outcome of the consultations and research informed the development of the recommendations in the domestic violence leave report. Some key considerations were the need for the leave not to operate independently of other supports, that it should be part of a broader workplace awareness and openness around domestic violence, and that it should be available as flexibly as possible, to be taken when and as needed, with no notice period required.

The report's first recommendation focuses on the need for a broader approach to help victims, but also to help managers understand how best they can support an employee who is a victim. The Department is tendering for a partner who will help us to develop templates and guidance for employers of all sizes. The report also recommends that five days of paid domestic violence leave be introduced, to be taken within a 12-month period, with a provision that this measure be reviewed within two years of introduction with the option to extend to ten days. In order to facilitate uptake as needed, it also recommends that no notice period be required. Further recommendations include that the leave should be available for a range of purposes, including relocation or to seek legal or other supports, and that employment protections should apply.

Committee Stage amendments to the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022 are being finalised. These will be based on the detail of the recommendations that I have outlined.

I thank members for the invitation to meet the committee today. I am happy to answer whatever questions they may have on the development of the domestic violence leave report or on the legislative proposals.

Chairman

I thank Ms Duffy. I call Mr. Joyce.

Mr. David Joyce

I thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in its deliberations on this Bill. Congress endorses the introduction of paid domestic violence leave as a vital support for survivors. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Mandy La Combre, who will also participate in our discussion.

Economic independence from an abusive partner is essential for women experiencing domestic abuse and employment can play an important role in supporting abused women in remaining financially independent. Therefore, we warmly welcome the Bill. Indeed, we have engaged with Deputy O'Reilly on its contents. We also note the recent publication by the Government of the domestic violence leave report, which includes recommendations on how best to support employees experiencing domestic abuse. I will refer to this in our brief opening remarks.

Domestic violence leave has been a priority for the trade union movement, not only here in Ireland but internationally, as evidenced by the negotiation of International Labour Organization, ILO, convention No. 190 on violence and harassment in the world of work and its accompanying recommendation No. 206, which gives further, more detailed guidance on how the convention should be implemented at national level. One of the most important elements of the convention is that it deals with the issue of domestic violence. This was a key demand of trade unions. The convention recognises that domestic violence can impact the world of work - it can affect employment, productivity and health and safety - and that the world of work can be a key point of intervention in mitigating or reducing the impacts of domestic violence. The convention requires governments to take appropriate measures to recognise the effects of domestic violence and, so far as is reasonably practicable, mitigate its impact in the world of work.

The Bill and the recent announcement by the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, are in line with the spirit of the convention and recommendation No. 206, which specifies a range of measures to mitigate the impacts of domestic violence in the world of work, including leave for victims of domestic violence; flexible work arrangements and protection for victims of domestic violence; and the inclusion of domestic violence in workplace risk assessments. We welcome the Government's stated intention to ratify this important convention before the end of the year.

While welcoming these moves, congress has from the beginning made our position clear on some of the major issues involved. We believe that the leave should be a minimum of ten days per rolling 12-month period, which is stipulated in the Bill. This should not be reduced to five. In certain cases, ten days may not be enough and additional unpaid leave may be necessary. We also recommend consideration of a process for additional leave to cover exceptional circumstances. Ideally, this should be paid leave but, at a minimum, it should be some unpaid leave provision that could work similarly to maternity leave provisions.

On the issue of proof, for domestic violence leave to be successful, there should be as few barriers as possible to taking the leave. Survivors already face an overwhelming number of barriers when reporting or disclosing violence, including sociocultural attitudes and stigma, sexual assault myths and personal repercussions. Requiring proof for this type of leave reinforces the all-too-common perception that individuals reporting violence are somehow not credible or trustworthy. Given the stigma that abuse carries and the fact that it is vastly under-reported, there is little reason to believe that any such leave would be widely misused. In fact, research suggests the opposite. In Australia, interviews with employers who had had leave in place for several years through enterprise agreements found that the leave was infrequently used even where employers had actively promoted its provision. Furthermore, since violence thrives in secrecy, there will in many cases be no external way for a service provider to confirm that domestic or sexual violence has occurred.

Regarding workplace agreements, economic insecurity is one of the greatest factors inhibiting victims of domestic violence from escaping violent situations at home. To address this problem, unions and employers have developed paid domestic violence leave provisions that allow victims to attend legal proceedings, medical appointments or other events or activities related to the violence they have experienced without risk of lost income or employment. Congress believes that paid leave should be part of a broader domestic violence and work policy that would also support survivors in other ways. My colleague, Ms La Combre, will be happy to discuss what a workplace policy should cover. Her union, along with SIPTU, the Communication Workers' Union, CWU, and others, has been leading the way in this regard.

On the issue of costs, claims that the introduction of such leave might somehow undermine our competitiveness are simply not credible. An Australian study, entitled Economic Aspects of Paid Domestic Violence Leave Provisions, considered the likely impact of domestic violence leave on the payroll costs of employers and found that incremental payments to workers taking the leave would amount to one fiftieth of 1% - 0.02% - of current payrolls. The report argued that this argument misunderstood the nature of competitiveness in a modern, innovation-driven economy. Cementing a reputation as a safe, high-quality and inclusive place to live would be beneficial to national competitiveness, and paid leave for victims of domestic violence would be an important symbol of Ireland's commitment in that regard.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to submit our views on this important legislation. We are happy to respond to whatever questions members may have.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Joyce. I call Dr. Duvvury.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

I thank the committee for this opportunity to make a statement. The Bill is a significant milestone, advancing gender equality in Ireland. It must be appreciated that the Bill is evidence-based legislation.

It is based on undeniable scientific evidence of the enormous human and financial costs of domestic violence and coercive control to individuals, families, employers, communities and the State. A recent Safe Ireland and University of Galway study estimated that the annual indicative cost of domestic violence for survivors is about €2.7 billion annually, or the equivalent of €56 billion over a 20-year period, based on the women who we interviewed. This level of loss is not surprising, given that a KPMG study of Vodafone employees found that 151,000 women employed in Ireland, or about 6% of the workforce, have had a lifetime experience of domestic violence, with 65% saying that domestic violence seriously or considerably affected their career progression, which leads to wage loss and productivity loss. These social and economic losses have significant macroeconomic implications which could potentially affect overall economic growth and the sustainability of the Irish economy. In the context of the current housing and cost-of-living crises, the repercussions take on an even greater salience. Domestic violence represents leakage from the economic system that needs to be stopped. This Bill goes one step towards that.

The proposed Bill is ground-breaking in its clear recognition that domestic violence is not a private family matter, but rather a public concern which has serious consequences across society, including in the workplace. Recognition of the collective effort needed by all stakeholders to prevent domestic violence, as well as to mitigate its consequences, is required. It is particularly important that the Bill is being introduced as part of the organisation of working time legislation. It places domestic violence as a central economic issue as well as a human rights violation. The proposed Bill marks a critical juncture in our recognition of the workplace as an important site of safety for women. If the legislation is passed, Ireland would join a handful of countries globally which have domestic violence legislation. It is important, therefore, to seriously consider the Bill and pass it.

When we consider legislation, we also need to understand whether there are issues that could affect the effectiveness of the proposed Bill. We need to consider the universality of the application of the law. While there is no reference to the size of the enterprise, there is concern about the extent to which this law would apply to small entrepreneurs hiring only one or two employees, or employees without contracts, such as volunteers or other informal workers. When considering domestic violence, it is important to understand that domestic employment or employment in a family enterprise puts more women at risk of experiencing domestic violence. These employees are outside the ambit of the Organisation of Working Time Act, so there should be special consideration for them. This applies equally to whether this legislation will be relevant to gig economy workers, who are often mischaracterised as self-employed independent contractors. Those who experience domestic violence are the least likely to be able to fight against this mischaracterisation. We need to consider the impact of this law for gig workers.

The review of legislation across the world has shown that the effectiveness of the law can be limited by the lack of proactive will among employers. Positive obligations have to be placed on employers to implement the law. This is done in New Zealand, where there is a financial penalty if the employer does not implement a domestic violence policy or domestic violence leave. There should be some limitations on employers’ rights to refuse domestic violence leave. A significant issue that has been highlighted is that there is sometimes, given that this is between employer and employee, a deference to employers in legislation and to their right to discipline their workforce and fire unproductive employees. This is not the case for women who are experiencing domestic violence. There should be adequate consideration of the obligations being placed on employers.

Leave by itself is insufficient. There have to be other reasonable accommodations. As ILO convention No. 190 points out, these accommodations include flexible working time, financial support, supervisory support to manage work performance, support to seek protection orders, and clear safety measures to maintain confidentiality and privacy.

The terminology in the legislation needs to be clearer, particularly with regard to coercive control. No clear definition of coercive control is given. It is a new concept and it is not well understood by policymakers or even by those women who experience coercive control. There is a lack of a definition of what constitutes serious alarm or distress. This is particularly important because women experiencing violence tend to minimise the effects of domestic violence. We must flesh out this term.

There is no focus on the perpetrator or abuser. This is important. As long as domestic violence leave policies only focus on the person experiencing the domestic violence, it indicates that the victim is responsible for addressing domestic violence. We need to bring the perpetrator into the picture.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Duvvury. Will Deputy Dillon confirm that he is on the grounds of the Leinster House complex?

Deputy Alan Dillon

Yes. I am in the Leinster House precinct. I thank the Chair for the opportunity. I welcome the witnesses. I support paid leave and social protection provisions for victims of domestic violence and welcome the opportunity to discuss it.

What are the witnesses' thoughts on eligibility for leave, particularly with the definition of employee that is used in the legislation and the length of employment that is required before people are able to access leave? How would employers fulfil their statutory obligation to grant that leave? I note the Tánaiste recently rejected IBEC's suggestion that proof would be required for domestic abuse paid leave. What are the witnesses' thoughts on IBEC's submission? Will they provide some insight on the eligibility for leave for women who are subjected to domestic violence?

The Minister recently stated that the role of the Workplace Relations Commission would require close examination and expressed concerns about the privacy of victims. What considerations in the domestic violence leave report will address the privacy of victims?

My last question relates to the proposed introduction of five days paid leave for victims of domestic violence to be taken within 12 months, with the provision to be reviewed within two years. Why not introduce a ten-day option now? What will the review within a two-year period entail?

Chairman

I ask the witnesses to indicate if anyone wishes to answer a specific question.

Ms Mandy La Combre

I can say something on proof. I have been negotiating workplace policies around domestic violence for some time within my union. In our sector, no employer we have dealt with is seeking proof. We already know the statistics that one in four women in the Republic of Ireland suffers domestic abuse and fewer than one in three actually reports it. We know even fewer report it when it comes to the workplace. The idea that we are putting more barriers in place such as seeking proof is, from a trade union perspective, a total non-runner, to be honest. We are not supportive of that and we do not believe that if people have to do it they will come forward. We are talking about emergency situations and, as my colleague, Mr. Joyce, said, how people can prove things like coercive control and stuff like that. The proof issue is a dodgy area to be getting into and an extra barrier to put in place for people.

In terms of five versus ten days' leave, we have workplace policies which have ten days' leave. It is a floor rather than a ceiling in the policies we have negotiated already. Employers have told us they do not want to reduce the number of days or never sought to look for fewer days. In the review process of policies they are not saying there is something that they want to reduce. The ten-day period is very necessary when we see the kind of things people need that leave for. Employment is sometimes the only safe space for somebody who is suffering domestic violence. People might need that leave for childcare, to meet agencies or for court hearings or meetings with gardaí. This is the time that those who are suffering abuse are hidden from their abuser and can access services. The number of days leave is very important and five is too few. Proof is not adequate.

On the privacy issue, I am a trade union official and a trained HR professional. I do not believe there should be anybody working in any employment or HR department who is not empathetic or does not have the ability to hold something confidential.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

In the University of Galway, we have for the first time introduced a domestic violence leave policy. We developed the policy after a review of the experience across different countries. One of the first things we noticed is that ten days has become the international norm as a minimum, recognising that for some women it might be more. There has to be flexibility with an employer to figure out what the amount of leave should be. A period of ten days' leave is now becoming the universal standard.

It is also becoming standard that proof is extremely difficult to provide in this context and that employers undermine the effectiveness of legislation by even talking about a requirement to provide proof. In the University of Galway policy, we have no requirement for proof. We have also made possible that if a woman goes to an external agency for support the agency can contact HR in the University of Galway and say it thinks the person may need to avail of the leave. HR can then be more proactive. We have a trained person in HR who will work with women and has been trained in confidentiality and maintaining privacy.

Ultimately, employers across the world are beginning to recognise that domestic violence is a serious workplace issue because it has significant consequences for productivity. It is not just about women taking leave. If women are less present, there is presenteeism and they are less productive while being at work, the purpose of any kind of profit-making business is defeated. Employers are recognising this has significant implications for their reputation. It is part of the movement towards corporate social responsibility. This is a time to be bold and expand the possibility of addressing domestic violence in a significant way.

Ms Carol Baxter

The Government is very committed to the introduction of domestic violence leave. This is a groundbreaking and key achievement. In developing leave we have to be very conscious of practices in other jurisdictions and a range of considerations. Five days has been put forward because it reflects the practice in a range of jurisdictions. The introduction of such leave enables a range of purposes to be achieved in terms of going to court, medical appointments and so on.

The reason we are talking about a review is that it is very hard to know at this stage how much leave somebody will need. This is a relatively untested area. At the same time, we have to be mindful of the business needs of employers. That is why it seemed reasonable to start with five days, which achieves quite a lot. It enables the victim, who is a very important person in this process, to undertake a range of things and protect himself or herself in the context of the experience of domestic violence while, from an employer's point of view, having regard to business needs. My colleague will speak about the definition of "employee", which was a particular concern of Deputies.

Ms Jane Ann Duffy

In drafting amendments, one consideration was amending the Parental Leave Act to include provisions modelled on force majeure leave which has flexibility in that it can be taken immediately and dealt with retrospectively. That would entail all of the protections under the Act. There would be recourse to the WRC in that case. The definition of "employee", therefore, would be the definition of employee under the current leave Act.

Chairman

Okay. We have gone over time. I am being generous with time. We will move on. I ask Senator McGreehan to confirm she is in the Leinster House complex.

Senator Erin McGreehan

I am in my office on the Leinster House complex. I thank all of the witnesses for their contribution and coming to Leinster House today to discuss this issue. It is exciting that we could be one of the first countries to introduce domestic violence leave. I work with refugees and Women's Aid. One of the things that has been highlighted to me over the past couple of years is that leave for domestic violence would be a game changer for many women and families because it affects women with children.

Previous contributors touched on the questions I was going to ask around the number of days of leave.

I understand why we might start off with ten days but should we not just start off with the international norm? I do not have a question on the concept of domestic violence leave but I have a question for the Department. We are very serious about introducing this leave in Ireland. However, if we create something in isolation without the necessary buy-in and understanding of general society, businesses, communities, women and victims of domestic violence, we will fail. It will not be effective. What work will be done in parallel to this Bill to support women to take up this leave? What will be done to help them to understand this is something they can do, that it is non-prejudicial and safe to do and that they will be okay? From the employers point of view, will there be an onus on them to upskill their staff? Are we going to support that upskilling so that if someone who needs this leave comes to the door of a HR manager, that manager will be able to work effectively and guide that person in the right direction?

My next question is directed at IBEC and NUI Galway. Is there a body or an organisation that can upskill staff? What is the best way to do this? This represents a significant change in our concept of domestic violence and we need societal buy-in and understanding. Are we ready? What work do we need to do to make sure we are ready?

Chairman

Thanks Senator. We will start with the Department.

Ms Jane Ann Duffy

In response to the question on the work in parallel, the first recommendation of the report is that we would support employers to develop policies. We fully recognise that the leave in a vacuum is not enough and that came through very strongly in the consultations. Employers need to put in place policies so that there can be openness in the workplace and managers understand what to do when someone comes to them. That will help to create the confidence for employees. We have tendered for a partner who will help us to develop templates and provide training and support to employers.

Ms Mandy La Combre

We have negotiated workplace policies and as part of those policies, an education piece is key. We have said all along that having domestic violence paid leave on its own does not work and that policies have to be in place too. The Danske Bank policy may be the best example of the training and education roll-outs. It was developed in conjunction with the police services, Women's Aid, the Rainbow Network and so on. They not only identified the training that needed to be done, they also rolled out the training with the bank. The policy is embedded in the culture of the organisation. When people start working with the bank, they are taught about the policy and the bank is continually assessing the policy and the way it is implemented. It permeates the organisation and everyone knows about it. It is really important to have that education piece and to have people in place who will implement the policy.

The Department's role here is to ensure that policies go hand in hand with the leave when it is introduced.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

It is not just about changing culture within organisations. Policies on domestic violence leave are being demanded by women themselves. Safe Ireland has been to the forefront of talking about this issue since 2018. Whenever I have spoken on this, women survivors have told me that this leave is so important because it is a recognition of how much domestic violence affects their capabilities as workers and employees. That recognition has already seeped into the community.

Education policies are essential. We cannot just leave it up to employers to figure out some policies. There is an incredible number of templates already out there. At the international level, Business Fights Poverty has developed excellent toolkits on domestic violence and how to address it in the workplace. It is not that we do not have the knowledge. We have the knowledge now. The question is whether we have the will and the courage to do this.

Chairman

Senator Clonan is next.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank everybody for their contributions which have helped me frame a couple of questions. My own research into discrimination and sexual violence in our armed forces is over 20 years old and as Dr. Duvvury said, we have the knowledge. We know this. In that research from 20 years ago, what struck me was that one in four of the female personnel that I interviewed experienced some form of serious sexual assault, up to and including rape. As an academic I have been involved with the expert advisory group for the Higher Education Authority on ending sexual violence and harassment on our university campuses and that figure comes up again. One in four of our students at third level can expect to experience sexual violence and harassment while on campus, in a place of safety, in a learning environment.

Ms La Combre said that one in four people experiences domestic violence. The majority are female but some men also experience it. We have heard some really interesting contributions from LGBTIQ and gay men's groups who talked about the additional stigma and barriers to reporting for men. It is absolutely clear, as Dr. Duvvury said, that we have the knowledge. We have a crisis. This affects one in four in this room, outside waiting to go into the other committee rooms and in these Houses of the Oireachtas. Those of us in Ireland who have experienced or witnessed domestic violence in the home or in our relatives' homes know that this is a crisis. There is a dynamic at play in Irish society and culture. The language for it is extensive. We have a very extensive vocabulary for it. My own personal bias, based on my life experience and research, is that we live in a predominantly patriarchal and toxic culture that reinforces these behaviours.

In that context, I have a number of questions. First, if a high profile organisation demands proof, when we know what we know, which is that this is a crisis, should that organisation and its spokespersons and leaders not be very robustly and publicly challenged for holding those views or even asking that question? Second, given the nature of domestic violence, should we not have more ambition? Five days is the absolute minimum and under any ethical test, whether Platonic or Aristotelian, that lacks courage, temperance and does not serve a wider justice. Should we not have more ambition? Rather than taking a minimum of five days, should we not take a more ambitious approach based on the evidence and the knowledge we have? We should not be bound, necessarily, by what is happening in other jurisdictions, if we know from the research that five is the bare minimum and is not enough, frankly.

Dr. Duvvury raised the issue of coercive control. Is there research to which she, Ms La Combre or any of the other witnesses can point us that might provide a useful working definition of "coercive control" that would assist us in modifying the legislation? We all know what it is, but it is emerging into the wider public discourse and is being recognised in the political narrative. It would be useful if there was a working definition.

Mr. David Joyce

Regarding the Senator's first two questions, any organisation that espouses a position regarding proof has to be able to stand up to any robust questioning of that. I agree that taking this step in itself is an important one for our country, but let us be ambitious and make it a step that will make the rest of the world stand up and see that we have done something serious - not a minimal step, but something that will make a significant difference in the lives of women predominantly, but also some men, who are the victims of domestic violence.

I do not have an answer to the Senator's third question. The departmental officials or someone else might.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

There is some significant academic writing on coercive control. Dr. Lindsay Stark is one of the main authors who first expanded our understanding of domestic violence to consider coercive control, which can include a range of behaviours from purely control behaviours, for example, wanting to know where someone is, asking who someone is speaking with and so on, to forms of emotional, physical and psychological violence. It is a pattern of behaviour that occurs over a lifetime; it is not one incident, but a repeated behaviour. It does not have to be physical violence. Ireland's coercive control legislation is important and we can take from it. In its implementation, though, it seems that an element of physical violence is what we are recognising as violence in the cases that are coming forward. We rarely recognise asking over and over again who someone spoke to, where did someone go, why is someone not at home by 12 a.m. or 1 a.m. or where did someone drive, yet these are as insidious and harmful as physical violence. We have to bring to the fore the importance of controlling behaviours, which are the hallmark of coercive control.

Ms Carol Baxter

I recognise the committee's interest in being ambitious in the legislation. Five days for all employees is significant.

Regarding the definition of "coercive control", our understanding is an evolution, as Dr. Duvvury said. Generally, where a term is under development, we tend not to define it when working on legislation because the definition will become outdated quickly. If we do not define it, then it allows new understandings to be attached to it. We recommend that it not be defined at this point, but there may be different views on that.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

This is an instructive discussion and I am leaning a great deal. I welcome the Bill. Labour supports it and notes the observations made on it.

I understand that IBEC was invited to attend this meeting but is not present. It would have been instructive for IBEC to attend because that would have broadened the discussion and we would have heard the employer's perspective. In my humble opinion, that IBEC is not present creates the perception that this is not a matter that it wants to engage on constructively with the Houses of the Oireachtas. Maybe it is waiting for further discussions with departmental officials and the Minister on the Government's Bill. Fair enough if that is the case, but it is rare that we have discussions of this nature where we have the trade union position and the academic position. These are good days in that respect, even though we are tackling a subject matter that is horrific.

I do not want to offend Dr. Nata by mispronouncing her surname, so I will call her "Dr. Nata", if that is okay. I wish to ask her about the key issues to consider to improve the effectiveness of the Bill. She referred to assessing "the universality of the application of the law." I have not fully internalised what she means by what she stated next:

While there is no reference to the size of the enterprise, there is concern about the extent to which this law would apply to small entrepreneurs hiring only one or two employees, or employees without contracts, such as volunteers or other informal workers. When considering domestic violence, it is important to understand that domestic employment or employment in a family enterprise [her written submission refers here to farms and households, which were the key words for me] puts more women at risk of experiencing domestic violence. These employees are outside the ambit of the Organisation of Working Time Act...

According to her, it was not clear that this group of workers come under the remit of the Bill. I have no doubt that Deputy O'Reilly will comprehensively address this point, but is there a potential wording that could be offered up by way of amendment or suggestion to the proposer of the Bill that would strengthen it, having regard to, ceteris paribus, the Deputy's answer? If this provision could be buttressed, doing so would be vital.

There is not only Deputy O'Reilly's Bill, but also the Government's Bill, and we are dealing with both. In the interventions that all of the witnesses have made today, we have a set of tools to strengthen both Bills or one or the other, depending on which is before us first. I welcome this Bill. If it could be strengthened, particularly in respect of farm holdings and domestic situations, I would welcome that.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

I thank the Deputy. This is important. I would have to reflect on the precise wording that needs to be introduced. I can send suggestions.

I raised the issue of farm and household enterprise because that is still one of the issues for women's employment in Ireland. Many of the social protection and welfare schemes have failed women who are in this type of employment, given that they are not seen as working, and, therefore, we need to consider this matter and bring it under the Bill's ambit.

I will not tell members the wording right now but I will send a suggestion.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Duvvury. If nobody else wishes to come in on Deputy Sherlock's points I will move on.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I thank the Chair.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I thank our guests and thank my colleague Deputy Ward, who has facilitated my having some time to speak. To be clear, we are not here to discuss the Government legislation. I have not seen the amendments yet, in any event. We are here to discuss what is substantially the only piece of legislation that exists that will achieve the aim. I do not think there is any disagreement from anyone at this committee, or indeed any Member of the Oireachtas, about the granting of this leave. There may be some dispute over whether we should be brave and ambitious in what we do or whether we should try to lag behind others but I think we broadly agree on the need for this legislation.

I have a few questions. The first is for Ms La Combre and Dr. Duvvury. Victims believing they will not be believed is an absolutely huge issue. While it is welcome the Government and the Minister have been pushed sufficiently to remove the requirement for proof, it is not totally gone. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, said "if issues arise with respect to misuse of this leave, changes may be made to permit employers to ask for supporting evidence, should they so require it". The removal of the proof is welcome but to leave the door open like that is very disappointing. It sends a very clear message from the 1950s to women to the effect that we are starting to trust them but we might not and we are going to keep an eye on them. It is very regrettable but from Ms La Combre and Dr. Duvvury's experience, do they imagine that even the threat of this might have a chilling effect on a worker coming forward to access this leave?

Ms Mandy La Combre

From my own perspective and from our union, we have negotiated several workplace policies and this issue has not come up.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

Ms La Combre is saying employers are not looking for it.

Ms Mandy La Combre

They are not looking for it at all. During the course of negotiations even the potential or possibility of abuse of the leave was never discussed. It is something I was flabbergasted by when I heard about it last week because it really is not an issue with the employers we have been dealing with. There are maybe only ten companies in the country, so far, that have domestic violence workplace leave policies and as far as I am aware none of them has sought this, so it seems ludicrous. We need to believe people and to trust them and employers need to trust their workers on this.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

Yes. We have been saying it for long enough and we need to do it.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

Part of the problem is the legislation in other jurisdictions that members may be considering and looking at has been introduced at various points in time. Thus, Australia requires proof whereas New Zealand moved from proof but then expanded the right of the employer to refuse the leave. Domestic violence is about power. A person who experiences violence is often extremely powerless and is not able to articulate and fight for what is their due because they believe they deserve it, due to the patriarchal notions that fuel violence. Even the threat you might have to give evidence or proof will have a chilling effect on people coming forward to apply for leave. This has been one of the big criticisms in academic literature about domestic violence leave policies in other jurisdictions. It has been documented and we have all come to the conclusion proof is just not possible in this case.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I agree and that is why it is not contained within the legislation sponsored by myself and our party president, Deputy McDonald. To be fair, I think most of the Government Members agree with us but leaving the door open or even slightly ajar is an issue, and one I wish to see dealt with.

We are talking about slashing the ten days to five because of an announcement made by Government but the three parties in government, from my reading of it, all support ten days. I understand that where it is in existence in this jurisdiction it is ten days. Fianna Fáil first committed to this leave in 2018, supplied a figure of ten days and has spoken about ten days since. The Green Party in the North brought forward legislation that provided for ten days. I think it was about a year and a half ago that the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science launched a policy in NUIG and it also provided for ten days. Do our guests from NUIG and ICTU see the ten days as representative of what is rapidly becoming the norm in the public and private sectors and that such an allocation would fit in broadly with what is being negotiated? The Department officials referenced looking at other jurisdictions, etc., when they came up with the five days, and I am sure they did. Where in the civil or public service is it established practice that that would be dealt with? Is the proposal, say in the example of NUIG, to take back five days from those people or is the proposal that there are two tiers of public servants with some who benefit from the ten days and others who do not? That is confusing to me and if you do any work at all with victims and survivors of domestic abuse, they will tell you the mixed messages that sometimes come from the establishment are deeply hurtful. On the one hand you might say you support something but on the other it does not actually manifest. We all support refuge places but they must be resourced so everyone can access them. Those mixed messages are deeply hurtful to victims and survivors. If we are going to establish a minimum threshold it should be set at ten, which is why we are here to debate legislation that provides for ten, but I am interested in the officials' views on how we should start with this, how we should build on it and indeed what is the norm in the private sector. We have heard Ms La Combre's experience and Dr. Duvvury has experience of the public service.

Ms Mandy La Combre

As I said, we have negotiated policies providing ten days. As far as I am concerned, ten days appears to be the norm. I have said before it is the floor rather than the ceiling. We have policies in place where we know when an employer is supporting somebody, if they have exceeded the ten days, the supports will not be stopped and those days will still become available to them. The policies say ten days in 12 months or whatever but they are not prescriptively sticking to that so it is, as I said, the floor rather than the ceiling. We should not be legislating for something that is less than the norm. We also should not be looking at the lowest common denominator or less than what we already have. We have these examples in the Republic of Ireland and we have them in Northern Ireland. This is where we should be looking at what is happening. These ones are working and employers are keen to get these in place now. They were not so keen for a very long time. The unions have been talking about domestic violence as a workplace issue since 2014-----

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

It was before that.

Ms Mandy La Combre

-----and probably before that in other areas when the Deputy herself was involved. I am talking about it since 2014. It took a long time for us to get domestic violence on the workplace agenda.

Now that it is, and it is now probably more heightened through Covid and hybrid working, etc., employers are more keen to do these policies. Since we have been able to open the door on them, nobody is saying that ten days is too much. Nobody is saying that they will not give more than ten days or that we should reduce them when we review them. That would be my honest opinion on it.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

I would just add that ten days is in fact becoming an international norm, and I repeat that. The Department said that it is five days in other jurisdictions. Australia was the one that had five days, which were unpaid at first. It has now amended its legislation to ten days. Canada and New Zealand have ten days. The Philippines, which was the first country in the world in to do this in 2004, had ten days. This is the norm. Italy has three months. That is where ambition could go. I contest five days as being the norm. If the committee would like me to bring more evidence about the ten days as a basic norm, I would be happy to do that.

Chairman

Do Ms Baxter or Ms Duffy want to come in on the questions?

Ms Jane Ann Duffy

On the question around the leave and there being a higher provision in the NUIG, when we were bringing in the statute, that is a statutory minimum, but it is always open to employers to go further. That would have no impact on what might be available in any individual employer. This is the statutory leave, but an employer is always free to offer additional leave.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

The Department would see that as applying to the civil and public service as equally as to the private sector. I understand how it works as I have a small amount of experience with it. If the statutory minimum – I understand what that is and how that works – comes in at five days, there is slightly more than a convention within the civil and public service that there would not be a hierarchy when it comes to the implementation of statutory forms of leave and that they would actually have something that is the norm right across the sector. It just strikes me that we are here debating legislation that I have sponsored, which provides for ten. However, in the event that is rolled back on by the Government or indeed cut in half down to five, that will cause a problem within the civil and public service. As a former representative for public sector workers, I do not think they would tolerate having a hierarchy or some kind of a tiered arrangement just simply because some organisations chose to be proactive. I would hope that the Department would reflect on the message that it sends, that ten days is the norm in the private sector where it is negotiated and it is the norm in the public service where it exists, yet the proposal will be to cut that in half. That is not a great place to start from. I completely understand that our witnesses are not here to defend the thought process behind it and I am not asking them to do that. However, some thought will have to be given by the Department to how this will be implemented. The colleagues of the people who will implement this in the civil and public service will be part of that two-tier arrangement. That does not send out a very good signal at all.

With the Chair’s indulgence, I reference the definition of an employee, which was referred to by Deputy Sherlock. I take Deputy Sherlock’s point. That is why I use the Organisation of Working Time Act, because I believe that contains within it sufficient definition. However, there is a broader piece of work that needs to be done and it is most likely done at the committee of which I am a permanent member – the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We should look at that definition of what a worker is, because it is not what it would have been when our parents were heading off to work. It is different when we are heading off to work, definitely different when our kids will go to work and when our grandkids will go to work it will be different again. That needs to be updated to reflect all types of employment. I fully take on board the point made by Deputy Sherlock.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I thank everyone for sharing their insights today. We are grateful to Deputies O’Reilly and McDonald for developing this legislation.

Unfortunately, in contrast to last week, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth tabled the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill without any provisions for domestic violence leave. He said he will bring those in on Committee Stage, but that would not allow us to discuss them properly or propose the inevitable improvements required. I do not agree that the Bill reflects the seriousness of the Government’s commitment to support people experiencing domestic violence. In fact, I think it reveals the opposite and the domestic violence leave component is an afterthought. It is just not being professionally handled in that sense.

Nonetheless, this Bill is the focus for today. I think we are all in agreement that victims and survivors of domestic violence are especially vulnerable and leave specifically for this reason is important. It recognises the realities involved and helps people in desperate need.

The issue around IBEC has come up in nearly every contribution. Needless to say, it was embarrassing and a disgrace for it to come out with those comments. We are all kind of in agreement that it is not relevant to the discussion that we are having here today. We are not going to introduce anything along those lines. However, it speaks to a kind of broader issue that is relevant to today, in that people do not seem to have an understanding of domestic violence for that suggestion to come out. People were wondering what it meant by “prove it”. Imagine - does one turn up with visual injuries? It is important to highlight as well some of the things that the witnesses said today, such as “private matter”. We still see it as a private matter and not a public concern. That is very true. The focus is on the victim and not the perpetrator. Despite the fact that domestic violence affects so many people, there just does not seem to be that awareness, as shown when we had IBEC coming out and saying that.

The discussion around the five days speaks to that problem as well. It is as if we still do not seem to quite grasp the reality of what it is like for somebody leaving domestic violence. I have encountered it, for example, when people are fleeing domestic violence and going to the local authority in need of emergency accommodation and then being asked to prove that they are homeless. If a person has just left a violent situation and has their children, bags, potentially their pets and whatever with them, it is not possible to prove that. Being met with that kind of hostility very often results in people returning to those violent situations because they feel that they have nowhere else to go. We have had witnesses before this committee and one of the ones that I just want to rewind to for a moment is Marie Mulholland, who came to speak to us from the West Cork Women Against Violence Project. She highlighted the unique barriers that women face in rural areas when they are fleeing domestic violence and the court days, trying to get the safety orders and all the different things. It is not a neat five days and the five days do not necessarily come one after the other. We also have to take into consideration that people are often making the transition into single parenting and doing things such as managing school runs and other extra-curricular activities. Five days is just not going to cut it in all reality. I just wanted to start with that.

My first questions are for Dr. Duvvury. She outlined the role of other reasonable accommodations, such as flexible working, a support to seek protection orders and clear safety measures to maintain confidentiality and privacy as being key comprehensive domestic violence leave legislation. Can she elaborate on the importance of the suite of measures that we might need to look at? In her briefing document, she outlined larger issues that surround this type of leave, such as lack of awareness or survivors perhaps not being able to take leave because of a feeling of insecurity around losing their job. Can she share some more insights from her research or other jurisdictions that could help address those issues? Her briefing paper also referred to protection for workers from their abusers while they are in the workplace. Can she outline what that would involve? Are there examples from other jurisdictions that we might be able to look at?

We know that know that the labour market traditionally has been a hostile place for women, with many ingrained malpractices and cultures that still remain. It is not that long ago that women had to leave work when they simply got married. In what material ways does Ms La Combre think domestic violence holds working women back today? She rightly highlighted how leave should be part of a broader domestic violence and work policy that would also support survivors in other ways. Can she expand on that point and give examples of those supports?

Chairman

The Deputy asked a number of questions. We will start with Dr. Duvvury, who will be followed by Ms La Combre and anyone else who wants to come in.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

On the suite of other measures or reasonable accommodations, leave is one element, but there needs to be flexible working arrangements.

It has been tested in other legislation. New Zealand has flexible working arrangements. It is also articulated that if a woman experiencing domestic violence requests flexible working arrangements, the employer must try to facilitate this. Interestingly, this is also an element in many state-level policies in the United States. As Deputy Cairns knows, the US has no federal legislation on domestic violence. Everything in the US is under the Family and Medical Leave Act. At the state level, many states have specific domestic violence leave measures. They have articulated the importance of ensuring that flexible working arrangements are possible for a domestic violence survivor to request and that this request must be seriously considered by the employer.

Financial support is also important. This has been well-articulated in Vodafone's policy and by some of the businesses that have domestic violence leave policies. They have either given loans for accommodation or to meet the costs of moving. It can be a loan, a grant or any kind of financial assistance.

The third idea comes from the US. It involves employers supporting women to get safety orders to address harassment by the perpetrator at the workplace. We know that for a majority of women who experience domestic violence, the act of violence does not stop at the home. It travels to work and to the office. Employers have seen their employees be killed at the workplace. It has created a great concern. Employers can play a role in seeking protection orders for employees. It may involve support for the woman to seek an employment protection order or the employer reaching out to services to help the woman to get a protection order. Employers also need to interact with and have a vast referral network to other services. These are some of the accommodations.

I am sorry. What was Deputy Cairns's other question?

Deputy Holly Cairns

The second question was on-----

Dr. Nata Duvvury

I can send the Deputy information on cases in the US where employers have worked with women and given them access to support to file for protection orders in the court. It is not just going through domestic violence agencies, but the employer has lawyers who help women to file for protection orders.

Deputy Holly Cairns

The other question was about people who may not take leave because they feel insecure about their job and worry about leave.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

Academic literature has looked at the effectiveness of workplace policies. Studies have been done in Australia and Canada that showed that women did not apply for leave because there is some fear. We are talking about culture and Deputy Cairns referred to it, wherein some think that the women are at fault, that it is not that serious, and that they are slackers who want leave, so the supervisor or employer is then more likely to question why they are taking the leave. That has acted as an impediment to women requesting leave. This has to be addressed by having proper education, training and policies to support women to ask for leave. Just passing legislation about leave is not sufficient.

Deputy Holly Cairns

Does Dr. Duvvury know if the leave in other countries can be taken in a staggered form?

Dr. Nata Duvvury

It is staggered.

Deputy Holly Cairns

When people need it.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

It is when people need it. It can be for one hour, for a full day or for a half day. It is not just five days.

Ms Mandy La Combre

Looking at the most obvious way in which domestic violence affects women's working lives, losing a job is losing a way out, first and foremost. Much research shows that women lose their jobs as a result of suffering domestic violence. In ICTU's research a number of years ago, there was much commentary about how women lost their jobs. In cases where managers are unaware of or unsympathetic to the reasons for persistent lateness, unexplained absence or poor performance, employees can find themselves disciplined or even dismissed. Losing a job and an independent source of income is a disastrous outcome for anybody suffering from domestic violence. We know there is documentation correlating vulnerability and loss of income. People suffering domestic violence are more at risk of this because of the disrupted nature of their employment. If they are consistently losing jobs and in precarious work, the chances of them being able to get away from their abuser or to get themselves out of the situation are lowered since the financial part is so important. The employer supporting them with policies and paid leave is a significant issue. Keeping a job is keeping a path to freedom.

Regarding domestic violence workplace policies and practical supports, I refer to everything that Dr. Duvvury said. I have plenty of examples of practical supports where no negative actions would be taken for poor performance, excessive absence or anything like that. That is in keeping with looking after people. Supports include making flexible working arrangements available and offering temporary or permanent changes in locations in work roles if they are front-facing. A significant matter arising in the ICTU survey was that 80% of people surveyed were abused at work on their phone or email, so another support might involve diverting phone calls and emails. We have salary advances in our workplace policies too. Some are financial institutions, so if there is coercive control because people's partners are financially controlling them, the institutions can set up separate accounts for them. There are different things that some employers can do. We have seen three or four nights in a hotel being paid for by employers. That is in my own policy at work and possibly in the Vodafone policy and supports people who are escaping violent situations, possibly at a minute's notice. It is about ensuring that they never work alone, safety planning and so on. All of this has to be in tandem with the leave.

I know I am a big promoter of workplace policies. I think they are an important part of this. In the absence of good, robust workplace policies where the organisation understands the issue, it is talked about and the stigma is broken, I cannot see people taking up paid leave. I cannot see situations where people will go to human resource managers to ask if it is not spoken about in the workplace, not signposted or not something that other colleagues can talk about. Much research shows that people disclose this to a colleague rather than to a manager or to someone in HR. Everybody in the workplace knows that it is happening. That is why policies are so important.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I have to leave shortly, so I apologise. I thank everyone from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Department. Many of my questions have been asked. One thing that we have all learned is that this is about the victims and getting legislation through as quickly as possible. I have worked with the Minister, Deputy McEntee. Previous speakers spoke about women's refuges.

I am a Carlow Deputy. I have had several meetings with the Minister and her Department. We are focused on a refuge for Carlow. The biggest issue is the wraparound supports, which are absolutely crucial. The Government is committed. I know it has not been easy. Covid really highlighted many things to us.

What Ms La Combre said about work policies being talked about is very important. None of us want anyone to be in a situation in the workplace where he or she cannot talk, or is afraid something will happen. That is what we want to do. We have to get this legislation passed as soon as possible.

Dr. Duvvury's opening statement was very powerful. I firmly believe this legislation is a significant milestone. All of us want it. We need to progress this and get it through as quickly as possible. I read the officials' statement which said that within two years, there would be an option of ten days' leave. This is part of their remit. It is doable. All of us have learnt today that this is about making the right choices as soon as possible.

I work with victims in my own area. Financial support is very important. I am probably repeating myself. Anyone who is a victim should be able to talk and go into a workplace to look for help. That is what we have to do today. I very much welcome this legislation.

Officials from the Department spoke about tendering for a partner to help to develop templates and guidance for employers of all sizes. What does that entail?

I am very glad to be part of what will be a considerable change. I will say to all parties across the board that this is not about us here today. It is about the victims. It is about getting the legislation through as quickly as we can. I am committed to it. I have been very touched by the statements about working with and representing victims in the workplace. It is very important.

Ms Jane Ann Duffy

Our tender is live at the moment. We are seeking a partner to develop templates that will help all different types of employers, from very small SMEs to larger employers, to develop training and supports to build their domestic violence policies and to provide advice for a period of time. Issues may arise with the policy that is developed, in which case the partner would provide expertise. The reason we are going out to tender for a partner is that we look at family leave. We do not really have expertise on workplace and HR policy. That is why we are looking for someone to develop such policy with us.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

That is important. Timing will be critical here. This Bill is critical. As previous speakers have said, communication and information will be key for everybody across the board. That will be important. I ask the Department to do that. I thank everyone. I apologise for having to leave.

Chairman

I was very much taken by Dr. Duvvury's contributions. I could listen to her all day. We do not hear very much about the point she made in her statement about the tendency among people who have experienced domestic violence to minimise it. They tend to feel that it was not that bad, that they had a lucky escape or that it was worse for a previous person. We do not talk about that part of domestic violence enough. It comes back to ensuring people are believed and supported.

I am conscious that before we had legislation in place on coercive control, people associated domestic violence with physical violence and did not look at other forms of violence, such as emotional abuse and coercive control, and all of the negative impacts they have. The legislation has been positive in two respects. Obviously, perpetrators can be brought to justice when there is legislation in place. In addition, this legislation has changed the conversation in society. There are even advertisements about it. One often hears Safe Ireland talking about somebody being on the phone saying he or she is sick, has a headache or cannot make it. We all seen such situations in some way, shape or form.

The ten days' leave is important because it is not just about the days; it is also about having the conversation, over and again, until people in society realise that domestic violence is a real situation and a real problem. We have to figure out how to tackle it from way beyond getting to the fact that ten days' leave is needed. We have to tackle it from an early part of life by letting children know what a healthy relationship is and what red flags to look out for. The more we have legislation, conversations and support, the more the conversation is widened.

All of the members left in the room are female. I know men experience domestic violence, but it is primarily women who experience it. These women might be more likely to come to us more than to a male Deputy. The conversation has moved on a great deal, even from when I was first elected in 2016. We can often dwell on how long it takes to make changes, especially in this institution. Even though the change can be small, at least it is progress. I always hope that one or two women tuning in will ask whether they are in that situation and look at what has been happening to them for years, which they have been accepting and seeing as the norm. Perhaps all the gaslighting and conditioning makes them think it is normal when, in fact, it is not.

It is not just about the ten days. They are crucial, but having legislation for ten days will show that people will be believed and allow them to have the confidence to come forward, even if they never actually need the ten days and are able to work around it. From a practical point of view, if somebody in an abusive relationship seeks a protection order, that is at least one full day in court. The case will obviously be heard during Monday-to-Friday hours. The person then has to apply for a safety order, which may take more than one day. Deputy Cairns touched on this with regard to a lady from west Cork.

Safety and protection orders fall under the family courts. It might be different in the cities from in rural areas, but in Kilkenny we have one family court sitting per month. If a person is on the court's list, it may get to him or her, but the person has to be in court for the entire day and may have to come back on a different day. Three days are gone straight away before the person ever contacts the Garda. It could take hours, days or weeks to give a statement to the Garda.

When one looks at all that, it is not surprising that only one in three women report, which I did not realise was the statistic until today. That is why. It is overwhelming and the person has to keep trying to prove domestic violence in various ways, even if proof is not sought. The ten days are absolutely vital not just from a practical point of view, but also from the point of view of us changing as a society. We may be getting into difficulties in that it may be unfair of us to legislate for five days when some very good private sector employers such as Danske Bank and Vodafone and others are already providing ten days and are, in fairness, leading the way. Where does that leave people? Will those employers go back to five days?

I understand I have not asked any questions. I sought to make the point to the Department that it should look at those ten days in the Bill and see how important they are. I acknowledge the work that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has done, and especially the work of Dr. Duvvury. I acknowledge the work she has done, in general, but the points she has made today are very important. We need to speak about those points much more often.

Does anyone want to make any closing remarks?

Mr. David Joyce

I thank the members for the opportunity to come and speak before the committee. I do not think I could put it any better than the Chair has in terms of the upheaval caused to the lives of people trying to deal with this and the importance of creating a safe space where they can withdraw from work for a period and get the support they need. For us, ten days is key in that regard.

Another point we touched on was trying to ensure this has as broad a scope as possible in respect of employees. You might say that as a trade union official, I would say that, but it is really important in this context because it is women who are more likely to be in part-time, less secure employment. For women with a history of experiencing domestic violence, their work history will be impacted by this also. The narrower you make the definition of "employee", the likelihood is you will miss many people who really need this and they will, therefore, not be able to avail of it.

Dr. Nata Duvvury

I thank committee members for this opportunity. It is very meaningful to be able to bring research that informs policy making. I want to end with one very important point, which is that in most economic policies of governments, violence against women is seen as a cultural and, at most, a human rights violation. It is not seen as an economic issue. In times of crisis, the first things that are cut are services for survivors of violence. Domestic violence-led policy is very important because it provides the recognition that this has economic consequences and that is it a working woman's issue, which is very important. That is the first thing to acknowledge.

Second, the policy will be ineffective if it is not connected to a fight against cutting back on resources for services. We need the wraparound services. A cost-of-living crisis is coming around the corner. There will be austerity and budget cuts, because most governments do not see that the inflation we are experiencing today is not caused by workers' wage demands. It is because of excessive profits, mark-ups and windfalls in the corporate sector. The first policy the Government will introduce is austerity, and austerity means cutting services to survivors of violence. This must be connected to the broader argument.

Chairman

Do Ms Baxter or Ms Duffy wish to make any closing comments?

Ms Carol Baxter

I thank the Chair for this opportunity.

Chairman

I should say again, as I did at the start, that IBEC had a scheduling issue today and, to be fair to them, it is possible that representatives were not able to make it due to diary commitments. It is proposed to publish the opening statements on the Oireachtas website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank the members and witnesses for attending the meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.44 p.m. sine die.