Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill: Consideration Stage

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 9 March 2022.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP 3:30, 9 March 2022

I call Rachel Woods to move the Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill.

Moved. — [Miss Woods.]

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for the debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of 32 amendments, which deal with safe leave, supporting information, guidance, regulations and commencement. I remind Members who intend to speak during the debate on the single group of amendments that they should address all the amendments on which they wish to comment. Once the debate is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Question on stand part will be taken at appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Clause 1 (Safe leave for victims of domestic abuse)

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 32. Within the group, amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment No 1.

I call the Minister for the Economy, Gordon Lyons, to move formally amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 1, line 9, leave out “safe leave under this Article” and insert—

<BR/>

“leave under this Article for the purpose of dealing with issues related to the domestic abuse (referred to in this Chapter as ‘safe leave’)”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, leave out lines 10 to 17 and insert—



“(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, an employee is a victim of domestic abuse if—


(a) the employee is being, or has been, subjected to abusive behaviour by a person to whom the employee is connected, and


(b) such other conditions as may be specified are satisfied.


(3) The regulations must include provision as to the meaning of being subjected to abusive behaviour, and as to the criteria for being connected to another person, for the purposes of paragraph (2); and the regulations may do so by reference to provisions of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 or by applying other statutory provisions (with or without modifications).” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 3: In, page 1, leave out lines 18 and 19. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 4: In page 1, line 20, leave out “(4)” and insert “(1)”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 5: In page 2, line 6, at end insert—



“(f) such other matters as may be specified in the regulations.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 6: In page 2, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—



“the period of safe leave to which an employee who is a victim of domestic abuse is entitled is at least 10 days in each leave year (whether or not taken as a single continuous period), with ‘leave year’ having the meaning given in, and being calculated in accordance with, the regulations.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 7: In page 2, line 10, leave out from “leave” to “Article” on line 11 and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 8: In page 2, line 16, leave out “a day as”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 9: In page 2, line 17, after “conditions” insert—



“, or enable an employer to impose conditions,”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 10: In page 2, line 21, leave out “under that Article”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 11: In page 2, line 25, leave out “under that Article”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 12: In page 2, line 30, leave out “under that Article”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 13: In page 2, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert—



“(2) In paragraph (1)(a), ‘terms and conditions of employment’ includes—


(a) terms and conditions about remuneration, and


(b) any other matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment.


(2A) Provision under paragraph (1)(a) must, in particular, provide that it is for the employer of an employee who is absent on safe leave to pay the employee remuneration in respect of the period of safe leave.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 14: In page 2, line 37, leave out from “under” to “112EA” on line 38. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 15: In page 2, line 39, leave out “leave under that Article” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 16: In page 3, line 12, leave out “leave under that Article” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 17: In page 3, leave out lines 15 to 17. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 18: In page 3, line 17, at end insert—



Enforcement


112ECA.—(1) Regulations under Article 112EA may make provision for the consequences of—


(a) the prevention or attempted prevention by an employer of the exercise by an employee of the entitlement to be absent from work on safe leave;


(b) a failure by the employer to comply with the requirement to pay remuneration by virtue of Article 112EB(2A);


(c) a failure to comply with any other provision of the regulations.


(2) Provision under paragraph (1) may, in particular—


(a) enable an employee to present a complaint to an industrial tribunal, and


(b) include provision as to the remedies available to an industrial tribunal where it finds a complaint presented by virtue of this Article to be well-founded.


(3) Provision under paragraph (1) made in connection with provision under Article 112EC(1) may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 11.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 19: In page 3, line 20, leave out “(as well as employees)” and insert “who are not employees”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 20: In page 3, leave out line 22 and insert—



“(a) may make provision applying, modifying or excluding a provision of the regulations, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions specified, in relation to a worker;


(aa) may, so far as is necessary for the purpose of making provision by virtue of sub-paragraph (a), make provision applying, modifying or excluding a provision of this Order; and”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 21: In page 3, leave out lines 29 to 32. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 22: In page 3, leave out line 33. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 23: In page 3, line 39, leave out “leave under Article 112EA” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 24: In page 4, line 2, leave out “leave under Article 112EA” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 25: In page 4, line 3, leave out from “(including” to “enactments)” on line 4. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 26: In clause 2, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert—



“(1) The Department for the Economy must, in so far as it is practicable for the Department to do so, make a report on the operation of regulations under Article 112EA of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996—


(a) as soon as practicable after the first anniversary of the commencement of the first regulations under that Article, and


(b) at least once in every three years after the making of the previous report on the operation of the regulations.


(1A) The Department must publish each report made under this section and lay a copy of it before the Assembly.


(1B) In making a report under this section, the Department must consult such persons or organisations as it considers appropriate.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 27: In clause 2, page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (2). — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 28: In clause 3, page 4, line 15, leave out “give” and insert “issue”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 29: In clause 3, page 4, line 16, leave out “this Act” and insert—



“Article 112EA of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 30: After clause 3 insert—



Power to make consequential etc. provision


3A.—(1) The Department for the Economy may by regulations make provision in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, this Act.


(2) Regulations under this section may—


(a) amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify a provision of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (including a provision inserted by this Act) or any other statutory provision (within the meaning of section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954));


(b) include transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into operation of provision made by the regulations.


(3) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution, except as mentioned in subsection (4).


(4) Regulations under this section which contain (whether alone or with other provision) provision that amends the text of Northern Ireland legislation or an Act of Parliament are not to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.


(5) The power conferred by this section is not restricted by any other provision of this Act.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 31: In clause 4, page 4, line 20, leave out “Section 1 comes” and insert “Sections 1 to 3 come”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

No 32: In clause 4, page 4, line 22, after “on” insert “the day after”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

Before I address the amendments, I will thank the Member once again for her efforts and her work to bring forward this proposal to legislate for leave for the victims of domestic abuse. I commend her for getting the Bill to this stage and for shining a light on a truly horrific situation for those who suffer domestic violence.

The Assembly is united in its agreement that domestic abuse is a blight on our society. As Members, we should do all that we can to aid those who find themselves in such distressing situations. For that reason, I reiterate my firm support for this important Bill. It will provide a valuable space for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. That space may help them to stay in employment at a time when they need it most. With that in mind, I have tabled a series of amendments designed to ensure that the Bill provides the correct legislative framework and enabling powers to allow safe leave to be implemented as quickly and effectively as possible.

The amendments that I have tabled for consideration are technical in nature and are designed to ensure the Bill's operability and readability. I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss the amendments with the Bill sponsor and to explain the rationale behind them. I thank her for taking the time to meet me. We have, I believe, found some common ground.

Whilst I appreciate that there seems to be a large number of amendments, many of them are minor drafting amendments and relate to each other. For ease of reference and scrutiny, I will discuss some amendments and their purpose in smaller groups.

Amendment No 1 proposes a drafting amendment to proposed article 112EA(1) so that the definition of "safe leave" and its purpose are stated at the outset of the Bill. That makes clear what the leave is for and is consistent with other provisions for time off work elsewhere in employment legislation. Amendment No 3 is consequential to amendment No 1; as the definition of safe leave and its purpose will now be clear in the opening provision, it will be unnecessary to repeat it in the same clause. Having introduced a clearer reference to safe leave in article 112EA(1), amendment Nos 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24 make further drafting amendments by making reference to "safe leave" rather than "safe leave under article 112EA", throughout the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. While minor in nature, the purpose of those amendments is to make the provisions easier to read and, as a result, more accessible to end users of the legislation.

Amendment Nos 2 and 4 relate to the definition of "domestic abuse". One of the fundamental aspects of the Bill is to have a clear definition of who is entitled to safe leave. Definitions in legislation are always complicated. When the matter is as sensitive as the one that is before us today, refining the definition may be even more complicated, but having the right one becomes even more crucial.

In the Bill as introduced, I have a concern arising from the links to provisions in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 that relate to behaviour that constitutes an offence. I am aware that the Bill sponsor adjusted the definition to link it to behaviours described in the 2021 Act rather than to the offence itself. If, however, there remains any risk of a situation in which an individual has to await the outcome of court proceedings before begin able to access that leave, I want to make sure that the Department has the ability to deal with that by means of regulations, should it be necessary to do so.

I am certain that the Bill sponsor's intention is not to limit safe leave to those individuals and circumstances where an offence has been proven in a court of law. Although my concern may not be realised, once the Bill becomes law, its integrity hinges on that definition. That is not a matter on which we should take a chance. There is not sufficient time to work through fully all the very complex issues, so amendment No 2 offers an alternative approach that should eliminate that risk.

Amendment No 2 provides an outline definition, but it provides my Department with the ability to develop and expand on that definition further by means of regulations. That would permit my Department to undertake the necessary detailed consideration of the various issues raised at consultation stage. The amendment is not intended to narrow the scope of the Bill by narrowing the definition. Rather, it is about ensuring that the Bill works. Amendment No 2 also provides a clear link to the definition in the 2021 Act, but it does not compel my Department to use it, should it prove to be unworkable in the context of employment law. Amendment No 4 relates to a minor numbering issue. It is consequential to amendment No 2.

Amendment No 5 seeks to address the matter of "issues related to domestic abuse". Under clause 1, proposed new article 112EA(5), to be inserted into the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, provides examples of what may constitute such issues for which safe leave may be used. Amendment No 5 aims to ensure that my Department has the ability to add to the list and specify additional matters, should it be appropriate to do so. The proposed amendment simply makes clear that the list of proposed issues is not to be read as being exhaustive.

Having addressed what may be issues related to domestic abuse, we now move on to the matter of how someone can take safe leave. Amendment Nos 6, 8 and 22 are all concerned with that. Amendment No 6 is a drafting amendment to make clear that safe leave can be taken as either one block or a number of shorter periods. I am sure that Members will agree that we want to allow victims and survivors of domestic abuse to be able to take leave in a way that most benefits them. Amendment No 6 also enables my Department to provide a definition of "leave year", which is not currently defined in the 1996 Order. In subsequent regulations, as well as setting out how a leave year should be calculated, it will be necessary from an operational perspective to have adequate powers to define that term in the regulations, as it will not be sufficient simply to state how a leave year will be calculated.

Amendment No 22 is consequential to amendment No 6 and removes the existing reference to "the calculation of leave years" in proposed new article 112EE(e). That is because amendment No 6, if passed, will provide the necessary provision.

Amendment No 8 is a minor drafting amendment to remove the phrase "a day as" from the reference to an absence on safe leave. As I mentioned, it is important that leave can be taken in either a single block or smaller periods. Amendment No 8 is in keeping with that aim.

Amendment No 9 is about protecting the status of day-1 rights. Proposed new article 112EA(8) prohibits the Department from regulating to:

"impose conditions about length of service for eligibility for safe leave."

It does not, however, explicitly state that the employer may not do so. Amendment No 9 makes clear that neither my Department nor the employer could impose such conditions.

With amendment No 13, my intent is to clarify the responsibilities for any remuneration associated with safe leave.

The Bill's sponsor has been clear in the explanatory and financial memorandum that the intention is that the employer be required to pay remuneration while a worker is on a period of safe leave. I am aware that she has engaged with the Committee in that regard. However, the Bill does not make that intention sufficiently clear. I do not want to risk a scenario in which a worker does not get the remuneration that is owed to them at such an important time because employers are not fully aware of their obligations. Amendment No 13 is designed to provide that clarity by adding new paragraph 2A, which seeks to ensure that employers are fully aware of the responsibilities that are placed on them. That needs to be set out in the Bill in plain and straightforward terms, and I consider that my amendment achieves that aim.

In addition to ensuring that it is clear who will meet the cost of safe leave, it is important to ensure that there are consequences should an employer fail to meet their obligations. Amendment Nos 17, 18 and 21 are drafted with that intent. They are focused on making provision for remedy in the event that a worker's rights are infringed. Although the Bill provides some discretionary powers to provide for the consequences of failure to comply with provisions, they appear to be limited to circumstances in which an employer fails to keep records or give notices, and for failure to comply with any potential regulations relating to redundancy and dismissal. There is no general provision for remedy or enforcement of the other provisions in the Bill. Amendment No 18 therefore proposes to confer a general discretionary power on my Department to provide a remedy or means of enforcement for failure to comply with any provision in the Bill. As the means of enforcement for most aspects of employment law is the right to present a case to an industrial tribunal, this amendment makes clear recourse to permit my Department to make any necessary regulations, should that be considered to be an appropriate course of action after consultation. The absence of an express provision might hinder my Department's ability to do so in future.

Amendment Nos 17 and 21 are consequential; they remove provisions that are more effectively addressed by amendment No 18. Amendment No 19 makes a minor drafting amendment to clarify the descriptions of "workers" and "employees". Members will be aware that the terms "worker" and "employee" have distinct meanings in employment law. An "employee" is defined as anyone who works under a contract of employment. The term "worker" includes those who are employees, but it encompasses a wider set of contractual working arrangements. Effectively, that means that an employee is always considered to be a worker, but not all workers have employee status. Amendment No 19 simply makes it clear that article 112ED refers to workers who are not employees.

I now turn to amendment No 20. Article 112ED states that the Department must make regulations that extend the right to safe leave to workers without employee status, as well as employees. However, it also permits the Department to modify the provisions in respect of workers without employee status. That is important, as the different contractual arrangements for employees and workers mean that it will not be possible for all consequential employment rights to apply in the same way. Amendment No 20 is largely a technical drafting amendment that provides an expanded power to make those adjustments where it is appropriate to do so. That includes the ability to exclude a particular provision.

What does that mean in practice? One such example is that, if any subsequent regulations opt to provide for redundancy or unfair dismissal protections, those could not extend to workers without employee status, as they do not currently have such protections. I want to be very clear that this amendment is about ensuring that there are no unintended consequences across the employment law framework in respect of the complex issue of employment status. The amendment is in no way designed to exclude workers from accessing the right to safe leave. The ability of workers to access that important right is a core aspect of the Bill, and I do not intend for this amendment to change that fundamental principle.

Having addressed the amendments that are relevant to clause 1, I move on to amendment Nos 26 and 27, which are in relation to the reporting requirements that are set out in clause 2. Clause 2 places a duty on the Department to publish an annual report on compliance with the regulations by employers and evidence of the effectiveness of the regulations and their impacts on victims. It is contended that it would be a difficult, if not impossible, task to complete a meaningful report annually in line with the existing clause. That is because there is no obligation on employers to provide information to my Department.

I know that Members here today will agree with me that confidentiality of information is an important issue. That sensitive information should be handled with the utmost care to protect the interests of those who need access to safe leave. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate that the Department should have access to such sensitive and personal information. As that would leave the Department unable to comply with the provisions as drafted, my amendments seek to respect the intention that the regulations themselves are subject to regular review but to do that in a different way.

Instead of reporting on compliance, the Department will consult with stakeholders regularly to report on the effectiveness of the regulations. That means that everyone with an interest in the regulations, including employers, workers and specialist organisations that provide support to victims and survivors of domestic abuse, can provide their views to the Department. Crucially, the Department can complete the report without the need for any sensitive personal information.

Given the proposal to consult regularly with stakeholders, amendment No 26 seeks to adjust the reporting requirement so that reports are completed after year 1 and, subsequently, every three years. The amendment also requires that such reports be laid before the Assembly. The amendment would mean that the regulations themselves were subject to continuing assessment, in line with the intention of the Bill. It is considered appropriate that any such report be tabled at the Assembly. Amendment No 27 is consequential to amendment No 26. Amendment Nos 28, 29 and 32 are minor drafting corrections to clause 3.

Amendment No 30 proposes to insert a new clause. Primarily, that clause is to ensure that the Department has the necessary powers to make the required consequential amendments to other relevant legislation upon which the successful implementation of safe leave will depend. While the Bill sponsor has made provision for that, we have concerns that the existing power may not be sufficient for all purposes that may arise. The introduction of the clause is to make sure that we minimise the risk of future legislative hurdles that might delay implementation or impact the effective operation of safe leave.

In addition, while the Bill seeks to give the Department some latitude to determine the detail of regulations, significant further consultation will be required. In light of that requirement for substantive further consultation, amendment No 30 introduces a power to amend primary provision. If aspects prove to be inoperable, amendment No 30 ensures that the use of any such power by the Department will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. While other regulations in the Bill may be made using the negative resolution procedure, as outlined by the Bill sponsor, it is important that any provisions that would amend primary legislation could be made only once the express approval of the Assembly has been attained. I believe that that is an important safeguard. Amendment No 25 removes text that is no longer required as a consequence of amendment No 30.

I turn to clause 4. It provides that the regulation-making powers may come into operation on such days as the Department may by order appoint. I agree that allowing the Department the flexibility to carry out the consultation and policy development work without an arbitrary deadline is sensible, particularly as there can, on occasion, be issues that arise that are outside the Department's control. However, as Minister for the Economy, it is my intention that work to progress any necessary regulations be given priority in my Department, should the Bill pass into law. My only concern with the clause is that it provides for the clauses relating to guidance and reporting on regulations to come into effect on Royal Assent. That would create an anomaly in that the Department would be compelled to report and produce guidance on regulations that may not yet be in effect. Amendment No 31 therefore makes an adjustment to allow the Department to commence the reporting and guidance clauses at the same time as the regulation-making clauses.

That brings me to the end of my list of amendments. I appreciate that a lot of technical detail was involved, but I hope that Members will understand that all the amendments are aimed at making safe leave work.

I apologise to the House for not being able to be there today to take interventions during my speech. If Members intend to raise issues or questions, I will seek to address them in my winding-up speech. I hope, however, that Members can see that we are trying to progress the Bill and make it as fit for purpose as possible. I therefore hope that Members will support the amendments.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP 4:15, 9 March 2022

As the Minister said, he will follow the debate, and he will remain on the screen except when other Members who are speaking remotely have the Floor.

Photo of Caoimhe Archibald Caoimhe Archibald Sinn Féin

I, too, apologise for not being able to be in the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of the Committee. Consideration Stage follows an engaged and in-depth process of scrutiny by the Committee. I will touch briefly on the Committee's analysis of the Bill. At the outset, I thank the Committee team for its help and support. Its assistance has, as always, been invaluable.

The Committee heard evidence from a range of stakeholders and carried out a detailed online survey, to which it received 66 responses from organisations and representative bodies, as well as from a significant number of individuals with personal experience of domestic abuse. I put on record the Committee's appreciation for the evidence that it received from individuals who were impacted by domestic abuse. That evidence was vital in informing the Committee on how safe leave would help domestic abuse victims and survivors.

The Committee explored a wide range of issues raised in the written and oral evidence. The Committee deliberated on the provisions of the Bill, and we concluded our formal clause-by-clause consideration on 26 January. The Committee was unanimous in its support of the Bill without amendment. There was overwhelming support for the introduction of the Bill from the written and oral evidence received. All 66 survey responses were positive about the introduction of a legal entitlement to safe leave and pay, with the expectation that that would be a minimum provision in ensuring that victims and survivors were supported.

There was general recognition that, while most employers may be compassionate in such circumstances, the protections could not and should not be left to individual discretion and that they should be guaranteed statutory rights.

The Committee shares the Bill sponsor's desire to see that support in place, and members understand that much of the detail will be specified in regulations brought forward by the Economy Minister, which will be subject to Committee and Assembly scrutiny. The Committee has not been able to discuss the amendments tabled by the Minister. As the Bill sponsor has not indicated an objection to any of the amendments, the Committee will not object to them.

I will now make some brief remarks on behalf of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin supports the aim of the Bill, which is to provide paid leave entitlements to workers who suffer domestic abuse. My party colleagues Mary Lou McDonald and Louise O'Reilly have introduced similar legislation in the Dáil. Specifically, we support the introduction of 10 days' paid safe leave for workers and the intention of the Bill sponsor to ensure that that is a day-1 right available to all workers.

I want to make some brief comments on the specific amendments tabled by the Economy Minister, and I acknowledge and thank him for his positive approach. I also thank the departmental officials for their work on the Bill.

The Minister has set out the rationale for his amendments, and we support them. We believe that they will improve the Bill and ensure that it is operable. We had reservations only about amendment No 26, and I will come to that shortly. As the Minister set out, many of the amendments are technical in nature. A few, however, are worth mentioning.

Amendment No 2 clarifies the definition of a victim and allows the Department to further develop that in regulations, ensuring that there is a modern definition of a victim that is consistent with the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, which was passed last year. Of course, that Act extended the definition of abuse beyond physical to incorporate psychological and emotional abuse. That broader definition is important in ensuring that safe leave is accessible to as many victims as possible.

Amendment No 6 gives the Department the power to define safe leave as 10 days each calendar year. We support this, as it clarifies the period for leave for workers and is in line with the intention of the Bill to provide sufficient leave.

Amendment No 9 prevents employers imposing conditions or qualification periods for leave. That is important: it ensures that leave is a day-1 right, and it prevents unfair conditions and barriers being placed in the way of workers as they try to access safe leave.

Amendment No 13 clarifies the need for employers to provide paid safe leave and pay remuneration to victims. That is important in closing any loopholes that could prevent workers receiving paid time off.

Amendment No 18 gives workers the right to recourse through an industrial tribunal if their employer tries to get around the legislation and refuses to offer paid leave. Those enforcement powers are essential for the Bill to have the desired effect.

I want to mention amendment Nos 26 and 27, which are on reporting. The Minister had set out his intent in relation to reporting, and he intends amendment No 26 to provide for reporting on the effectiveness of regulations that will be brought forward under the Bill. We will not oppose the amendment. Monitoring is, however, important, and we ask the Minister — perhaps the Bill sponsor will also reflect on this — whether it might be necessary to consider at Further Consideration Stage setting out in clause 2 what the reports should include or consider.

It is always worth putting what we are debating into context. According to PSNI figures, reported domestic abuse crimes increased over the pandemic to 19,036 in 2021. That is 52 recorded domestic abuse crimes a day. That is at least 52 victims, but many more when we consider the families affected, and, of course, so many more are unreported. Workers need this support more than ever, and the Bill can give them paid leave to seek refuge and support services without loss of pay.

We commend the positive engagement by all parties to ensure that the Bill is prioritised and that it makes its way through the legislative process in the current mandate in order to ensure that victims of domestic abuse have the right to the support that they need and deserve. It is important that victims know that, in the face of these really difficult circumstances, they have the right to support, rather than, if they are unable to attend work while suffering or recovering from domestic abuse, having to face a potential loss of earnings or even their employment.

Again, it is worth pointing out that the Bill also makes sense from an employer or business perspective. In 2017, the European Institute for Gender Equality estimated that intimate partner violence against women across EU member states cost €109 billion a year. Ultimately, employers and the business sector have to make up the substantial losses caused by the psychological and ill health consequences of violence against women, such as unpredictable absenteeism, reduced productivity, poor concentration and accidents.

The legislation will be beneficial to workers and employers. It is also part of a wider conversation about domestic abuse and the need to destigmatise it. We need to remove the shame and stigma that, far too often, are felt by the victim and not the abuser.

In this mandate, important progress has been made in tackling violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual crime. The Bill would add to that. I hope that all MLAs will support its progress and help to get it over the line in the two weeks left in the mandate.

Photo of Stephen Dunne Stephen Dunne DUP

I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill. During the Committee Stage, we heard from a number of key stakeholders and organisations that are at the front line of supporting those who are impacted by domestic abuse. Those sessions served as very timely reminders to us all about the negative impact that domestic abuse can have across our society, regardless of a person's age, gender or background, and, indeed, about the scourge that domestic abuse is.

I am happy to support the various detailed amendments, which have been tabled by the Minister for the Economy and of which most are centred around clause 1. The amendments build upon the Bill and provide important clarity, flexibility and certainty for employees and employers.

As the Minister outlined, amendment No 1 provides clarity about the purpose of safe leave. It is important that the leave is:

"for the purpose of dealing with issues related to the domestic abuse", which are detailed in the clause. That could include things like resolving legal issues and dealing with housing matters, financial help, welfare advice and other important issues. It is worth highlighting the fact that many of those things need to be done during daytime office hours. That is the principle of safe leave, and I think that the amendment is clear that it does not just entitle the employee to be absent from work, which is how the Bill as introduced read, but it is primarily for getting targeted support. That is what I think everybody in the House ultimately wants to get from the Bill.

All employees are, rightly, entitled to leave. That should always be respected by employees and employers. Amendment No 2 deals with an issue that came up in our Committee meetings and at Second Stage on the definition of a victim. My colleague from Mid Ulster, Mr Buchanan, took a keen interest in that during a number of the evidence sessions. The amendment will ultimately help to deal with the implementation of and eligibility for safe leave.

Amendment No 6 gives the important clarity that safe leave does not have to be taken as a block of 10 continuous days. That builds in flexibility, which is important for victims of domestic abuse, many of whom are vulnerable. Nobody can predict when exactly they will need the leave. It ties in with what we talked about earlier in relation to professional services and so on. It is important that that agility and flexibility are available. Different companies, organisations, businesses and employers have different leave years. Some work on the basis of financial years, others work on calendar years, and there are other systems. Therefore, it is important that that is clarified, and amendment No 6 also helps with that.

Amendment No 13 helps to spell out the terms and conditions for remuneration and contracts of employment. Again, that is important for the Department and employers. Here in Northern Ireland, we are fortunate to have a vast range of small businesses and microbusinesses. It is therefore essential that the legislation works for them so that they can work with their employees. That highlights the importance of getting the amendments into place. Many of those businesses have limited resources, and it is vital that the legislation is manageable for them.

It is important to point out this fact, which should not be lost in the debate: many employers are sympathetic to sensitive issues such as domestic abuse, and it is hoped that safe leave will not have to be used. Unfortunately, however, given the problems with and the prevalence of domestic abuse, it is important that that tool is there for when it is required.

Amendment No 18 builds in important employee rights regarding industrial tribunals, and I think that we can all support that. Over the past two years, throughout the pandemic, we have seen the need for flexibility. I believe that amendment No 20 allows the Department to be flexible by allowing it to modify regulations, as circumstances may change over time. Indeed, the pandemic reinforced that there is a need to be flexible, because nobody can predict what is coming for us.

Over the COVID pandemic, the various lockdowns and restrictions left many people spending more time at home, feeling more isolated and vulnerable. Unfortunately, as we heard from victims' support groups during the Committee Stage, which the PSNI statistics back up, there has been an alarming rise in domestic abuse over the past two years, reinforcing the need for action to be taken.

Amendment No 26 to clause 2 states that the Department must report on the first anniversary of the commencement of the regulations and at least once every three years thereafter. That is an important step forward for accountability.

Amendment No 30 creates a new clause that, as the Minister mentioned, future-proofs the Bill and gives the Department important powers to change or modify regulations when required.

I am happy to support the tabled amendments, and I believe that they will strengthen this important legislation.

Photo of Matthew O'Toole Matthew O'Toole Social Democratic and Labour Party 4:30, 9 March 2022

I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill. As Deputy Chair of the Economy Committee, I echo what the Chair of the Economy Committee said in, first of all, paying tribute to the Bill sponsor for her hard work and the professionalism with which she has brought the Bill forward, and to the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged on the Bill and for tabling the amendments, all of which we will support. Hopefully, the Bill is an example of a constructive, progressive piece of draft legislation that can be expedited through in the last days of this mandate and will have an extremely positive impact on workers' rights more generally and, specifically, for people who are in the difficult position of needing to take leave from work in order to deal with domestic abuse.

As has already been said, there is a large number of amendments, but I think that it is fair to say, unless the Bill sponsor wants to correct me, that there is relatively little controversy on any of those amendments. Indeed, there seems to be broad consensus that, in many places, they improve the Bill. The Minister has detailed what his amendments do, so I will not go through them all again in exhaustive detail. I will just touch on a couple of them to highlight why we support them.

Amendment No 2, which the Minister tabled, chimes, in a sense, with the broader principle of flexibility in the Bill. I commend the Bill sponsor for her approach to constructing a flexible Bill, which, since the beginning, has not been rigid. It requires the Department to make regulations, but offers it a degree of flexibility in making them. The Department's amendments add to that and retain that principle of flexibility whilst embedding the core principle of creating a legal right to paid statutory leave for domestic abuse. Amendment No 2 allows the Department flexibility in the future to update the definition of domestic abuse in clause 1, which, I suppose, was more specifically defined in the Bill's original draft, but can evolve as a result of the amendment.

In addition, amendment No 6, as it has been pointed out, including by the previous Member to speak, Mr Dunne, who is not in the Chamber, clarifies that the days of leave to which workers are entitled do not have to be taken consecutively in one block.

There is a whole range of other amendments, all of which are either constructive and helpful in clarifying the Bill's purpose or technical and legal in nature. I will not go through them all.

I thank the Bill sponsor for meeting my researcher and me to talk through her view of what the amendments do. We had a useful conversation on the question of commencement. The commencement part is a really importance principle, because there has been a relatively small amount of commentary about the idea that the Bill might impose a burden on small businesses. I think that one of the trade bodies has written about that. It is important to put on record here that the flexibility that the Bill sponsor has shown on commencement allows us to say clearly in the Chamber that, although we hope to get it on the statute book in the next couple of weeks before we break up for the election, that does not actually mean that it will commence overnight. The purpose of the Bill is to mandate the Department to go away and draft regulations and then consult on them, including with small businesses and microbusinesses, on how they work. Therefore, while we want to get it on the statute book quickly, it does not mean that it will place a new burden on businesses overnight.

It is also important to say that, not only will that not happen overnight, rather than being a burden on businesses, the Bill will provide helpful clarification for them. It will put into statute their obligations and, indeed, their legal rights as employers with regard to providing safe leave for staff who are experiencing domestic abuse. As Caoimhe Archibald, the Committee Chair, pointed out earlier, there is a clear statistical basis for that. Indeed, if you talk to any major employers' group or trade union, they will be able to tell you that the time that is lost through dealing with issues as tragic and awful as domestic abuse is a problem for businesses. The Bill will not just create a new right for workers who are in that terrible situation but clarify the responsibilities and rights for businesses. Fundamentally, that is a good thing for small businesses. As Stephen Dunne mentioned, many of the microbusinesses that we are fortunate to have in Northern Ireland are exactly the kind of employers who want to do right by their employees when something like this happens. The Bill puts those obligations into statute. It provides important new rights for workers and clarifies the obligations for employers. It will allow the Department to go away and draft the regulations. Many of the amendments will give the Department flexibility in how it drafts those regulations and ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose.

Assuming that the Bill sponsor will not raise any particular objections to the amendments, we are happy to support them. I very much look forward to speaking on the Final Stage of the Bill in the next couple of weeks and getting it on to the statute book.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing this important Bill to the House. I want to pick up on a point, which featured towards the end of Mr O'Toole's remarks, about trying to allay the fears of employers and employer organisations who feel that we are, perhaps, open to the accusation of trying to rush the legislation through. As Mr O'Toole made clear, that is not the end of the process of commencing. We will go into a phase where the Department will look at how it will give effect to the spirit of the Bill's regulations and consult on same.

I imagine that I am not the only Member who received an email earlier today from one employer organisation expressing some concern about the implications of the Bill. To summarise, on the former point, the smaller and more family-orientated the organisation, the more impactful the Bill will be through the obligations that it puts on that organisation. On the latter point about a family-run business, if I can use a euphemism, the more awkward it may be to try to resolve the idea that there is domestic abuse that demands a period of safe leave.

Those are things that we will figure out as we move ahead. They are certainly not obstacles to addressing what is a very important issue. I commend the Bill sponsor for tackling it, because it is easily tucked away, forgotten about, ignored and brushed under the carpet. It is commendable that we are looking at it.

I do not think that I have anything fresh to say about the amendments that has not been said already, so I will not delay the House. The fact that the Bill sponsor appears content with the amendments coming out of the Department is good enough for me.

Photo of Stewart Dickson Stewart Dickson Alliance

I thank the Bill sponsor for this very important and timely Bill. In Northern Ireland, we have some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom, with one incident occurring every 17 minutes, equating to around 8,500 domestic abuse incidents since the Second Stage of the Bill. How shocking is that? Domestic abuse has reached terrifying proportions in Northern Ireland. Support in the form of paid leave is crucial to ensuring that victims have the economic flexibility to retain employment while fleeing an abusive relationship.

Having worked for some 30 years in the Labour Relations Agency, I believe that, while the Bill is hugely significant, how it will operationalise is equally essential. Legislation alone is not enough. Training and raising awareness will be vital. As we advance the Bill, I hope that the Department will ensure that employers and employees are educated on the potential impact that water-cooler conversations could have on victims who are in these circumstances.

I certainly hope that, when the Department brings forward guidance with regard to this, it will emphasise the need for confidentiality in HR departments, more so in small businesses where only one or two people would be aware of the circumstances and the need for utter confidentiality. I have concerns about the risks of any breach of confidentiality in those circumstances.

The legislation is an essential step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Victims and survivors of sexual assault are similarly affected and may need time off work for medical treatment, to attend court or even to meet healthcare professionals. I hope that that is something we can investigate in the next mandate.

Ultimately, the sad truth is that, while domestic abuse is all too common, it is often a hidden problem. It will be difficult for employees to speak to their employers about it — I have absolutely no doubt about that — but we need to create a safe space for that conversation to take place and provide safe space for employees in those circumstances to have paid time off in the sure and certain knowledge that they are secure in their employment while dealing with some of the most traumatic and difficult of circumstances. I hope that the legislation and the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 brought forward by my colleague the Justice Minister Naomi Long will encourage those affected to talk about what is happening and to reach out.

I thank the Minister for the amendments that he has tabled. From the Alliance Party's perspective and having had a brief conversation with the Bill's sponsor, I understand that she is content with the amendments, I thank the Minister for what is appropriate tidying-up of the legislation. I look forward, hopefully in the next mandate, to seeing the legislation come to fruition, being delivered and protecting people in some of the most vulnerable of circumstances.

Photo of Jemma Dolan Jemma Dolan Sinn Féin

I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill. I commend the Committee members, the Minister and the Bill sponsor for ensuring that the Bill is prioritised, and I hope that it makes it through this mandate.

Gender-based violence is not confined to the home. It can happen anywhere, and, regardless of where such abuse takes place, the victims carry the mental and physical injuries and scars of such abuse into the world of work. As legislators, we have a role to protect women in the workplace and to ensure that victims' rights and entitlements as employees are enhanced and protected.

Sinn Féin supports the amendments tabled by the Economy Minister, as we believe that they will improve the Bill and ensure that it is operable. As the Minister said, the majority of the amendments are technical. The details of each have been outlined, so I will not repeat the remarks of others.

Financial independence from perpetrators is essential for women experiencing domestic abuse, and employment is a key element of financial independence. Paid domestic violence leave as part of a comprehensive package of workplace measures can play an important role in supporting abused women to remain in employment, thereby expanding their agency and choices.

As the Chair said, our party colleague, Louise O'Reilly TD, brought forward a similar Bill in the Dáil, which, although it has been hindered by the Dublin Government, will, hopefully, become law in the Twenty-six Counties. The significance of having an all-island entitlement to paid leave for domestic abuse victims and survivors would be huge. Sinn Féin will do all that it can in the Assembly and in Leinster House to ensure that that is delivered.

If we are to end the epidemic of domestic abuse, we need a whole-of-society response that supports and protects women. A key element of that is delivering paid domestic violence leave. This is International Women's Week, and we should mark that by taking the opportunity to pass the Bill and support victims of domestic abuse, the majority of whom are women.

I support the Bill and the amendments.

Photo of John O'Dowd John O'Dowd Sinn Féin

I do not intend to speak for too long. I just want to reflect on amendment No 18, which ensures that there is recourse through an industrial tribunal. In what, I would hope, would be the rare case of that having to happen, we have to think about the difficulties that it may present to a victim of domestic violence, somebody who has suffered abuse and violence today, having to enter the legal arena of an industrial tribunal.

Taking a case to an industrial tribunal can be an expensive course of action, and it is a daunting one. However, I accept that good legislation should have an enforcement element to it. There is no point in having legislation unless it can be enforced, and, on industrial matters, an industrial tribunal would be the natural route to take.

Without delaying the completion of the Bill, the Department, in its deliberations, has to look at how it will support victims of domestic abuse in industrial tribunals in order to ensure that their rights are protected. There is a challenge there for the Department and for the industrial tribunals going forward. We may want to look at the issue again at Further Consideration Stage, but, certainly, in the next mandate, the Committee that monitors the Department's implementation of the legislation will want to take a look at it.

I fully support all the amendments before the House and welcome the fact that the Bill is making progress through the Assembly.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP 4:45, 9 March 2022

I call the sponsor of the Bill, Rachel Woods.

Photo of Rachel Woods Rachel Woods Green

At the outset, I thank the Minister and all the Members who spoke to the amendments before the House and made suggestions. I am happy to discuss those suggestions and take them on board between this stage and Further Consideration Stage. I wish the Minister all the best in his recovery. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber today. I thank the private Members' Bills team and Clerks in the Bill Office and the departmental officials, who have spent considerable time examining the Bill in detail and developing the amendments, most of which, as we have heard, are technical and will ensure that the regulations that introduce safe leave are fit for purpose. I also thank from the bottom of my heart my researcher for his incredible work to get us to this stage. I dedicate the Consideration Stage to every victim of domestic abuse who has ever felt trapped without options and to every person who has had an employee or workmate who was being abused but did not know how to help them.

The details of the amendments that the Minister has tabled have already been discussed in detail. I broadly welcome them, as they will ensure that the Bill is technically sound and can be implemented in full. I want to discuss a few of them, however.

Amendment No 2 will change the definition of a victim of domestic abuse from being explicitly tied to the definition in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 to a broader view of an employee who is being subjected to or has been subjected to abusive behaviour by a person to whom the employee is connected. I understand that the amendment is based on some concerns about how the 2021 Act may affect the operation of the regulations, and the amendment appears to give the Department some freedom to expand or modify the definition. I welcome that, so long as it is used to ensure that victims and survivors are not excluded unnecessarily.

Amendment No 5 will simply add clarity by stating that the list of issues related to domestic abuse can be expanded. That is welcome, as it gives the Department explicit powers to specify other matters that may be relevant when safe leave is required.

Amendment No 6 will add clarity to the meaning of the leave year and states that safe leave does not have to be taken as a single continuous period. That was entirely the intention of the Bill at Second Stage.

Amendment No 9 will strengthen the prohibition on length-of-service conditions so that employers are not able to impose any such conditions. I welcome the added clarity brought by amendment No 9 and fully support it. We should be absolutely clear that it would not be appropriate for the Department or an employer to impose such conditions. That also came through loud and clear during our consultation.

Amendment Nos 17 and 18 are connected and provide for more extensive regulation-making powers that cover enforcement, including specific references to seeking recourse through an industrial tribunal. I fully support more comprehensive provisions in that regard and welcome the fact that the Department is taking time to consider the processes involved when an employer fails to comply with the regulations.

Amendment Nos 19 and 20 clarify issues surrounding extending the right to safe leave to workers and expand the power of the Department to modify the application of the regulations to workers, including

"excluding a provision of the regulations ... in relation to a worker".

I understand that that might be necessary when it comes to issues like contracts and that not all aspects of the regulations may apply to workers, but I ask the Minister, when he is summing up, for some further clarity on the kind of provisions from which his Department may look to exclude workers and the thinking behind that.

Amendment No 26 changes the reporting requirement from every financial year to one year after the regulations are commenced and then every three years after that. That report must be laid in the Assembly, and the Department must consult those affected by the legislation. Whilst those changes water down the original wording of the clause, I am content to support the amendment at this stage, based on the logic that the Department will produce more comprehensive data and a better assessment of the operation of the regulations if it is given the time to do so. That is my hope, and I am sure that the Minister will provide an assurance to that effect.

I have concerns about amendment No 27, which removes the duty to include in the report information about compliance and the impact on victims of domestic abuse, but I understand the rationale. The Department cannot compel employers to provide information, and collecting and reporting on very sensitive information provided by victims presents many challenges. Notwithstanding those issues, it is essential that the Department assesses the effectiveness of the regulations, and, again, I am looking for a clear assurance from the Minister that that is provided for in amendment No 26 and that that work will happen. On that basis, I am content to accept amendment No 27.

Amendment No 30 creates new clause 3A to expand the regulation-making powers of the Department to cover modifying provisions of the 1996 Order and any transitional, transitory or savings provisions. It appears to relate to consequential changes to other areas of law as a result of the Act and/or in order to give full effect to the Act. Those regulations will be subject to negative resolution unless they amend primary legislation, which will be subject to a resolution of the Assembly. Again, on that basis, I am content to support the amendment — the new clause — to ensure that the Department has the necessary powers and flexibility to give full effect to the legislation.

Lastly, amendment Nos 31 and 32 change the commencement provisions to capture the reporting requirement and guidance clause, as well as moving the remaining clauses to come into force the day after Royal Assent. I welcome the Minister's commitment in his opening remarks that these regulations will be commenced as quickly as possible. I urge him to ensure that the Department is sufficiently enabled to proceed with this work in the absence of an Executive by writing to declare such to the permanent secretary in the Department for the Economy to provide that necessary cover, should it be required following the election. We cannot have a situation where this becomes law and, because of political instability, the provisions of the Bill are not commenced and victims and survivors of domestic abuse cannot avail themselves of their legal entitlement to safe leave.

In conclusion, this Bill is about saving lives. It provides victims and survivors with a pathway to safety. It protects them in the workplace from the effects of abuse by providing at least 10 days' paid safe leave. It can be used to deal with emergency situations. It can allow victims to get medical care and mental health care. It can be used for moving house, attending legal appointments, going to court, resettling children or other family members, seeking advice and help from support services, sorting out finances, and organising the logistics and transition from an abusive relationship to a place of safety.

I remind Members that the PSNI recorded over 31,000 incidents of domestic abuse in the last year alone, and that is just the tip of the iceberg — those are the ones that were reported. The number of crimes recorded — over 19,000 — is the highest since records began and nearly twice the level recorded in 2005, representing one in five of all crimes recorded in the last year. PSNI figures for my constituency of North Down show that the number of domestic abuse-related crimes recorded jumped from 546 in 2020 to 692 in 2021, which is an increase of 146.

It is our job to ensure that all the protections that we can have in place are in place. I thank the Members who have spoken in favour of this today and thank the Minister for tabling the amendments, which will ensure that the Bill, when it becomes law, is implemented as quickly and comprehensively as possible.

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

I thank all Members for their comments today and for their support for my amendments. I welcome the fact that there was broad and, indeed, unanimous support for those amendments. I do not intend to go through all the commentary from Members at this time. I will, however, pick up on some of it.

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy relayed some concerns of hers about reporting requirements in amendment No 26. From my point of view, I want to make sure that any report that is produced by my Department is meaningful and has some impact. We want to have something that will be of use in helping us to understand how the Bill is working out and whether it is doing what it is intended to do. That is why those changes are being proposed.

I thank Stephen Dunne for his support for the Bill. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of small and medium-sized businesses and the potential impact of the Bill on them. It is very much the case that small and medium-sized businesses are good employers and many of them want to do the right thing. They are sensitive to the issues. That is why we will have a consultation period to make sure that we hear their views and that the Bill is implemented in such a way that everybody is aware of their responsibilities and how they can best help their employees.

I note that Matthew O'Toole had some concerns about commencement. The reasons for those amendments are about getting that right and having the right procedures in place so that the legislation can take effect at the right time.

I want to pick up on John O'Dowd's comments as well. I understand his concern, and I hope that we never get to the stage where such issues have to go before an industrial tribunal. I hope that things would be much more straightforward than that. However, it is right that, if employers are not doing what they are meant to do under this legislation, there is recourse and remedy for employees, and an industrial tribunal is the best way for that to happen. Of course, I agree with him that I hope that that will never happen, because that would add a huge burden on those who have already gone through an exceptionally difficult time.

I want to move on to a few of the Bill sponsor's comments. I thank her for the constructive way in which she has engaged with me and for recognising that we are trying to make the Bill as good as it can be, rather than trying to roll back in any way. That is one of the reasons why we tabled amendment No 2. We are not, in any way, seeking to roll back on the definition of domestic abuse or of a domestic abuse victim. The amendment is an extension in order to cover things that might not have been covered in the previous definition.

In amendment No 20, we are certainly not trying to roll back on the support that is available to workers. As I stated, my amendment is about ensuring that there are no unintended consequences across the employment law framework in respect of the complex issue of employment status. It is in no way designed to exclude workers from accessing the right to safe leave: I hope that that provides some comfort to the Member.

I am also happy to provide the assurances that the Member requested in relation to amendment No 26 and what we are trying to do about reporting. She also raised concerns about the regulations. I will certainly do all that I can in my remaining time in office to make sure that the Department is prepared and enabled to take regulations forward so that the Bill can be commenced. I do not want to be in the situation where those regulations cannot come into force. I am more than happy to make sure that the Department has a clear instruction and policy direction from me, as Minister, based on the mandate that I have received from the Assembly in this Bill, to make sure that the regulations are put in place and that the Bill can be commenced.

I hope that that gives the Member the assurances that she asked for. It was not my intent through those regulations to change in any way what she had originally tried to do in her Bill. As a Department, we are trying to tidy up the Bill as best we can so that it operates as well as it can. Ultimately, we want it to operate well for those who find themselves in that situation.

I wish that we were in the position where we did not have to bring in this legislation. I also wish that we were in the position where we did not have the horrendous statistics on the prevalence of domestic abuse in our society, which have already been mentioned today. We have to do a much wider piece of work in order to change what is taking place and to make sure that it is never acceptable for domestic abuse, in any form, to happen.

I wish that it did not happen in the first place. If it happens, we have many employers who are sympathetic and will give staff the leave that they need to deal with the issues that come about as a result of domestic abuse. However, some who need that help may not get it, so it needs to be provided for in legislation. That is why we are here today. Although I am not happy that we need to do that, I am happy that we can do it to provide some additional support.

I will welcome support for the amendments today so that we can get the Bill passed and operational in order to provide that support. I very much welcome the constructive way in which we have been able to move the Bill forward in a short time. I welcome the support from Members today and encourage them to support all the amendments, which I commend to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No 2 made:

In page 1, leave out lines 10 to 17 and insert—

<BR/>

“(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, an employee is a victim of domestic abuse if—


(a) the employee is being, or has been, subjected to abusive behaviour by a person to whom the employee is connected, and


(b) such other conditions as may be specified are satisfied.


(3) The regulations must include provision as to the meaning of being subjected to abusive behaviour, and as to the criteria for being connected to another person, for the purposes of paragraph (2); and the regulations may do so by reference to provisions of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 or by applying other statutory provisions (with or without modifications).” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 3 made:

In page 1, leave out lines 18 and 19. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 4 made:

In page 1, line 20, leave out “(4)” and insert “(1)”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 5 made:

In page 2, line 6, at end insert—



“(f) such other matters as may be specified in the regulations.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 6 made:

In page 2, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—



“the period of safe leave to which an employee who is a victim of domestic abuse is entitled is at least 10 days in each leave year (whether or not taken as a single continuous period), with ‘leave year’ having the meaning given in, and being calculated in accordance with, the regulations.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 7 made:

In page 2, line 10, leave out from “leave” to “Article” on line 11 and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 8 made:

In page 2, line 16, leave out “a day as”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 9 made:

In page 2, line 17, after “conditions” insert—



“, or enable an employer to impose conditions,”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 10 made:

In page 2, line 21, leave out “under that Article”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 11 made:

In page 2, line 25, leave out “under that Article”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 12 made:

In page 2, line 30, leave out “under that Article”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 13 made:

In page 2, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert—



“(2) In paragraph (1)(a), ‘terms and conditions of employment’ includes—


(a) terms and conditions about remuneration, and


(b) any other matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment.


(2A) Provision under paragraph (1)(a) must, in particular, provide that it is for the employer of an employee who is absent on safe leave to pay the employee remuneration in respect of the period of safe leave.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 14 made:

In page 2, line 37, leave out from “under” to “112EA” on line 38. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 15 made:

In page 2, line 39, leave out “leave under that Article” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 16 made:

In page 3, line 12, leave out “leave under that Article” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 17 made:

In page 3, leave out lines 15 to 17. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 18 made:

In page 3, line 17, at end insert—



Enforcement


112ECA.—(1) Regulations under Article 112EA may make provision for the consequences of—


(a) the prevention or attempted prevention by an employer of the exercise by an employee of the entitlement to be absent from work on safe leave;


(b) a failure by the employer to comply with the requirement to pay remuneration by virtue of Article 112EB(2A);


(c) a failure to comply with any other provision of the regulations.


(2) Provision under paragraph (1) may, in particular—


(a) enable an employee to present a complaint to an industrial tribunal, and


(b) include provision as to the remedies available to an industrial tribunal where it finds a complaint presented by virtue of this Article to be well-founded.


(3) Provision under paragraph (1) made in connection with provision under Article 112EC(1) may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 11.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 19 made:

In page 3, line 20, leave out “(as well as employees)” and insert “who are not employees”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 20 made:

In page 3, leave out line 22 and insert—



“(a) may make provision applying, modifying or excluding a provision of the regulations, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions specified, in relation to a worker;


(aa) may, so far as is necessary for the purpose of making provision by virtue of sub-paragraph (a), make provision applying, modifying or excluding a provision of this Order; and”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 21 made:

In page 3, leave out lines 29 to 32. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 22 made:

In page 3, leave out line 33. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 23 made:

In page 3, line 39, leave out “leave under Article 112EA” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 24 made:

In page 4, line 2, leave out “leave under Article 112EA” and insert “safe leave”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 25 made:

In page 4, line 3, leave out from “(including” to “enactments)” on line 4. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP 5:00, 9 March 2022

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change some staff at the Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)

Clause 2 (Annual report)

Amendment No 26 made:

In page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

<BR/>

“(1) The Department for the Economy must, in so far as it is practicable for the Department to do so, make a report on the operation of regulations under Article 112EA of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996—


(a) as soon as practicable after the first anniversary of the commencement of the first regulations under that Article, and


(b) at least once in every three years after the making of the previous report on the operation of the regulations.


(1A) The Department must publish each report made under this section and lay a copy of it before the Assembly.


(1B) In making a report under this section, the Department must consult such persons or organisations as it considers appropriate.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 27 made:

In page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (2). — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Guidance)

Amendment No 28 made:

In page 4, line 15, leave out “give” and insert “issue”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 29 made:

In page 4, line 16, leave out “this Act” and insert—



“Article 112EA of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 30 made:

After clause 3 insert—



Power to make consequential etc. provision


3A.—(1) The Department for the Economy may by regulations make provision in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, this Act.


(2) Regulations under this section may—


(a) amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify a provision of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (including a provision inserted by this Act) or any other statutory provision (within the meaning of section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954));


(b) include transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into operation of provision made by the regulations.


(3) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution, except as mentioned in subsection (4).


(4) Regulations under this section which contain (whether alone or with other provision) provision that amends the text of Northern Ireland legislation or an Act of Parliament are not to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.


(5) The power conferred by this section is not restricted by any other provision of this Act.” — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Commencement)

Amendment No 31 made:

In page 4, line 20, leave out “Section 1 comes” and insert “Sections 1 to 3 come”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Amendment No 32 made:

In page 4, line 22, after “on” insert “the day after”. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy).]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Social Democratic and Labour Party 5:15, 9 March 2022

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Minister, best wishes to you; we hope to see you back here in person.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Social Democratic and Labour Party

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.