It is not overly prescriptive or exclusive. I am leaving it wide open for other documents that may emerge as being relevant. I am not looking for every single document to be listed. That would be if I was looking for an exclusionary list. I am simply saying let us put in and name something we know is likely to be used. That is not the same thing. It is important to be clear on what is being proposed. I am proposing the inclusion of two kinds of documentation not the construction of a completely comprehensive list. …

I move amendment No. 30: In page 15, line 14, after “needs” to insert “, relevant to the functioning of his or her business,”. These amendments relate to the slightly strange language used in the Bill. It is not really typical of how we would normally approach it. We have already discussed the solely needs-based approach rather than a rights-based or good practice-based approach. It does not focus on work-life balance as a positive good but on the balancing of pressing needs. In the way that some of these are frame…

I would like the Minister to clarify a matter. Is the directive being specified in relation to the section on flexible arrangements for care or the section on remote working? Is that same directive argument applying to both of those parts?

To clarify, the Minister mentioned one part of the Bill is transposition of the EU directive. I am just clarifying because there are two areas where the language is used. One is in respect of seeking flexible working arrangements for care and the other is in respect of remote working. I am looking for clarification as to whether the EU directive-motivated section applies to both of those or solely to one of them. That would be useful for us as we continue on to the next stage of our debate.

I wish to clarify a couple of points. I accept, to a degree, the point on the coherence of the language. I still have concerns on it. I do not accept that my amendments would have in any way inadvertently disadvantaged employees because my amendments solely related to the definition of “needs” in respect of employers and that there be clarity. On flexible working arrangements, the hope would be that the code of practice would then provide clarity on how the needs question gets interpreted in a meaningful way, for e…

-----reasons might be better language but we can come back to that again on Report Stage. I withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce.

I move amendment No. 31: In page 15, line 14, after “needs” to insert “, relevant to the fulfilling of the employee’s duties,”. I withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 33: In page 15, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(2A) Where an extension under subsection (2) occurs, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the reasonable grounds upon which such the extension is required.”. I do not see my notes but I will continue anyway. Amendment No. 33 effectively is related to the fact that an employer can extend the period of time of making a decision on a flexible working arrangement request. My amendment states that where there is an ex…

I would disagree that it is not automatic. It is automatic. It simply states the employer may extend the four-week period by a further period, not exceeding eight weeks. It is absolutely at the discretion of the employer to extend it by the extra two months. Simply saying you have informed somebody that you have extended it by two months does not mean it is not an automatic right to extend it by two months. I was not even taking away the automatic right to extend it. I was simply saying that as well as informing th…

I will speak briefly in favour of Senator Currie's amendments. They demonstrate the fact she has a very good understanding of remote working and how it operates. I do not believe there is the right balance. There are problems with the language in the Bill about the basis on which an employer can withdraw the arrangement. It is very fair to put in the words "reasonable and demonstrable" because, otherwise, a considerable amount is resting on the individual psychology or preferences of an employer. I wish to note are…

I move amendment No. 37: In page 17, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(1A) Where a termination of a flexible working agreement occurs due to circumstances described in subsection (1)(a), the termination shall only be valid for the period in which such seasonal variations occur and upon the conclusion of that period the flexible working agreement shall resume.”. Amendment No. 37 seeks to introduce a new subsection to section 13E which would require that, "Where a termination of a flexible working a…

I addressed the fact that one may end up with people reapplying a one- to three-month period of waiting for a decision, after reapplying, and all the paperwork being done again. This is the kind of measure that is going to make this legislation not work. When things like this are put in legislation, people will apply, they will do it, it will be this whole process, they will get it and then they will find the arrangements pulled out from under them. This may be done by an employer who says they really need people t…

A pattern is emerging. Of course not every workplace is suitable for remote working. If we have proper legislation, then reasonable grounds can be shown. I refer to the reasonable and demonstrable language Senator Currie is talking about and the kind of language Senator Sherlock is putting forward in respect of reasonableness as well. If there is a reason why remote working is not appropriate, that is fine. However, we must look to the pattern here in respect of the amendments being rejected. I refer to every amend…

I move amendment No. 48: In page 23, line 29, after “years” to insert “or when the employment ceases”. Amendment No. 48 seeks to include in the proposed amendment to section 29 of the principal Act that where records of medical leave are kept that as well as the three-year limit on the retention of such records, that they would be destroyed when employments ceases, whichever occurs earlier. As such records are likely to contain sensitive information, it is important from a data protection viewpoint that the sensiti…

Amendment No. 49 seeks to include in the proposed amendments that where records of flexible working arrangements are kept as well that the three-year arrangement for the retention of such records that they may be destroyed when employment ceases. It is the same data protection but I have slightly different feelings about amendment No. 49 in that the pattern or outcome of arrangements is something a company may wish to have a record of but other sections of the Bill require quite a considerable amount of information…

I accept that concern and retention of records post-employment is the main thing I want to get to rather than the other piece. I am happy to not press the amendment at this point and to come back to it on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 49: In page 23, line 31, after “years” to insert “or when the employment ceases”.

I move amendment No. 52 In page 26, line 18, after “not” to insert “, subject to the approval of the employer and the employee,”.

I move amendment No. 53: In page 27, line 15, after “needs” to insert “, relevant to the functioning of his or her business”.

I move amendment No. 57: In page 28, line 13, after “her” to insert “business”.