This Bill is disappointing. It is minimalist in its objectives and pedestrian in its approach. The case for family leave arrangements for workers is well proven — they contribute towards the reconciliation of employment and family responsibilities as well as other social and economic policy objectives, including equal opportunities, the health and well-being of children and parents, the well-being of families, improved economic performance and reducing unemployment.
The European Commission Network on Childcare, in its review of leave arrangements for workers with children, concludes that because leave arrangements are of such basic importance to reconciling employment and family responsibilities, a basic entitlement to the four types of leave needs to be guaranteed to all workers by law. This entitlement should be paid and flexible to include at least 16 weeks post natal maternity leave, two weeks paternity leave, 12 months parental leave and ten days leave for family reasons per child per year.
I am a realist and I accept that provision may be the optimum and is unlikely to be reached in the short term but it is clear that this Bill falls far short of fulfilling that brief. It is not only too little, but, as Deputy O'Donnell said, it is late. To comply with the European Directive the Bill should never been enacted before now.
In 1981 we were the last country in the EU to enact maternity leave legislation. Yet again, Ireland is at the bottom of the league, scraping through at the last minute with minor legislation to comply with a directive rather than looking seriously and imaginatively at the changes taking place both at work and in the family.
Looking at the Bill it is difficult to justify the claim that we are good Europeans. Nor is it compatible with the concept that we, as a nation, are pro-family. Maternity leave is still pegged at the minimum requirement which has been in force for many years. Since this is the Year of the Family it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that mothers and children benefit from more extended time together.
It is also hard to reconcile the fact that the father's role is not taken into account. A Minister for equality is surely expected to introduce the concept of equality into a Bill which will shape the family roles of men and women. In 1992 the Council of Ministers adopted a recommendation on child care. Article 6, which was agreed by member states, including Ireland, states:
It is recommended that member states should promote and encourage, with due respect for freedom of the individual, increased participation by men (in the care and upbringing of children) in order to achieve a more equal sharing of parental responsibilities between men and women.
The Minister had an opportunity to being to act on this commitment but he chose not to. There is no provision for paternity leave except in one instance. Is there not something macabre about the fact that a father can only get leave to mind his child when the mother of his child has died within fourteen weeks of delivery?
Recently, a European workshop was held in Dublin on the subject of families, labour markets and gender roles. It was, ironically, opened by the Minister, Deputy Taylor, he said:
Demographic change faces Ireland as it faces most other countries in Europe. The latest statistics on childbirth here show that we now have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. This represents a dramatic change from a position where traditionally Ireland had one of the highest birth rates in Europe, and in fact one of the highest in the world. I firmly believe that the change in the birth rate will itself have major implications for the future of the Irish labour force and will necessitate the more rapid overhaul of outdated employment practices and social structures. Such changes will undoubtedly have their effect on the realities of life, particularly for women in Irish society and may very well change their roles fundamentally.
Fine words, however, do not contribute to a rapid overhaul. In the Bill I could not find any indication of the promise offered by the Minister's words. It is a paltry document that largely reinforces the status quo. The Minister will no doubt state that parental leave is a separate issue to be tackled in the future, but the reality is that unless there is an integrated and flexible approach towards leave arrangements he is simply reinforcing inequality.
At the same workshop where the Minister spoke so glowingly about the future, the background paper, prepared by Drew, Mahon and Emerek, stated unequivocally
The provision of parental leave — usually taken to mean parental leave in addition to maternal leave — is one sign that an organisation recognises paternal family obligations. If used by men and women, it could be seen as a new way of combining family and working life. The provision of maternal leave, while a significant gain in EU states, only reifies existing gendered divisions in the labour market unless it is accompanied by paternal leave.
The Minister, in the Bill, is solidifying existing gender divisions when he should have lived up to his office. As a Minister for Equality he should and could have adopted that recommended integrated approach. There is no need to wait for some future directive to set the pace for reform in Ireland. The directive on parental leave will not arise again for consideration for at least a year.
In the past the Government enacted legislation relating to part-time workers without waiting for a directive to lead the way. The initiative was taken because it was right, not because it was imposed. It hardly justifies a Minister for equality if, in this most basic area of family life, we are simply being dragged along in the wake of European reform.
The opportunity was also lost to extend maternity leave, which is what many people want. Even if the unpaid, optional leave were extended it would have signalled improvement. People who could afford to avail of this extension would have benefited. People take leave for family reasons on an unplanned basis which can disrupt workplace patterns. If leave were regularised and extended, employers could benefit in being able to replace workers temporarily. This would serve to spread work around and give unemployed people, particularly women, a chance to work. If work is not to be the sole province of the better-off then the opportunity for job-sharing and part-time work must be developed for parents.
The European Pregnancy Directive provides that workers taking leave must receive payment at least equivalent to disability payment. This directive was put forward as a health and safety measure. It is worth noting that one of Deputy McCreevy's "Dirty Dozen" was to slash the minimum rate of maternity benefit from £69 to £60 per week, a reduction which affected many women on low incomes. Our record of providing for pregnant women workers is not a proud one.
I would be concerned if the health and safety provisions of the Bill which I welcome, might lead to discrimination against women workers of child bearing age being taken into the workforce. Inevitably the response by employers to social reforms has been to resist change. The almost hysterical response of IBEC to the extension of workers' rights regarding part-time work and parental leave is a case in point. The Minister must ensure that women do not lose out as a result of any backlash. Three weeks pay is a small price for employers to pay for the safety of their workers.
IBEC might look at the example of other modern European states which have not only implemented legal entitlements for parental leave but have also developed collective or company agreements which are making a significant contribution. In Germany 14 per cent of private companies covered in a 1991 survey had agreements offering employees a longer period of parental leave. Some agreements offer opportunities for part-time employment after the end of parental leave. In Denmark 95 per cent of those in the private sector have the right to take paid leave on the first day of a child's illness and all workers in the public sector are entitled to the same facility. Other countries make arrangements which vary from the most comprehensive in Sweden to more individual and modest arrangements within companies.
This morning we debated the terms of the Treaty providing for the accession of Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden to the EU. Three of these countries provide for parental leave. In 1991, 45 per cent of fathers in Finland took parental leave which shows the take-up where such leave is provided. In Sweden, almost all mothers took paid parental leave and, in 1990 86 per cent of fathers in Sweden took two weeks paternity leave. There is also a very generous system of leave in case of illness among children or their normal carers. From the private employers' point of view, it is interesting to note that large companies may be better able to replace workers on leave from their own resources or to establish dynamic arrangements but the longer and more predictable the leave, the more likely it is that a substitute employee will be employed.
What is striking about Sweden, which has a long established and extensive system of parental leave, is how little difficulty it seems to cause most employers. A report produced by Rapoport & Moss in 1990 pointed out:
...statutory parental leave in Sweden does not seem to present any
major problems to employers. Experience has shown that parental leave is workable and that what employers think is impossible is not impossible. Initial worries went as it became apparent there were no really big problems. In general, implementation is facilitated because parental leave is predictable and employers get advance notice of an employee taking it. It only affects a small part of the workforce at any one time.
That is an important point. A declining number of people will be affected by the need for parental leave. Fewer Irish people are getting married and fewer are having babies. The rate has dropped below replacement level again and now stands at 1.93, the lowest total fertility rate ever recorded. It has been highlighted in the media that the number of non-marital births has risen to almost 20 per cent.
Poverty is very much a feature of the lives of many lone parents and the opportunity to work is the best chance that many have to extract themselves from the poverty trap. But a lone parent has a double responsibility to carry — if they hold down a job then the provision of adequate maternity leave would ensure that responsibility is met in a realistic way.
Social change has led to a drop in the birth rate, a decrease in family size, an increase in non-marital births, a decrease in marriage rates, an increase in marital separation and divorce, a rise in the participation of mothers in the labour force, an increase in lone parent families, a rise in cohabitation and a growing acceptance of independence between sexuality and procreation.
These are all features of modern life in Europe and we are affected by those trends. They reflect the process of modernisation of the family and are tied in with the process of social change. It is lamentable that this Bill fails to acknowledge the major social changes that have, and will continue to take place in Ireland.
The most interesting trend which is emerging indicates the importance of providing a family-friendly work environment. In the Nordic countries where parental leave and accommodation of families is made by employers and by the State and where employment is still relatively high the birth rate has begun to increase. It is in the southern countries and in Ireland — countries experiencing high unemployment with workplaces which are generally inimical to the family — that the birthrate is dropping.
In the long term, the implications of a very low fertility rate are serious. We must ensure that there is a healthy birthrate. The best way to do this, as experience in the more developed European countries shows, is to ensure good supports for families, the provision of parental leave, the facility for parents to move in and out of the workforce without losing out and the establishment of the principle of equality between parents. Many of us are concerned about employment for young people but they grow old and we must look at the implications of a low birth rate and its effect on society.
Much of the Bill is a repeat of earlier legislation. A number of problems relating to written notification were experienced in the past. I have no argument with the procedures but the Minister must ensure that workers and employers are fully informed about them so that deadlines are not missed as happened in the past. Will the provisions governed by regulations and in the Social Welfare Act be retained? I refer in particular to the provision for mothers of stillborn babies.
Section 10 states that at least four weeks must be taken before and after the birth of the baby. I wonder in these days of generally healthy mothers and safe pregnancies whether this stipulation is not too rigid. Most mothers prefer to take their leave after the baby is born and are able to work until a few days before delivery. Surely we should leave it to mothers to make that decision rather than impose it on them.
Section 17 outlines the arrangements relating to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, a change which is welcome. However, after the first three weeks it is dependent on provision being made by the Minister for Social Welfare and I would like to know that there will be no short fall between the enactment of this Bill and provision being made by the Minister for Social Welfare.
The provision for appeals to be heard is largely satisfactory although it is important to ensure that there is no delay in hearing them. Since we are dealing with pregnancy, any appeal on a claim for maternity leave or leave on health and safety grounds cannot be long drawn out, for obvious reasons. I am not aware that this caused any problems in the past but since employers, for the first time, will be liable for three weeks payment in certain instances more claims may be taken under this Bill than under the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act.
My party will support this Bill, but we have no illusions about its meagre provisions. Across Europe there is a demand for well-educated people in the labour force and a need for stable families to ensure the growth of the next generation. Other European countries have developed flexible and generous leave arrangements based on the principle of equality. They recognise that the State can encourage men to adopt a greater share of caring and domestic work. They recognise that women have adapted to the opportunities afforded them by expanding opportunities while still maintaining their domestic and family roles as carers. Generally, and particularly in Ireland, men have not done so. How to ensure that happens is a fundamental issue of equality. The Minister failed to face up to this challenge. It is its greatest disappointment and the Bill's greatest failing.