Deputy Durkan was due to resume but, as he is not in the Chamber, I call Deputy Flaherty.
Maternity Protection Bill, 1994: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I welcome this important step forward in regard to the rights of women in employment, particularly those who are pregnant. The legislation is modest because the directive was modest in its requirements of member states. It was fiercely fought for at all stages and, as is so often the case in that kind of situation, the mean or less is the best that can be achieved. What is in the directive, and hence in our legislation, is minimal. The Minister referred to the possibility of further progress on parental leave, in the Department of Social Welfare in the context of levels of payment and in the Department of Labour in the context of regulations on health and safety. The Minister is certainly honouring his obligations under the directive and he has gone a little further in some areas. He did not deal with levels of pay, which is the responsibility of another Minister. As a proposal this falls far short of the hopes of many of the groups representing women. In particular it falls short of the recommendations in the Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women whose primary objective was to ensure that legislation brought maternity and paternity leave entitlements close to the European average. I will refer later to how far out of line we are with some European countries.
The legislation is welcome, particularly the proposal to provide health and safety leave. Many issues will be clarified, including the possibility of pregnant women losing their jobs because of a controversy over their rights and ability to perform their duties at work. The Bill will afford greater security for pregnant workers. The entitlements of pregnant workers will be clarified for employers and employees. The legislation, introduced as required by the directive, represents a major improvement in this area. The Minister indicated that work on the regulations to implement the Bill was afoot in another Department. The Minister is beset by the problem that this legislation is the responsibility of two or three Departments and it is often difficult to pursue matters adequately. In assessing its impact it will be important to know the detail of regulations which will implement much of the Bill. Will the Minister indicate when he expects the required regulations from his Department, the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the refinements from the Department of Social Welfare will be available? When will workers be able to benefit from the provisions of the Bill? Reference is made to the commencement date being decided by way of regulation. The Minister should give an indication of a realistic commencement date. Every month that passes is important.
The provision of paid leave for antenatal care is welcome, as is recognition of the needs of breast feeding mothers. These issues were last considered during the debate on the unfair dismissals Bill, when it was claimed that some employers dismissed employees on discovering they were pregnant. The House was assured that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform would deal with the issue in this Bill. Many of the real problems experienced by pregnant women in terms of their inability to perform certain duties have been addressed in a supportive manner. As we are awaiting details of regulations from the Department of Enterprise and Employment we have yet to learn the extent of those provisions.
The directive addressed the area of risk assessment. That should be clarified. The Minister was only able to indicate that a provision was being prepared. That issue was addressed in some detail at the ICTU conference in March in the context of the directive on pregnancy. On that occasion a senior official in the health and safety executive spoke about the requirements. The Bill clarifies that the requirement for risk assessment will be triggered by the giving of notice to a pregnant employee. Will the general health and safety regulations and the requirement to have risks assessed be adequate to deal with this matter? An amendment will be needed to deal with the specific areas identified in the annex to the directive. It is important for employers that those provisions are spelt out. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an indication of the current state of preparation of the regulations for that area which is central to the Bill. It is difficult to address that matter when the detailed application of the requirement to engage in risk assessment is the responsibility of another Minister and will be included in another set of regulations.
The Second Commission on the Status of Women considered that area and it will welcome the implementation of the first of its major recommendations, namely, the implementation of the directive on pregnancy although it will be concerned the Bill does not go further. The Minister indicated, although not in great detail, that he is addressing the issue of parental leave. The commission, the Congress of Trade Unions and the national and international women's bodies who considered this area realise that the issues of pregnancy, employment and the participation of women in the workforce are directly related. We have the lowest level of participation of women in the workforce, the lowest level of maternity leave in the European Union and like a handful of countries we do not have paternity leave. It is not an accident that the net effect of that and other factors specific to our labour force is that women are not actively participating in the workforce because they do not have adequate support to do so. Until the issue of paternity leave is addressed the burden of combining work and family is borne entirely by the woman. Nothing in our law or social welfare regulations, other than the amendment in this legislation which only operates if a woman dies, suggests it is normal or appropriate that a father should share parental duties. A man can undertake many of the tasks associated with children, such as taking them for their post-natal check up. If we want women to participate in the workforce, as many women wish to do, we should facilitate, encourage and insist on giving men the opportunity to participate in caring for children and show that, as a State, we believe such efforts should be supported.
Groups such as the Second Commission on the Status of Women wish to see this area developed. They have been backed enthusiastically by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which adopted and supported a number of their aims and ambitions. However, among the issues not dealt with is levels of pay and this is being discussed in a vacuum. The Minister referred to the work that will be done in the Department of Social Welfare on the levels of various benefits and their application. This matter was fought with great intensity in the preparation of the directive and it was the lower median that won out.
This issue is of great relevance to Ireland. If we consider the statistics from the different countries, we are among the lowest in terms of levels of payment, we are the lowest in duration of payment and we do not provide for parental leave. Bearing that in mind, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, supported the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, and requested that issues such as replacement of staff absent from work due to maternity or parental leave be addressed, but that is not adequately done in this Bill.
A Bill on adoptive leave is going through the Houses of the Oireachtas at present. It is another important step in achieving an adequate legislative framework for men and women in rearing their children. There has been a modest request for five days paternity leave by 1995.
In the debate on paternity leave and family leave at European level the point has been made, based on experience of the types of paternity and parental leave available in other jurisdictions, that there should be designated leave for both parents. Maternity leave is designated at the minimum level of 14 weeks. An element of leave should be designated as exclusively available to the father. There is nothing in legislation to support this view. It would be a great step forward in a society where men and women share responsibilities equally. It would reduce the pressure on women who combine working with child rearing and would enrich the lives of the father who would have a greater opportunity, with the support of the State, to become involved in the care of his children.
I welcome the Minister's decision to repeal the current legislation and bring in a new Bill. The general complexities of legislation are added to if there is masses of amending legislation. It is important that legislation that affects workers rights is easily understood and is as accessible as possible. The Minister has taken that into account. However, further amendment of the Unfair Dismissals Act is involved and there is need to consolidate that legislation.
I am concerned about the way in which at European level the lowest common denominator seems to dominate in these areas. I was often disappointed that in the past Irish representatives hid behind the skirts of their conservative British colleagues who are normally forced into applying social legislation. In view of our broad support for the Social Chapter, I hope we will be more adventurous in future. Reservations among the business sector, were clearly expressed by Declan Madden of IBEC, about the recommendations of the commission and they must be taken into account. Countries successful in creating employment and ensuring an effective, productive workforce are those with the highest level of protection for their workers. In the context of the current growth in our economy, we should strive not for minimal standards but for the best possible standards and, if at all possible, the ideal.
Despite the adoption by the Commission as early as 1983 of a proposal on paternity leave in the context of promoting equal opportunities for women, this proposal has been consistently blocked. There will be another round of discussion on this matter and the directive is being finalised. I welcome the accession of the northern European countries whose standards of protection for employees are very high. We should be to the forefront in encouraging protection of workers. Ultimately it will lead to better quality employment and greater productivity.
I hope before long the Minister will be back in the House with further proposals on parental leave. In his reply to the debate perhaps he will comment on his consultations with the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Social Welfare on the consequences of this legislation. I hope he will give an indication of the proposed deadlines on the making of regulations in his Department. I welcome the legislation. It represents a very valuable European input into Irish legislation. As a female colleague said, if it were not for the European directive this legislation would not have been introduced for a number of decades. Women, particularly working women, owe a great deal to the European Community.
I welcome this Bill. Ireland has a proud record in the quality of its medical, maternity and social care. This is well recognised in Europe and throughout the developed world. The Bill brings us up-to-date in our obligations under EU law and fulfils commitments given in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work 1993-97.
The legislation will have implications for many Government Departments, including the Department of Equality and Law Reform, Enterprise and Employment, Social Welfare and Health. It provides for improvements and greater flexibility in regard to the employment of pregnant workers or workers in the postpartum period or who are breastfeeding. It introduces new rights for husbands in cases where the mother dies during pregnancy. This rarely occurs thanks to the high standard of antenatal, in-hospital and postpartum care provided by consultants and general practitioners. The Bill also re-enacts the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, and the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, with amendments.
New sections dealing with the entitlement to leave on health and safety grounds where suitable alternative work is not available in the workplace may not be to the liking of employers, especially those who employ primarily female workforces. Employers will point out that these are social and health regulations and the expense should not have to be met by them, especially at a time of stiff international competition. They have a point but the regulations are not as demanding as those in other jurisdictions. Given that there are fewer than 60,000 deliveries per annum and most places of employment are of a high standard and will not prevent pregnant workers from continuing their work during pregnancy this should not act as a deterrent to hiring female staff.
The Bill seeks to provide protection under the Redundancy Payments Act where a company ceases to trade or is insolvent. Given the upturn in the economy I hope this will happen less frequently. The financial aspects and implications are elucidated. Further legislation or regulations will be required in the Departments of Social Welfare and Finance which I understand the Department of Social Welfare is in the process of implementing.
Provision is made for greater flexibility to take leave in cases involving prematurity, post-maturity and where the mother is breastfeeding. Workers will also be allowed to take leave to attend antenatal and postnatal clinics without penalty and to take leave under the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act. It appears there are some omissions. For example, there is no reference to certain problems associated with pregnancy, including hyperemesis or excessive vomiting in the first three months of pregnancy, threatened abortions and miscarriages. In such circumstances pregnant women need special care and protection. As these complications cannot be considered to be illnesses per se some reference should have been made to them in the Bill. They should not lead to these patients being classified as sick and unavailable for work as pregnancy is not an illness.
The Bill deals primarily with the position vis-á-vis the European Union. Perhaps we would open a can of worms if we were to take all these matters into consideration. As we are leaders in the field when it comes to maternity care we should also take the lead in introducing social and protective legislation in relation to pregnant women. I welcome the Bill as it represents further progress for women's health and welfare during pregnancy. I ask the Minister to assist employers in any way he can to make the efficient working of the Bill as painless as any labour should be.
(Laoighis-Offaly): Listening to the debate yesterday and today it is clear that this legislation has received widespread support. Deputy Flaherty and Deputy Moffatt made worthwhile contributions and the points they raised need to be taken into account in legislation and social policy. The position here is in stark contrast with that across the water where social legislation is frowned upon by the Government which has been in power since 1979. It is a sign that we have a healthy regard for the needs of people that legislation such as this can command widespread support in this House.
Recently there was a number of public announcements and statements by IBEC and other organisations to the effect that European social legislation will have a detrimental impact on the business and economic life of the country. While IBEC, which is one of the social partners, has a right and duty to express this view the benefits which flow from our membership of the European Union form part of a quid pro quo. In return we have ceded sovereignty and endured losses due to liberalisation of trade. It is fair and appropriate, given that we have agreed to participate in the Single Market with the free movement of people, goods and services, that we should receive the full benefits under social and protective legislation agreed at European Union level.
I look forward to the accession of the four new member states — Austria and Finland which have already voted in favour and Sweden and Norway which I hope will follow. I agree with Deputy Flaherty that these countries, where social and protective legislation is in place, can be of assistance to Ireland which is continuing to try to benefit from such provisions given that member states such as the United Kingdom are determined to move in the opposite direction.
Both this week and last week the Houses considered the question of European Union enlargement. Deputy Michael McDowell's contribution to that debate was very disappointing. In particular he deprecated the Social Chapter. It is important that Irish people can avail of its protection. I expressed the criticism that it does not go far enough; a minimalist approach has been adopted. Deputy McDowell and others who blindly follow the low wage, low skill philosophy of the British Government should realise that we are being compensated for the disadvantages incurred through our participation in the Single Market.
This Bill is giving effect to the decision of October 1992 of the Council of Ministers. The formulation and implementation of European directives is fraught with difficulty and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is trying to come to grips with the topic. Previously a committee of this House dealt with secondary legislation, a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs deals with it now. This is a complex and demanding task and I hope that proposed directives and draft directives can be considered by this House before they are finally formulated. It has taken about two years to implement this directive, which is certainly not as long as other directives have taken. Its introduction is timely.
This legislation gives effect to a directive which protects not only pregnant workers but those who have recently given birth and those who are breast feeding. We should continually try to extend such protection. The Bill re-enacts existing legislation together with new provisions. This makes things easier for trade union officials and personnel managers as well as making legislation more accessible to workers who are trying to find out their rights. The law is often obscure and inaccessible.
The Bill contains a number of welcome measures. It extends the protection of maternity legislation to all employees who notify their employers of their condition regardless of the hours they work and their length of service. It is important that we are continually trying to keep our legislation up-to-date with changes in the workplace. Over the past decade there has been increasing casualisation of the workforce with a big increase in part-time, temporary and contract employment. Women are more likely than men to be in this type of employment. This Bill is in step with those changes. The Department of Equality and Law Reform, the labour affairs section of the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the Department of Social Welfare will have to monitor continuously the changes in the nature of the workforce and the requisite changes in regulations.
The protection offered to contract workers is being extended and improved by this Bill and the situation of those employed through employment agencies is being clarified. This Bill extends protection not only to those who are pregnant and those on maternity leave but to those who have given birth within the previous 14 weeks or are breast feeding up to 26 weeks after the birth. This is an example of how the legislation can support and promote good developments in parenting. The provisions for improved leave with pay for those receiving ante and postnatal care is very welcome. Deputy Moffatt expressed my sentiments in this regard and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Under this Bill time off with pay will be available for antenatal and postnatal care.
This Bill marks the introduction, in a small way, of provisions for fathers to take leave. It certainly is not cause for jubilation that a father would have to avail of these provisions following the death of the mother of his child but nevertheless it is a significant step that leave for fathers is being introduced. This issue needs to be addressed further and I am glad to note in the Minister's statement yesterday that the question of paternity is being examined in his Department and work is being done at European level. I urge him to contribute as forcefully as possible at European level to drawing up directives on paternity leave. He should not wait too long to extend this provision which has been introduced in a limited way in this Bill. Perhaps we could look at its operations in our own jurisdiction and try to improve on it further.
One of the best innovations in this legislation is the introduction of health and safety leave for women who are pregnant, who have recently given birth or who are breast feeding. It is important where issues of health and safety arise for such workers that employers try to find alternative duties for them. This legislation will give a significant push to employers who perhaps are not as co-operative as they could be or aware of the need. The protection for night workers is also welcome. Where a doctor certifies that night work is detrimental to the person who is pregnant, has given birth recently or is breast feeding a child, it may be possible to try to find alternative day time employment. Where this is not possible, either for night workers or other workers who need alternative postings, health and safety leave will be introduced. I understand it is proposed that three weeks leave would be provided by the employer and that the Department of Social Welfare would introduce a scheme to continue that leave for a further period. I look forward to its introduction as quickly as possible. When people see the provisions of this Bill in force these are the questions they will raise. The sooner they can be answered the better.
I welcome the greater use of the rights commissioner process which is included in this Bill. Having participated in a number of appeals to the Employment Appeals Tribunal I commend the work, diligence and fairness of the tribunal, but we know it can take quite some time for both sides to have their case heard. People find it off-putting that it may take between six and eight months, or longer if there is an adjournment, for a case to be resolved by the tribunal. Any mechanism to resolve disputes without recourse to the final tribunal is welcome. It is also more speedy and accessible and possibly less costly.
Let me address the issue of monitoring and implementing workers legislation. I realise that what was known as the industrial inspectorate is not under the aegis of the Minister's Department, but the Health and Safety Authority and the Department of Enterprise and Employment should consider the question of the monitoring and implementation of such legislation. I have found that people have the perception there is a gap between a law that is enacted in this House, which guarantees them certain legal protections, and their experience when they seek that protection in the workplace or in other areas of their daily lives.
I hope there will be widespread and effective advertising of this legislation's provisions when they are enacted into law. I ask the Minister to consult with the Minister for Enterprise and Employment on this whole area to see what improvements can be made to make people more aware of their rights and, more importantly, to give them access to the necessary support and advice if that is necessary.
I commend the Minister on the introduction of this legislation. I look forward to continuing improvements in the area of equality and law reform. The Minister launched another important Bill this morning. I am glad that legislation is being produced regularly in his Department and I look forward to the introduction of much more legislation in the future.
I welcome the Bill. It has been described as modest but I believe it represents a milestone in terms of social legislation and progress in maternal and parental leave and parental rights generally. The Bill complies with the commitments in the EU Council Directive 92/85/EEC and also meets the commitments in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work which was agreed by the social partners.
The purpose is to provide improved maternity protection for pregnant employees, employees who have recently given birth or employees who are breastfeeding. In addition to existing protection afforded under the Maternity Protection Acts of 1981 and 1991, which will be re-enacted with amendments by this Bill, a number of new provisions are proposed. These include the extension of the scope of the proposed Bill to virtually all employees, the granting of leave on health and safety grounds where a risk exists in accordance with the regulations under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act where it is not objectively feasible to transfer the employee to suitable alternative work or to remove her from risk. It includes the payment by employers of an allowance to be determined by regulations. It also provides employees with time off, without loss of pay, for ante and post natal medical visits. It provides for the maintenance of employment rights in respect of periods during which health and safety leave measures apply and it includes the prohibition of dismissal from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternal leave for any pregnancy related reason.
The Bill also covers the question of payment by employers during the first three weeks of health and safety leave. This provision was included to oblige employers to provide remuneration during the first three weeks of health and safety leave. It also provides for leave for the father of the child in the event of the mother's death during the first ten weeks following the birth. Special leave entitlements will apply to employed fathers where the mother of their child dies during the first ten weeks following the birth. The Bill provides that this provision will apply to fathers irrespective of whether the mother of their living child was in paid employment. This is a welcome development as many of us have known cases where a father was required to give up work on the death of his wife in order to look after young children. This section represents progress in that whole area.
The Minister will introduce regulations under the Bill to provide for the payment by employers of an appropriate allowance to employees during the first three weeks of leave. The Bill also provides for regulations for time off for ante and post natal medical visits without loss of pay. It also provides for the certification by employers of the existence of risk and of the non-feasibility of transferring an employee to suitable alternative work. It includes also regulations for the procedures to be followed in relation to the submission and hearing of disputes and appeals.
I wish to refer to some observations made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in its submission to the Minister on the Bill. Perhaps when replying the Minister might comment on some of the points the congress has raised. Congress has an important role to play as it has represented women in the workforce and has been to the fore in advocating reforms in this whole area of women's rights and protection for pregnant employees.
Congress is concerned about a number of proposals in the Bill. It is concerned that there is not any provision to implement the recommendations on maternity and parental leave contained in the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, which recommended amendments to the maternity legislation to bring maternity and parental leave entitlements into line with the European average. It also recommended a substantial increase in the ceiling of £11,000 per annum for maternity benefit, provision for the replacement of staff on maternity or parental leave and the full implementation of the provisions of the pregnancy directive.
The congress has welcomed the 1994 budget changes which increased the threshold for maternity benefit from £11,000 to £11,350 per annum. It expressed the wish that this would be increased each year in line with inflation. It also recommended that the Maternity Protection Bill, 1994, increased the entitlement of paid maternity leave from 14 to 16 weeks and unpaid leave from four to ten weeks to bring Ireland into line with the European average.
Congress also made comments and observations about some of the definitions in the articles of the Directive. The definition of "employee" meets the requirement of Article 1 of the directive, but congress makes the point that an interpretation of "pregnant worker", "worker who has recently given birth" or "worker who is breastfeeding" needs to be included to meet the requirements of article 2. It also makes some points in relation to night work which was referred to by my colleague, Deputy Pat Gallagher. Congress has expressed the wish that it would like further consultation on this area before any regulations are brought into effect.
The congress is recommending an increase in maternity leave above the provisions of the directive to bring Ireland into line with the European average.
In relation to the rights of an employee to take maternity leave, the 1981 Act requires employees to take four weeks before and four weeks after the birth. Article 8 of the EU Directive requires two weeks before and two weeks after the birth. Congress is recommending, therefore, that the provisions of the existing Maternity Protection Act, 1981, be retained to ensure adequate health and safety protection for women workers, particularly those in the private sector.
The congress also made comments in relation to ante and post natal care. It recommends that the full range of medical care is needed during and after pregnancy, including paid time off to attend ante natal classes. The area of dismissal is dealt with in article 10 and congress makes the point that this provision needs to be expanded to include the provisions of article 10, section 2, which requires that an employer must cite fully substantiated grounds for dismissing an employee covered by this directive.
In relation to the right of redress in article 12, congress makes the point that it should be made clear from the proposal whether it will be open to all workers to use this procedure if the current restrictions of the 1981 Act apply in relation to civil and public service employees. It is recommending that the right of redress be open to all workers regardless of their employment status or employer, as provided in article 12 of the directive.
In relation to the pay and employment rights in article 11, the congress is of the opinion that this proposal might mitigate against many women workers in the low paid workforce and whose jobs are already insecure. Those women are in extremely vulnerable positions in the workforce and currently find it difficult to get time off for ante natal care. Congress feels that women in this position would be afraid to take health and safety leave if the employer had to pay for it as they would fear losing their jobs in addition to the difficulty they might experience in seeking to get paid for this time off.
Congress takes the view that this provision might lead to discrimination against women having access to and employment in workplaces where health and safety leave is required to meet the provisions of the directive. It seeks that payment, at least at the rate of current maternity benefit, should be made by the State during health and safety leave.
As regards the health and safety articles, it makes the point that these are to be implemented by the Health and Safety Authority. It points out that there is an overlap between some of these provisions and those to be implemented under the Maternity Protection Bill, 1994. It recommends that the enforcement roles of the Health and Safety Authority and the Employment Appeals Tribunal be clearly defined to ensure workers have quick and clear access to redress in the event of an employer breaching the legislation.
Congress welcomes the proposal to transfer to the father the residual maternity leave entitlements in the event of the death of the mother during childbirth as a first step in recognising the role and needs of men in parenting. It recommends that this provision be backed up by paternity and parental leave to allow women and men to combine work and family responsibilities.
I welcome the Bill and commend the Minister for bringing it before the House. It is a milestone in social legislation.
I thank all Deputies who participated in the debate. They displayed a detailed knowledge of the complex nature of the subject matter.
The preparation of this Bill involved considerable detailed co-ordination between a number of Departments. The technical nature and aspects of the directive gave rise to time consuming consultations.
In response to Deputy Currie, I confirm that the guidelines to be issued by the European Commission have not yet been drawn up and this has undoubtedly contributed to the difficulty of finalising implementation here. The Health and Safety Authority is primarily responsible for adoption of these guidelines. In the absence of Commission guidelines, I understand the Authority is developing national provisions in this area. The Bill will enable us to minimise any delay in meeting the directive implementation requirements.
One of the important features of the Bill is its comprehensive coverage of all pregnant employees, employees who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding. While an estimated one-third of the 50,000 or so births annually are to women in employment covered under the 1981 Act, some employees were not protected as that Act excluded some workers by reference to the hours of work or the fixed term nature of their contracts. No such qualifications arise now, and that is right and proper.
Deputies O'Donnell and Costello raised the question of cover for self-employed workers. I would like to see progress made in this area. However, this legislation deals with the protection of employees and their rights. Self-employed workers regulate their own terms of employment and are not covered under such protective legislation.
Deputy McManus and Deputy O'Donnell considered that the maternity leave provision was too short and Deputy Seán Kenny referred to the representations made by Congress. The question of extending maternity leave or additional maternity leave arises in any review of maternity protection legislation. I know that the second Commission on the Status of Women, as many Deputies stated, recommended that some extension should be considered. While I have not provided an extension in this Bill, I am not ruling out the possibility of such a move in the future. However, it could be premature to instigate such a measure at this time while deliberations at EU level on parental leave and at national level on leave generally are at a relatively early stage. Notwithstanding such deliberations, I have included in the Bill power to extend by order the periods of maternity leave and additional maternity leave, with the consent of my colleagues, the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare. Any response to the question of providing parental or paternity leave should await firm developments at EU level and nationally under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work so that the views of unions and employers can be taken into account.
Very important considerations arise for employees and employers if statutory provisions are to be made introducing new or additional periods of leave for family, parental or similar purposes. I am firmly committed to making progress in this area and have secured Government support for the proposed EU directive on parental leave. Unfortunately, the necessary consensus at EU level has not been achieved and the proposal is now back with the Commission, which is examining other options for progressing it. The position of the Irish Government was made clear at all ministerial meetings I attended: we support the concept of parental leave. At the last meeting I attended, the Commissioner indicated he would re-examine the directive in the light of the Maastricht guidelines. I share the support Deputies Fitzgerald, O'Donnell, McManus, Wallace and Kenny expressed for the issue and will work towards the provision of family friendly policies and the encouragement of such practices and initiatives in the workplace.
A number of points arose regarding the new entitlement to health and safety leave. I do not think any Deputy can question the imperative requirement that full account should be taken in legislation of the basic health and safety matters that arise for women workers in a maternity context. This is a new provision. As with anything new, there may be confusion as to how it will work in practice. There is no useful Irish experience on which to make firm predictions. Nevertheless, in discussion with the occupational health and safety professionals of the Health and Safety Authority, it was intimated that very few workers will require this type of leave. It is doubtful whether any but a small minority of employments contain serious risks for pregnant or other workers covered by the Bill. In most employments where risks exist preventative protective work adjustment or alternative work options will be available. Only in a few workplaces will granting of the leave entitlement be warranted.
Deputy O'Donnell inquired as to when the health and safety provisions would be put in place. Regulations in this area are imminent and will be introduced by my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment.
Deputy Gallagher raised the question of social welfare regulations. The Department of Social Welfare have already introduced regulations to give effect to the payment of employees on health and safety leave from the fourth week onwards.
There are ongoing consultations between the Departments concerned and I assure Deputies that consultations with ICTU and IBEC will be undertaken as the matter progresses.
There is obvious concern among employers in particular about their liability to pay the employee for the first weeks of leave. Deputy Currie referred to this at length. I have reviewed this concern but I am still persuaded that the employer's contribution towards the cost of the leave is fully justified. In cases where this leave is granted the prospect arises for the Exchequer of meeting the cost of an allowance for the worker from the fourth week onwards. The full cost to the Exchequer, the taxpayer, could extend into many months. Although a very modest cost will arise for the employer to cover remuneration for the initial three weeks, the alternative costs of preventative or protective measures of work reorganisation will obviously not be incurred.
I raised that issue from the point of view of employees, some of whom have reservations.
That is correct. ICTU has also made that point. Taking all factors into account, a cap of three weeks on that liability will not make a major impact on womens' employment. In other countries the employer's contribution runs for considerably longer than three weeks. We felt that this was a fair and appropriate contribution by the employer where a risk arises in the course of the employment. It must be remembered that we are talking about dangerous and risky work for a pregnant employee or an employee who is breast feeding. Taking that factor into account, I think Deputies will agree that it would be inappropriate to absolve the employer entirely from any contribution liability and to place the entire liability on the taxpayer who may well have to carry it for many months at a time.
The Bill will extend maternity protection to all employees — the previous limits are being dispensed with; it will maintain existing maternity leave levels for the moment; will enhance entitlement to paid time leave for both antinatal and postnatal care and will introduce health and safety leave and special leave for fathers in the event of the mother's death within 14 weeks of birth. These proposals are backed up with dispute resolution and redress facilities and are effectively complemented by parallel measures on health, safety and social welfare aspects. I thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.