Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Feb 2001

Vol. 529 No. 4

Maternity Protection Act, 1994 (Extension of Periods of Leave) Order, 2001 and Adoptive Leave Act, 1995 (Extension of Periods of Leave) Order, 2001: Motions.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approve the draft order entitled:

Maternity Protection Act, 1994 (Extension of Periods of Leave) Order, 2001, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on the 31st day of January 2001.

That Dáil Éireann approve the draft order entitled:

Adoptive Leave Act, 1995 (Extension of Periods of Leave) Order, 2001, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on the 31st day of January 2001.

These orders provide for an extension to maternity and adoptive leave which attracts payment of four weeks and an extension to additional unpaid maternity and adoptive leave of four weeks. These orders will implement the budget announcement of 6 December 2000 to extend periods of maternity and adoptive leave. The effect of these orders is to increase maternity leave which attracts payment to 18 weeks and additional unpaid leave to eight weeks. Adoptive leave attracting payment will increase to 14 weeks and additional unpaid leave to eight weeks.

There have been major changes in society and to the make-up of the labour force due to Ireland's unprecedented rate of economic growth. With the growth in the economy, more and more young mothers are staying in the workforce. In 1994, the female labour force participation rate was 35.7%. According to latest CSO figures, it is now 49.4% . Furthermore, the participation rate for women aged between 15 and 45 years, roughly corresponding to childbearing years, is 61.5%.

The change in the composition of the workforce brings with it a necessary change of attitude. Our focus should not merely be to entice women into the labour force. We should provide workplace conditions that value their contribution. The whole area of maternity protection, in creating an environment which permits women to be fully integrated into the workforce while valuing their childbearing role, has become hugely relevant.

There is a growing demand for child care places. The difficulty for parents in accessing high quality affordable child care for babies under one year old is particularly acute. The proposed increases in maternity and adoptive leave will contribute towards an alleviation of this serious problem.

I have introduced many initiatives in the equality area and on family friendly policies since I came into office in 1997. These orders are the result of the recommendations of a working group established by my Department to review and improve maternity protection legislation. The working group was established in accordance with commitments in An Action Programme for the Millennium and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. It comprised representatives of the social partners and relevant Departments and agencies. Adoptive leave was not discussed by the working group, but the Government decided that, in the interests of equity, the increases in maternity leave recommended by the group would also be made applicable to adoptive leave.

The orders to increase maternity and adoptive leave are part of a larger package of recommendations agreed by the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation. The working group's recommendation to increase maternity leave has been fast-tracked ahead of the other recommendations to ensure women can benefit from the increase as quickly as possible. The report of the working group will be published later this month.

Many of the recommendations will involve primary legislation. There will be ample opportunity to discuss issues surrounding the area of maternity protection when I publish legislation implementing other recommendations.

I am empowered under the Maternity Protection Act, 1994, with the consent of my colleagues, the Ministers for Finance and Social, Community and Family Affairs, to increase by order maternity leave which attracts payment and unpaid maternity leave. I have a similar power under the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995. The Acts also require a resolution to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before the orders can be signed into law.

The Minister for Finance announced on 6 December 2000 that the increased entitlements would apply from early April 2001. Most increases provided for in the annual Social Welfare Bill apply from April, or somewhat later. Following the budget announcement, my officials looked into the possibility of applying the maternity and adoptive leave increases not only to women who commence maternity or adoptive leave on or after early April, but also to women who go on leave prior to that date. The issue was examined in conjunction with officials from the Departments of Finance and Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Attorney General's office.

It is essential that the orders comply with the parent Acts. Under both the Maternity Protection Act, 1994, and the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995, a person taking maternity or adoptive leave must give four weeks' notice to their employer of taking such leave. The Attorney General has advised me that in view of the notice requirements under both Acts it would not be possible to have the orders extend the period of maternity or adoptive leave to those persons who could not comply with the notice requirements of the parent Acts. Any attempt to make the orders retrospective could be deemed to adversely affect the rights of employers and would be open to challenge. It is, therefore, necessary for me to provide that the orders will take effect four weeks after they are signed into law to comply with the four week notice requirements under both Acts.

These increases in maternity and adoptive leave are not merely a matter of the State paying out extra weeks of maternity and adoptive benefit. They will have a major impact on employers in many ways, for example, the need to replace employees for a longer period than expected and in some cases contractual obligation in respect of payment. A balance between the rights of employees and employers is contained in the parent Acts. We must respect this balance in making the orders under those Acts.

As Members can see, I was constrained by the notice requirements under the Acts in terms of how soon I could implement the budget announcement. My aim is to implement the increase as far in advance of 2 April as possible while complying with the parent Acts. The passing of a resolution in the House today and a similar one in the Seanad later this week would mean that I would be in a position, together with the Ministers for Finance and Social, Community and Family Affairs, to sign the orders into law immediately. The extended periods of maternity and adoptive leave, which attract payment, will, therefore, apply to persons commencing such leave in early March instead of 2 April.

Furthermore, the entitlement to unpaid leave will apply to any person who has more than four weeks maternity or adoptive leave left on the date the order is signed into law. This is because the notice requirements in the parent Acts in relation to unpaid leave are different from those for paid leave. The revised entitlement to unpaid leave will apply to persons who went on maternity leave from end November 2000.

There are three types of maternity and adoptive leave: first, leave which attracts payment; second, unpaid leave; and, third, leave for fathers in the event of the death of the mother within a certain period of the birth or adoption placement.

Article 2 of both orders relates to the commencement dates. It provides that the increased entitlement to maternity and adoptive leave which attracts payment will apply to women who commence such leave four weeks after the signing of the order into law.

The situation is somewhat different in relation to unpaid leave. Article 2 of both orders provides that the increased entitlement to unpaid leave will apply to any person who commences additional unpaid maternity or adoptive leave four weeks after the orders are signed into law. Article 2 of both orders also provides for a commencement date which complies with the notice requirements of the parent Acts in relation to fathers who take leave in the event of the death of the mother within a certain period of the birth or the adoption placement.

Articles 1 and 3 of both orders are standard technical provisions. Article 4 of the maternity leave order extends the period of maternity leave under section 8(1) of the parent Act from 14 to 18 weeks. This is the period of maternity leave which attracts a payment from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs.

Article 5 of the maternity leave order amends section 13(2) of the parent Act. The subsection provides for an entitlement to maternity leave when a confinement occurs four weeks or more before the expected date and before the employee has gone on maternity leave. Article 5 extends this entitlement from 14 to 18 weeks. This ties in this section with the overall increased entitlement under the order.

Article 6 of the maternity leave order provides that the period of additional unpaid maternity leave under section 14(1) of the parent Act will be extended to eight weeks. Article 7 of the maternity leave order amends section 16 of the parent Act which covers leave for fathers in the event of the death of the mother after confinement. The mother must be survived by the baby. Article 7 extends the period within which the father is entitled to leave in the event of the death of the mother and the periods of leave to which the father is entitled in line with the increases in maternity leave.

Article 4 of the adoptive leave order extends the period of adoptive leave under section 6 of the parent Act from ten to 14 weeks. This is the period of adoptive leave which attracts a payment from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs.

Article 5 of the adoptive leave order extends the period of additional unpaid leave under section 8(1) of the parent Act from four to eight weeks. Article 6 of the adoptive leave order extends the period of leave to which a father would be entitled in the event of the death of the adopting mother to a maximum of 14 weeks. Article 7 of the adoptive leave order extends the period of additional unpaid leave to which a father would be entitled in the event of the death of an adopting mother to a maximum of eight weeks.

Article 8 of the adoptive leave order amends section 12(1) of the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995, which sets out arrangements for the termination of adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave in the event of the termination of an adoption placement before the end of the period of leave to which the employee is entitled under the Act. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Shatter

I wish to share my time with Deputy Olivia Mitchell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Shatter

Sir, before I direct my attention to the motion before the House, I wish to make one brief comment. The Fine Gael Party sought additional time today for the debate on the previous motion and with great difficulty we got the Government to agree to additional time for this motion. In the context of both motions it was agreed that the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson would each speak for ten minutes. I did not wish to make a point of this particularly and I did not interrupt the Minister during his contribution, but he spoke for 15 minutes on each motion. I do not complain about that but I ask, Sir, that in the context of such motions if 15 minutes is required by the Government we should not have these difficulties in agreeing time. It was in the interest of the House that the Minister complete his speech but if in future what he needs to say cannot be said—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister spoke for ten minutes on this motion.

Mr. Shatter

Perhaps, Sir, it just seemed longer.

On budget day last December, all sides welcomed the Government's announcement to increase paid maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks, as had been recommended by a committee appointed to look into the issue. A similar increase in adoptive leave is also welcomed. Astonishingly, at the time of the announcement, the Government stated that the increases in maternity and adoptive leave would only be applicable to women commencing such leave on or after 2 April 2001. Many expectant mothers whose babies were to be born between budget day and 2 April felt not only let down but also misled by the budget announcement.

On average 4,500 children are born each month in the State. Consequently, between budget day and 2 April it was reasonable to estimate that 17,500 children would be born to mothers in the State. Approximately, 60% of these mothers qualify for maternity benefit and, as a result, 10,500 mothers whose babies were born after budget day were excluded by the Minister from benefiting from the additional four weeks paid maternity leave.

It was necessary that a motion be tabled and passed before both the Dáil and the Seanad to give effect to the Government's budget day announcement. If this had been done on budget night, all mothers to whom children were born following the budget would have been entitled to the four weeks extra paid maternity leave. The Minister has to date failed to explain why the appropriate motion was not tabled with the other financial resolutions adopted by the Dáil that evening.

Understandably, pregnant mothers whose children were due prior to 2 April were outraged that they were excluded from availing of the additional maternity leave. Their plight was brought to the attention of Ministers by many Fine Gael Members, and I suspect a few Government backbenchers and members of the Labour Party, and as late as last Tuesday, the Minister continued to resist bringing forward application of the additional maternity benefit.

I welcome the fact that under political pressure from Fine Gael, this motion is before the House which, if also passed in the Seanad no later than Thursday of this week, will entitle all mothers who commence maternity leave on or after 8 March next to the additional four weeks of paid maternity leave to which the Minister referred.

It is, however, disgraceful that the same leave period will not be available to mothers of children born between budget day and 8 March and who took maternity leave prior to 8 March. The Government has displayed extraordinary incompetence in implementing the new maternity leave arrangements. Following the budget day announcement, Departments were unable to clarify which Minister had responsibility for bringing the required motion before each House of the Oireachtas. Initially, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs thought it was his responsibility. It then emerged that the responsibility fell on the shoulders of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is clear that this confusion is partially responsible for the delay in implementing the measure. This confusion should have been resolved before the budget announcement. On the night of the budget the motion we are now dealing with should have been dealt with in this House and if not on that night, in the Seanad, or certainly on the following night.

Provision should be made by Government to provide the additional four weeks' maternity leave to all mothers whose children were born on or after budget day, or they should be given some financial compensation for the fact that did not happen. I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the Attorney General's advice. The difficulty the Minister got into would not have occurred had this motion been moved on budget night. The difficulty the Minister describes, and for which the Government is entirely at fault, could have been resolved by the publication of a simple reforming Bill which could have been passed in the space of half an hour, by agreement with all Opposition parties. It would have required the amendment of one, and possibly a second, section. A minor amendment could have been introduced to this effect, but the Government chose not to do so.

The Government has annoyed a great many pregnant mothers throughout the country by the manner in which it has dealt with this issue. It has also caused confusion. Will the Minister confirm that following the passing of this resolution the appropriate motion will be before the Seanad, either tomorrow or on Thursday, that implementation of this measure will be delayed no further and that, following the passage of both motions, the Government will make immediate arrangements by public advertising to make all pregnant women aware of the new date from which the additional four weeks' maternity leave will apply?

The Government has made a U-turn which I welcome. If the Government had shown more competence on budget day this particular difficulty would not have arisen in the first place.

Ms O. Mitchell

I welcome the extension of paid maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks, but I wish to raise a number of points. When this measure was announced in the budget last December it was said that it would be applicable from April. That immediately deprived thousands of women not just of money but also of the opportunity to spend extra time with their new babies. It is precious and essential time, not just for the babies themselves but also for the families involved to reorganise themselves and get used to the idea of having a new and totally dependent human being in the household.

It has been explained that the measure was postponed because of the necessity to bring these orders before the House. For the life of me, however, I cannot see why it should take from December to April to do so. It could have been done without debate before Christmas, thereby allowing thousands of women to benefit. However, those women were deprived not just of financial benefit but also of time to spend with their small babies. The Government decided not to do that and, what is even worse, when faced with thousands of angry phone calls it was still not realised that the matter was being dealt with by the wrong Department. Up to last week, I was having lengthy conversations with the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs about the great work it was doing in preparing the orders and how soon it was hoped to have them ready. Only in the last week, however, did it come to light that this matter was the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Apparently, neither Minister knew who was responsible. This shows just how much importance the Government attaches to the issue. From start to finish this has been a complete fiasco and it has certainly aggrieved more people than it has pleased.

I welcome the fact that the issue has been solved, albeit belatedly. The Minister should clearly confirm for all women who can avail of this extension of paid maternity leave exactly from when it will apply. Will the Minister confirm that the measure will apply for everybody who gives in their notice from tomorrow – when, I understand, it will be before the Seanad – and from that day forth?

Eighteen weeks is an inadequate amount of maternity leave to grant parents. There is no need for me to go over all the research which points to the importance of a child's early life and the implications of that quality time for the rest of their lives. How we care for and nurture our children is important not just for the children themselves and for individual families but also for society at large. That is one of the biggest questions facing our society which is rapidly changing. It is not merely a financial issue, it is about giving our children the best possible start in life and giving families choices about how best they can do that, as well as maintaining essential household income.

The length of paid maternity leave is crucial to the decision-making process for mothers when they are deciding whether to stay at home or return to the workforce. The Minister said that women's participation in the workforce is high and rising, but this is occurring at a huge cost to parents, particularly mothers, who are under additional strain. The Minister should examine the question of further extending paid maternity leave.

The same arguments apply to adoptive leave. A number of attempts to circumvent the law in this respect have been brought to my attention. When people in uncertain employment, who do not have contracts or are on probation, seek adoptive leave they are sacked from their jobs. People often cannot plan for this eventuality and they may be waiting months or years for a chance to adopt. The Minister should examine this deliberate and unacceptable attempt to circumvent the law.

Ms O'Sullivan

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputy Sean Ryan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms O'Sullivan

I welcome the extension of maternity and adoptive leave but I agree with Deputy Mitchell it is still a very short time in comparison to other EU countries. I would like to see progress being made on that matter as soon as possible. I also wish to raise the issue of the starting date for this leave. As Deputy Shatter said, we could have passed a motion at the time of the budget which would have introduced the leave at a much earlier stage. While I hesitate to question the advice of the Attorney General, is it not possible for people to give four weeks' statutory notice that they are taking leave, without the new time arrangement having to be introduced? If they give four weeks' statutory notice, surely that will still bring it in at an earlier stage? In other words, why can I not give notice to my employer tomorrow that I intend taking maternity leave in four weeks' time and still benefit from the extended time when it comes in? I cannot see what the problem is because one is still giving four weeks' notice to the employer. Perhaps the Minister will address that question.

Maternity leave and parental leave are very short in comparison to other EU countries. I and other speakers have raised the issue of paid parental leave many times in the House. In Denmark, France and Luxembourg, for example, mothers can avail of up to 26 weeks maternity leave and receive a 100% security payment. Countries such as Sweden, Austria and France provide at least 12 months paid parental leave. This country should move towards a position where parents can make choices about the amount of time they wish to spend with their children when they are very young. Many young parents sometimes question the sanity of their lifestyles, when they are running around the clock trying to organise their children, get to work on time and pay mortgages and other bills, while just about making ends meet. It would make an enormous difference for those parents to be able to make the choice of one or other of them being paid to be at home with their children for a year or so after the birth. While many parents wish to remain working, many others would like to have the choice of taking paid leave when their children are very young.

The issue of breast feeding mothers is one which has been raised with many of us recently. Maternity leave is particularly important to them but so too are facilities for breast feeding in the workplace. The Minister should make some provisions in that regard.

I refer to the question of force majeure leave, which is provided for in the Parental Leave Act. Recently, a mother won a case in relation to force majeure leave. The Minister should embark on a programme of information in regard to that leave. If one asks many parents if they know they have the right to take three days off in an urgent situation, such as the illness of a child, they would probably say they have never heard of this leave. They are entitled to it and to be paid for it.

The Minister mentioned that the working group's report will be published shortly. I request that we have an opportunity to debate this report, preferably in the House, but certainly at committee. A number of these issues will be addressed in that report and we should have time to debate them because they are very important to young parents who want to give their best to their jobs and their children.

We are very far behind other countries in this area. I was particularly disappointed we did not introduce paid parental leave when that leave was introduced. The Minister introduced the leave only because he had to and was forced to amend what was originally introduced because it was not in accordance with the EU directive. On the question I raised about giving four weeks' notice, if there is any way around that, even at this stage, it should be examined because, as other Deputies have said, many parents are disappointed they will not be able to avail of what was announced on budget day.

Mr. S. Ryan

I welcomed the announcement in the budget to extend maternity leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. However, pregnant women believe they were conned by the announcement. Because of the angle taken by the Government at the time, they believed they would be entitled to the extended leave, but as it transpired this has not happened for thousands of expectant mothers.

I have received a lot of representations from pregnant women on this issue and I have endeavoured to raise it in the House with the Taoiseach. I plead with the Minister, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Attorney General, to look at this issue again. Many women work not out of choice but because of the necessity to provide a home, pay a mortgage and so on. These women will lose out because of this restriction. As Deputy Shatter said, this could have been provided for if it had been brought before the Dáil on the night of the budget. It should be possible to provide for mothers who are in receipt of maternity leave payments on the date of the signing of this order. The mothers to whom I refer have already gone to their employer to give four weeks' notice of their intention to take maternity leave under the legislation – they have already gone through that procedure. The only issue at question here is the extended period. It is not the employer who will pay the money in this case but the State.

It is a scandal that so many pregnant women will lose out on the basis of this report. They have paid PRSI and have gone out to work when perhaps they might have preferred to stay at home. Before this debate ends this evening, I ask that the Taoiseach allow the Minister to take on board the concerns of not only Opposition Deputies but, I presume, Government Deputies and to go back to the Attorney General to see if this can be dealt with. An injustice is being perpetrated on many pregnant women who have paid their taxes and so on.

If employers take issue with this because they were not told their employees would be on maternity leave for another four weeks, so be it. Let us deal with that. There are thousands of employers who appreciate the workload of the individuals in this situation. I ask the Minister to provide the additional maternity leave to those who are in receipt of maternity leave payments on the date this order is signed.

Mrs. Barnes

Unfortunately, every step towards this extension of paid and unpaid maternity leave has been minimalist and it has a negative rather than a positive tone to it. I will not use the few minutes I have to speak reiterating what has been, and will be, said by colleagues other than to agree with it. Women in this country have waited a long time for this concession which does not go far enough. I hope this is the first of many extensions. Let us introduce the measure positively and as quickly as possible.

Whenever such legislation is introduced, usually as a result of our membership of the European Union, there is foot dragging. We had to fight for equal pay and had to go to Europe for equal opportunity. Maternity leave was minimal and we had to fight for the small amount given by the State and, indeed, we had to fight the discriminatory actions of employers. It is regrettable that in 2001, when this country is encouraging women to join the workforce and when economic demands mean they have to participate in the workforce, we make these demands on women. Even when we give them small concessions, we do so in a miserly, niggardly and demeaning way. I agree with every speaker that every effort should be made to implement this measure as soon as possible.

Ireland has the lowest level of leave arrangements in Europe for working parents to take care of their children. That is combined with the lowest level of maternity payment and no payment for parental level. On a league table of member states of the European Union, we are at the bottom with the UK. This country's Constitution and tradition has placed a great demand and onus on mothers, but there has been only lip service and we have not been paid to the extent we should.

Finland, France, Germany and Spain provide up to 52 weeks paid parental leave. Germany, for example, provides 14 weeks maternity leave at 100% salary and 36 months paid leave afterwards to be divided between the parents.

It was an annoying and depressing sequence of events to be obliged to argue with and put pressure on the Minister to remove the word "unpaid" from the legislation relating to paternity leave. It was only with huge effort that we had the word removed so we could work on the fact that paternity leave should also be paid. The next step involves more than just extending the level of maternity benefit, its length and the unpaid limits for both fathers and mothers. The next budget must, in fairness to fathers, provide for paid paternity leave. All Members, including the Minister, know that if we are to encourage men to share domestic and parenting responsibilities we must allow them to have paid paternity leave.

Until we realise that our children are the most important contribution we make to society and to the future of the economy, we will continue to deny the rights of mothers and fathers as parents. I deplore the confusion that occurred between the two Departments and the lack of understanding of what was required with regard to such long awaited legislation. They should have been prepared for the introduction of the extension.

Mr. Creed

I watch with awe the capacity of working parents, particularly working mothers, to juggle the demands on their time made by the needs of their children and their financial obligations to meet repayments on mortgages, car loans and so forth. I have no personal experience in this regard.

While it would be churlish to be entirely critical of the measures before the House to extend paid and unpaid leave by four weeks respectively, the Government was hamfisted in its efforts to implement this improvement. It is also particularly mean spirited in so far as it discriminates against approximately 10,500 families whose children were born since the Budget Statement and for whom this improved benefit will not be available. Ireland shapes up poorly by international standards in regard to maternity leave. As Deputy Barnes pointed out, it is bottom of the league table.

Had this matter been properly thought through it would have been possible to make it available to the maximum number of parents. It should have been introduced on the night the budget was announced. That begs a question about the State's priorities and whether it is running an economy or running a society. We would not forget to increase excise duties on petrol or cigarettes but when it comes to making financial provision for the proper care of children and families, we have been found seriously wanting.

I share Deputy Ryan's view. I am not competent to second guess the Attorney General's legal advice that it is not possible to overcome the four weeks' notice requirement. The Government is not unwilling to spend the money but it is hiding behind legalese. If we legally have no other way around it, could the Minister not consider a once off financial payment as recognition of the Government's blunder in not introducing this order on budget night and making it available to the maximum number of people? According to the Minister, we are caught on the question of notice to employers. I can understand the problem for an employer who might find it difficult in the current environment to recruit additional staff to provide cover and who has made the necessary arrangements only to find that they are out by a possible eight weeks of paid and unpaid leave.

We are being told it is not a financial issue but a legal problem that is tying the hands of the Government. If that is so, I appeal to the Minister to consider the possibility of making a once off lump sum payment to those who are discriminated against as a result of the delay in introducing this order to extend paid and unpaid leave.

Mrs. Owen

I welcome the fact that this announcement was made in the budget. However, the Government should not enter into a self-congratulatory mode or think that it is doing something wonderful. As Deputy Barnes pointed out, even with this small increase in paid and unpaid leave, we are still at the bottom of the league. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

In a way, the Government is doing this for the wrong reasons. It is worried that women will have to leave the workforce and it wants them to stay in the workforce. It fears they will have to give up their jobs if they do not receive a decent amount of maternity leave.

The Minister said this issue was examined by officials of the Department of Finance, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General. How much did that cost?

Mr. S. Ryan

Where were the women?

Mrs. Owen

How much did all this consultation since 6 December cost? The Government could have paid the women who went on maternity leave since the Budget Statement with the money it cost to carry out all that consultation. I started to inquire about this issue some weeks ago. One of my constituents rang me today, the husband of a woman who is pregnant and must give her notice by this Friday so she can benefit from the four weeks. She feared she might be disallowed. That man rang the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs five times before somebody copped onto the fact that he should ring the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I rang the Minister's office in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, left a message as to the subject of my inquiry and rang back again only to be told that they had just discovered it was not that Department's responsibility. I said: "Are you not gravely embarrassed to have to tell me, a Deputy, that weeks after the announcement in the budget, you are only discovering that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for introducing the order? Where is the order and when will it be introduced?" The reply was: "We do not know; the Department of Justice has to do it".

At 3.30 p.m. today, the same constituent whose wife must give her notice because her baby is due in March rang the Department of Social, Com munity and Family Affairs and got through to the maternity benefits section. This motion was tabled by the Government last Thursday but that man was told: "We do not know what is happening about this; it might be another fortnight before we can tell you what is happening". That happened at 3.30 p.m. today. What were all these officials and the Ministers responsible for the Departments of Finance, Social, Community and Family Affairs, and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General's office doing? The information had not been transmitted to the section which any logical constituent would ring to find out whether their wives would benefit from these new arrangements. At 3.30 p.m. today the maternity section of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs did not know there was a motion before the House to introduce this arrangement, and they are the people who will have to implement the allocation of extra benefit to the women who will qualify for it. They are the people who will have to administer the extra benefit to qualifying women.

Mr. S. Ryan

The Taoiseach did not know about this until last week.

Mrs. Owen

Will the Minister make a clear and categorical statement on this matter to ensure that, if this order is approved here today and in the Seanad tomorrow or Thursday, I can tell the man who telephoned me that if his wife does not apply for her four weeks until Friday of this week after the motion has been signed into law, she can take her extra time and the additional unpaid leave when her four weeks are up in March? The Minister seemed to imply that the order's provisions would not come into effect until four weeks after it is signed. Can the four weeks of notice to the employer run from this week? This matter is crucial to women who are on the verge of making a decision and may be able to wait an extra day or two to give notice to their employers. It is essential that there would be no equivocation about their qualifications. Women are awaiting the outcome of this debate to see when they can give their four weeks' notice and I do not wish to see any of them being disenfranchised.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that we must be conscious of the effect of this order on employers and that notice must be provided. Why should women be prevented from backdating their applications when any woman currently on paid maternity leave can now avail of four weeks' unpaid maternity leave? Employers will have to make arrangements for the extra time in any event if women decide to take an extra four weeks' unpaid leave. There is a flaw in the argument outlined by the Minister, and the Attorney General should be consulted again to see whether it is possible for women who are still on uncompleted paid maternity leave to add on the four weeks' paid leave. That is all we are looking for. I am confident the Minister of State will obtain that advice.

Mr. S. Ryan

On a point of order, in the context of the points which have been made, is the Minister prepared to take on board the—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. S. Ryan

We must get this right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy had his opportunity to speak. I call the Minister of State.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Ms Hanafin)

Is mian liom cúpla focal a rá ar an ábhar seo, not by way of response as I understand that is not necessary but simply because of my own interest in the matter. I may be able to address some of the issues raised.

I welcome the extension of paid maternity leave to 18 weeks, the extension of unpaid leave to eight weeks and the extension of adoptive leave to 14 weeks and eight weeks, paid and unpaid, respectively. These arrangements have not changed since 1981, a fact which reflects poorly on everyone who has been in Government since then.

Women have waited a long time for this positive development which is very valuable for children in terms of the time they will spend with their mothers in their formative months. I am aware from my work with children with behavioural difficulties that children who have not had that attachment and bonding time can develop many difficulties in later years. This is a very worthwhile move from the perspective of the child and the family.

The extended leave is also important in terms of women in the workforce. It recognises the increased numbers of women in the workforce and the additional challenges faced by families. People are torn from their children when the children are very young. Ireland is very low in the league table and it is only proper that we are taking steps to address that. People will no longer have to seek child care for very young children. It is becoming increasingly difficult, particularly in urban areas where there are fewer child minders than crèches, to find people willing to take children under a year old. If we can help to alleviate the pressure for women in any way, that is very worthwhile. The Government is spending £250 million and an additional £40 million in Exchequer funding on the provision of child care facilities, but allowing the mother to keep the child in his or her own home is the most family friendly option.

The extension of adoptive leave is hugely important, particularly in view of the fact that so many couples are obliged to go abroad for inter-country adoptions. Those people return to Ireland with children from different cultural backgrounds who may require special medical care or attention. It is crucial that adoptive parents can spend time with their children, many of whom are toddlers, when they return to this country.

Mrs. Owen

Perhaps the Minister will allow a non-controversial intervention as the time is running out. Will she clarify the issue I raised about whether a person can apply for the four weeks' leave from the date the order is signed?

Ms Hanafin

I am just coming to that. The review of the Parental Leave Act is due at the end of this year and that will show how many employers provided paid leave as opposed to unpaid leave. Employers, too, must consider how they can develop family friendly policies.

I, too, have received a number of phone calls on when the notice will take effect. Advertisements will be placed in the national press on Friday advising members of the public of what their exact entitlements are and when they will come into effect. I understand from my officials that the order's provisions will take effect four weeks after it is signed into law. The order is due to go before the Seanad on Thursday and will presumably be signed into law on Friday. I further understand that the extended period of maternity and adoptive leave will then apply to people commencing maternity or adoptive leave in early March, four weeks from the date of the order's signing. People will be able to take leave four weeks after serving notice to their employers. I reiterate that the advertisement due to be published in Friday's newspapers will clarify the position. I did not expect to have to answer this question this evening but I understand the above arrangements will apply.

Mr. S. Ryan

Will the Minister consider examining the position of women currently on paid maternity leave?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not be disorderly. The debate is due to conclude by 7 o'clock.

Ms Hanafin

Many initiatives announced in the budget do not come into effect until April, May, June, July or August but this one has been introduced more speedily than initially anticipated. Unfortunately, it will not extend to everyone but it is to be welcomed nonetheless, particularly since the position has not changed since 1981.

Question put and agreed to.