Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 69 and 73 form a composite proposal and all may be discussed together. I have arranged for the grouping of amendments to be circulated to Members.
Adoptive Leave Bill, 1993: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 4, to delete from and including ", and where" in line 27 down to and including "of placement" in line 32.
These amendments will broaden the entitlement of an adopting father to adoptive leave in circumstances where the adopting mother has died. The amendments will bring the provisions of the Bill in line with the Maternity Protection Bill in this regard. The amendments replace provisions in the Bill as circulated which would have confined the adopting father's eligibility to cases where the adopting mother already had an entitlement under the Bill.
I am aware that it is most unusual to take so many amendments together in this way. I appreciate the indulgence of the Seanad on this occasion. The only mitigating circumstance I can offer is my concern to ensure correspondence between the provisions of this Bill and the Maternity Protection Bill, which was only published in recent weeks. As a result, I hope that Members will understand the circumstances that have given rise to my having to bring forward such a large group of Government amendments.
I would like to explain the details of the amendments proposed. The substantive amendments are amendment No. 28 in section 9, amendment No. 35 in section 10 and amendment No. 41 in section 11. I propose to deal first with the three substantive amendments.
Amendment No. 28 is the first of three substantive amendments that will modify the terms of the Bill so as to give adoptive and additional adoptive leave to an adopting father where the adopting mother has died, irrespective of whether the adopting mother was herself eligible for adoptive leave. Amendment No. 28 replaces section 9(1) of the Bill. The amendment will entitle an adopting father to leave from the time of the death of the adopting mother until ten weeks after the day of placement. The amendment also provides that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, with the consent of the Ministers for Social Welfare and Finance, may vary the period by order should there be a need to do so in the future.
Amendment No. 35 is the second substantive amendment which broadens the scope of the existing provision relating to additional adoptive leave for fathers in section 10 (1) in line with the earlier amendment No. 28. The amendment also assigns powers which enable the Minister, with the consent of the Ministers for Social Welfare and Finance, to vary by order the period of leave provided in the legislation.
Amendment No. 41 is the third substantive amendment which broadens the scope of the existing provisions of the Bill as they relate to additional adoptive leave for fathers in similar circumstances where a foreign adoption is involved. The text of section 11 (1) as it stands allows an adopting father to take additional adoptive leave in circumstances where the adopting mother who had an entitlement to additional adoptive leave has died. The present amendment would broaden the scope of the section to extend entitlement to leave to an adopting father in circumstances where the adopting mother is not employed and so would have had no entitlement to adoptive leave.
I will now take the Members through the various consequential amendments. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 modify the definitions of "adopting father", "adopting mother" and "adopting parent" and insert a new definition, "employed adopting mother", to take account of the substantive new provisions in sections 9, 10 and 11. Amendment No. 1 removes the restriction on the definition of "adopting father" in the Bill as circulated, which confined eligibility to cases where the deceased adopting mother had an entitlement to adoptive leave.
Amendment No. 2 changes the definition of "adopting mother" to reflect the new interpretation of "adopting father" in the Bill. Amendment No. 3 introduces a definition of "employed adopting mother" to distinguish the case of an employed woman who would have an entitlement to leave from work from that of an adopting mother who is not employed but whose employed spouse would be eligible for the leave in the event of her death.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 69 and 73 are identical. The amendments propose to substitute the terms "employed adopting mother" for "adopting mother" in each appropriate place in the Bill. The amendments are consequential to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which insert definitions of adopting mother and employed adopting mother in section 2 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 29 merely deletes subsection (2) of section 9. Amendments Nos. 30 and 34 are technical amendments which replace the references in subsections 9 (3) and 9 (4) of the Bill to subsections (1) and (2) with references to subsection (1) only. This amendment arises because subsections 9 (1) and 9 (2) have been replaced with a single subsection, the new subsection 9 (1). Amendment No. 31 broadens the scope of the subsection which had been confined to cases where the dead adopting mother had been on adoptive leave to all cases where an adopting mother has died after the day of placement but within the ten weeks period where adoptive leave is allowable under the legislation.
Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39 are technical amendments which replace the references in sections 10 (3), 10 (4), 10 (5) and 10 (6) of the Bill to subsections (1) and (2) with references to subsection (1) alone. These amendments arise because subsections 10 (1) and 10 (2) have been replaced with a single subsection, the new subsection 10 (1). I ask the House to assent to these amendments.
We accept these amendments, which improve the Bill. It is now 12 months since the Second Stage debate on this Bill. In my experience in this House it is unique to have a Bill waiting for that length of time for Committee Stage. In fact, 12 months ago we were promised that Committee Stage would be taken within two weeks of Second Stage.
I am also surprised at the number of amendments from the Government. Some 100 amendments in a relatively small Bill is again without precedent in my time in the Seanad. Many of these amendments have come in during the past week. The Minister and his Department had 12 months to examine this situation and supply us with the amendments. I do not have any problem with dealing with the amendments, but we should have had more time. The time was there; this is not a rush job. We could have had the amendments a month ago.
I do not know what happened with this Bill. It may have been introduced too quickly, or something may have happened in the Department, but the Bill has been substantially changed. To a large extent it has been improved and extended, which I accept, but many of the improvements should have been in the Bill as published.
I ask the Minister to explain why there has been such a change in the Bill and, in the spirit of transparency, to explain what happened in the Department which required that such extensive changes, amounting to 100 amendments, had to be proposed by the Government to make this Bill complete the job it was supposed to do.
I take the point made by Senator Neville, but I believe that if Committee Stage of the Bill had been taken within a fortnight of Second Stage, as the Minister originally hoped, it would not address the issue which it was intended to address.
Then it should not have been published.
As the Minister said, things have happened in the interim. The Maternity Protection Bill was not anticipated at the time and has made many changes to the type of leave which is to be made available to mothers and fathers on the birth of a child. This Bill puts leave for adopting parents on the same footing as maternity leave for couples who have had a natural birth in the family. It was worth waiting for this Bill. If we had not waited we would now be amending legislation which was enacted 12 months ago.
I have one small correction. The Maternity Protection Bill was anticipated this time last year. The House may recall that I strongly urged that changes be made to the Unfair Dismissals Act. The Minister was intent on waiting for the Maternity Protection Act to deal with all matters covered by the European Directive on maternity. Therefore, the Maternity Protection Bill was anticipated.
Senator Neville's point about the short notice on the amendments is a justifiable objection, with which I agree. However, I do not have any objection to the number of amendments. I welcome them and support the Department which, having examined the legislation as drafted, believed that it should be improved and set about doing so. That is how legislation should work.
The amendments have arisen in the context of debate that has taken place outside the House as well as items which were raised on Second Stage. I welcome very much the content of the group of the amendments we are discussing. Many people will see them as a determined, sensitive and supportive attempt to deal with a particular problem. A number of consequential changes are required throughout the Bill to make it work. I believe that all angles have been covered.
Adoptive leave is very important. Adopting parents often feel that they are not as well regarded by the State and the rest of us as are natural parents, but this Bill is a clear signal of the importance we give them. Representations have been made to me by teachers who adopted and believed that they were treated less well than colleagues who were natural parents. This Bill gives a great sense of status to adopting parents and also makes them feel that they have all the support available to other parents. Why should they not have the same support?
I welcome the amendments and I congratulate the Minister for grasping this nettle. However, I agree with Senator Neville that in future we should be given more time to read through so many changes.
I am grateful for the Senators' comments on this issue. What we are doing here is in the best tradition of the legislative process. This process is about getting the legislation right. We have Second Stage, Committee Stage and so forth to ensure that we can incorporate amendments in our legislation where necessary. The five Stages allow time for reflection and for the evolutionary process, as it were, to take place. That happened in the case of the Maternity Protection Bill, which we had to align with this Bill. The Maternity Protection Bill has been before the Dáil during the last few days.
I am sorry that there is a large number of amendments. However, this block of amendments is a major slice of the total number. The important consideration is that the amendments are achieving major improvements in this important and sensitive legislation. We are extending the scope of the legislation and that will be welcomed by many people. I am grateful for the Senators' co-operation in that regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 1, to delete "a female employee" and substitute "a woman, including an employed adopting mother,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 5, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 5, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following definition:
"‘contract of employment' means, subject to subsection (2)—
(a) a contract of service or apprenticeship, or
(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with a person, who is carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act, 1971, and is acting in the course of that business, to do or perform personally any work or service for another person (whether or not that other person is a party to the contract),
whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing;".
This amendment, together with amendment No. 6, will bring the definition of "employee" in this Bill into conformity with that in the Maternity Protection Bill which is at present before the Dáil. The definition in the Adoptive Leave Bill as published reflects the definition in the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, which is about to be replaced in the new Bill. The substantive differences between the definition in the Bill as published and the new definition involve a broadening in the scope of the definition to encompass persons employed through employment agencies.
Amendment No. 4 defines "contract of employment" for the purposes of the legislation. Paragraph (b) of this amendment, together with subsection (2) (c) of amendment No. 7, will provide for the application of the Bill to persons employed through employment agencies. Paragraph (a) of the definition specifies that contracts of employment will include all contracts of service or apprenticeship. Amendment No. 7 provides for the deeming of a public service appointment as a contract of service for the purposes of the legislation.
Amendment No. 6 inserts definitions of employer and employee into section 2 of the Bill. The amendments are technical in nature and similar to that provided in other labour protection legislation. Amendment No. 7 will insert a new subsection in section 2 of the Bill. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are standard provisions common in employment protection legislation and will extend the scope of the definition of "contract of service" to public servants by deeming their terms of service to be contracts of employment for the purposes of the Bill. Paragraph (c) designates the person who pays the wages of the agency worker as the person who would be deemed to be the employer for the purposes of the legislation.
This amendment, together with amendment No. 4, will admit agency workers to the scope of the Bill. I ask the House to accept these amendments.
I welcome the amendments and the inclusion of the public service in this legislation. We have often criticised Ministers for not including the public service in other protective legislation, such as the Unfair Dismissals Act. It is welcome that all employees in the State, semi-State and private sectors are included under this legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following definition:
"‘employed adopting mother' means a female employee in whose care a child (of whom she is not the natural mother) has been placed or is to be placed with a view to the making of an adoption order, or to the effecting of a foreign adoption or following any such adoption;".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 5, to delete lines 22 to 25 and substitute the following definitions:
"‘employee', subject to subsection (2) means (except in Part IV) a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment;
‘employer', subject to subsection (2), means, in relation to an employee, the person with whom the employee has entered into, or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment;".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 5, lines 42 to 44, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State (including a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces) or otherwise as a civil servant, within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the State or Government, as the case may be, under a contract of service;
(b) An officer or servant of a local authority, for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1941, a harbour authority, a health board or a vocational education committee shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the authority, board or committee, as the case may be, under a contract of service; and
(c) in relation to an employee whose contract of employment falls (or, where the employment has ceased, fell) within paragraph (b) of the definition of contract of employment' in subsection (1), the person who is liable to pay her wages shall be deemed to be her employer.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 6, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 15, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 15 and 16 to insert the following paragraph:
"(a) having, as soon as practical but not later than one week after having registered with an adoption society for the purpose of adopting, caused her employer to be notified in writing of her intention to adopt."
The purpose of this amendment is to cater for a situation where a person obtains less than four weeks notice of adoption. At present adoptive parents are often given very short notice that a baby is available for adoption. From an employer's point of view four weeks notice would be necessary. However, in practice it would be difficult for adopting parents to give the employer four weeks notice of a placement since few adoptive parents are themselves given four weeks notice of the adoptive placement.
Amendment No. 14 attempts to counteract the difficulty employees might have in giving employers notice that they had applied for adoption or that they had registered with an adoption society for the purpose of a foreign adoption. They would give one week's notice of the adoption taking place.
My fear is that adoption societies which are placing foreign adoptions might decide, if a person is in employment and must give four weeks notice, to opt for somebody who is not in employment so that an adoption can take place immediately or within a few days. If a person is in employment the adoption could take four weeks because of the need to give four weeks notice.
I thank Senator Neville for his useful contribution to the consideration of the Bill. I understand his concern to ensure that adoptive parents can secure adoptive leave as soon as they need it and that employers are given adequate notice of their expected absence from work.
Having examined the amendments I am concerned about how they might apply in practice. There may be a considerable timelag between the application to a registered adoption society or health board and the placement of a child for adoption. Notification of an employer for anything up to two or three years before the employee takes adoptive leave would not be of practical benefit to her employer and it might, indeed, prejudice the position of the employee. Secondly, for various reasons not everybody who makes an initial application for the placement of a child with a view to an adoption adopts a child eventually. A person who is considering adopting a child might wish to maintain confidentiality about their intentions at least until it is clear that a child will be placed for adoption. It would be better if this legislation placed no obligation on an employee that might interfere with that confidentiality. It should be noted that the Bill provides for notification of an employer at least four weeks before the expected day of placement. The legislation does not prevent an employee from giving a longer period of notification to her employer.
For these reasons I ask Senator Neville to review his approach to this issue and to withdraw his amendment. It may be useful to note that persons wishing to adopt a child do not register with an adoption society but rather make an application to a registered adoption society or a health board in the case of an adoption in Ireland. For foreign adopters a declaration of eligibility and suitability must be obtained from our health board or a registered adoption society.
I take the Minister's point on amendment No. 14. However, on amendment No. 10, does the Minister not accept that, given current practice, it is unusual for adoptive parents to get four weeks notice of the adoption? It is not unknown for parents to receive one day's notice of the placement. An adoption society rings them up and says they are pleased to inform them that they are now in a position to place a child with them. I know of people who received one or two day's notice of the placement. Four weeks in such circumstances does not gel well with the present practice. I agree that employers must get notice and one week's notice should be acceptable under the circumstances.
I fear a situation developing where adoptive societies — we discussed the deficiencies in the whole adoption process on Second Stage — will say that they cannot place a child with a person who is employed. They may say that they have a child but cannot wait four weeks because that person must give four weeks notice, so they may look at the other applicants and find somebody who is not employed and who can adopt immediately. There might be a certain discrimination by adoption societies towards employed people who have requested adoption.
It is important to distinguish between knowledge of the fact that the employee will adopt, which must be communicated no later than four weeks beforehand under section 7 (1) (a), and knowledge of the date of placement, which must only be notified as soon as is reasonably practicable under section 7 (1) (b). The difficulty with Senator Neville's amendment is that it would breach confidentiality. It would involve the applicant, the adopting mother, notifying her employer that she had——
I am talking about amendment No. 10, not amendment No. 14. I accept the Minister's point on amendment No. 14.
Section 7 (1) (b) covers the Senator's point. It states:
having, as soon as is reasonably practicable, caused her employer to be notified in writing of the expected day of placement...
It must be not later than four weeks.
The Senator is confusing the fact that the employee will adopt with the actual fact of placement.
I was also unsure that I read it correctly. I know exactly what Senator Neville is trying to achieve. If I thought that this was not incorporated in the Bill, it would be useful to a large number of people, particularly mothers who are working, to ensure that it was covered. However, my reading of section 7 (1) (b) is that it covers exactly what Senator Neville intends to achieve. If a couple seek to adopt a child, presumably the mother can inform the employer at any period. Subsection (1) (b) covers the eventuality of short notice of a baby becoming available. This is my reading of it and it covers what Senator Neville is trying to achieve in his amendment.
That is not my reading of it. Section 7 (1) (a) states:
...entitlement to the minimum period of adoptive leave shall be subject to an adopting mother... having, as soon as is reasonably practicable but not later than 4 weeks before the expected day of placement,...
If an adoption society telephones parents, as they do, and informs them that in one week a placement will take place, they will not then be in a position to give four weeks notice to their employer. They will not be in a position to get their full adoptive leave.
Even if one week is inserted, it will not cover the case mentioned by the Senator. I may be wrong, but section 7 (1) (b) strengthens the aim the Senator is trying to achieve. If one gets a telephone call saying that a baby is available and one requires leave after a week's notice, it still will not cover the eventuality mentioned by the Senator. Subsection (1) (b) states "as soon as is reasonably practicable".
I agree fully that it does not cover the situation, but it improves it from four weeks to one week. I appreciate the point, but it is unfair to ask an employer to allow somebody to take leave on a day's notice. Given the way adoption societies act at present, the necessity to give four weeks notice may discriminate against working parents obtaining an adoption. My understanding is that to obtain leave one must give four weeks notice and then confirm the placement date within that four weeks. One must get information of the expected date of placement.
The adoption society says "This is the expected date" but in the main at present they do not talk about the expected date and say that a child is available. It is most unsatisfactory but that is the way it operates. In most cases they do not get one week, but one week is reasonable. There should be a rule that adoption societies must give a period of notice. They do not do so at present. I agree with Senator McGennis that even one week will cause difficulties for some. However, four weeks could put people outside the scope of adoption with some of the societies.
Senator Neville's amendment does not help the situation for an employer.
No, I know it does not.
If I apply to adopt now, I could be on the list for ten years.
I am talking about amendment No. 10, not amendment No. 14. I accept the Minister's view on amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 10 deals with one week. It states: "...having, as soon as practical but not later than one week after having registered with an adoption society..." Is the Senator at cross purposes?
Yes, I am.
I thought so.
I thought we could not be too much at odds.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 15 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, subsection (1) (a), line 17, to delete "4" and substitute "1".
This is the amendment I confused with the previous amendment. I apologise to the Minister and I will not repeat the arguments.
Amendment No. 11 would in the case of a domestic adoption have the effect of requiring an adopting mother, or sole male adopter, to give her employer only one weeks notice of her intention to take adoptive leave. In drawing up this legislation I was conscious of the need to strike a balance between how its provisions would affect both employers and employees. I consider that I have struck the right balance in providing that an adopting mother, or sole male adopter, must give her employer four weeks notice of her intention to take adoptive leave.
This notification period, which is similar to that contained in the maternity legislation, will enable the employer to make any arrangements which may be necessitated by the absence on adoptive leave of the adopting mother, or sole male adopter. At the same time, the four week notification requirement for the employee cannot be considered too onerous an obligation, particularly since subsection (1) (b) is even more flexible from the point of view of the employee as regards notification of the actual date of placement.
If an employee gives less than four weeks notice of the adoption — one week, for example — what are the implications for the employer and the employee?
One has to strike a balance between the position of the employee and the employer. The employer's position has to be considered. He must get a reasonable notification of a change in circumstances in the employment that might radically affect his business and the people working for him. We have struck a reasonable balance in section 7 (1) between paragraphs (a) and (b). We are saying that notification should be "as soon as is reasonably practicable but not later than 4 weeks before the expected date of placement"— note that it says "the expected date of placement". It would be an unusual circumstance, as far as I am aware, where one would have the expected date of placement and the placement coming up within a week. From what I know it would not all happen that quickly with the application and a placement happening within a week or two.
The requirement is reasonable in that the notification has to be given as soon as is reasonably practicable but not later than four weeks before the expected date of placement, and then as soon as is reasonably practicable the employer must be notified in writing of the date of placement itself once it has been given to the adopting mother. That is a reasonable balance.
I accept that it is a reasonable balance, but in practice people do not get four weeks notification of the placement for adoption. Sometimes they only get days notice of the placement.
That is provided for in paragraph (b).
Sometimes they do not even obtain information of the expected date of the adoption. They are telephoned and informed that the adoption will take place. I have known of cases where it has been only one or two days.
The adopting mother would meet the needs of section 7 (1) (b) by immediately notifying the employer, because that would be as soon as is reasonably practicable and that is all she is required to do.
In such circumstances she would not then give the four weeks notice?
No. The four weeks notice is not of the actual placement. It is of the expected date of placement. In other words, there would be a preliminary notification given that something is happening and she would notify the employer at that point.
If an adoption society fails to give notice of an expected date of placement and gives notice of the actual date of placement and that is within the four weeks, what are the implications of that?
It would not be open and it would not be reasonable to expect it to be open to an employee to come to an employer who does not know anything about an intended application for adoptive leave and say that they would be off the next day on that account. That would not be reasonable. I would imagine that if a person applies to an adoption society it would be a long time before something happens; the first stage would be that a communication would be sent to say that something is happening and a possibility is coming up for the applicant. At that point it is reasonable enough for the employee to go to the employer and inform them of the situation and notify them that they will be taking leave within a month or two. The next stage would be that the society would communicate with the adoptive mother and notify her that the placement would take place on a certain date. She can then immediately notify the employer as that would be "as soon as is reasonably practicable". It is a fair balance.
My point is that if an adoption society gives less than four weeks notice of the expected date of placement, does the parent have to give four weeks notice under this Bill? If the adoption society gives two weeks notice, for example, to the parent of the expected date of placement, the parent will not be in a position to give the four weeks notice. Will they have to tell the adoption society to postpone it for a further two weeks to comply with the Bill?
They have to give four weeks notice. From the time the employer knows nothing at all about the adoption, knows nothing about the intention or the application to adopt, the employer must get at least four weeks notice.
In the example I have given the parents would have to inform the adoption society that they could not accept the child for a further two weeks because they have been given only two weeks notice of the expected date of placement and the parents must give four weeks notice to the employer. My concern is that adoption societies will look at this and may discriminate. If the adoption society wants to have an adoption for a child within the four week period, they will look at people other than those in employment who must give four weeks notice and, thereby, discriminate.
My amendment would reduce the notice time to one week. I accept that under all circumstances four weeks notice should be given to an employer, but because of their procedures the adoption societies do not on all occasions give four weeks notice of the expected date of placement. If the notice period is left at four weeks there is likely to be discrimination. Adoption societies would be tempted to look at parents who do not have the restriction of giving four weeks notice to their employer.
I would doubt that any adoption society would exercise discrimination in that manner or would make their decisions as to whom they place a child with on that basis. I would not accept that that would happen. I take the view that while it could be that the actual date of placement given by a society to an intending adopting mother could be in less than four weeks from the date, the expected date of placement, which would be at an earlier stage in the process, would in the overwhelming majority of cases be conveyed well before the four week period. That being so, it is perfectly reasonable to strike a balance between the position of the employee and the employer whereby at least four weeks in advance of that employee taking the ten weeks adoptive leave the employer would be aware of the position.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, if not in all cases, the adopting mother would have an approximate idea given to her of the expected date of placement. The actual date of placement, which is the follow up position, could come at much shorter notice. I would imagine that that would hardly be a phone call the day before; rather more notice would be given. Adoption societies know that the arrival of a new child in a household requires preparation. It is not something that would be imposed at a moment's notice; it requires mental preparation and preparation of the physical conditions that would be necessary for the child. They act responsibly and in most cases the appropriate notice would be given to enable the adopting parents to make the proper provisions. I sympathise with Senator Neville's point but I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.
We discussed discrimination in adoption on Second Stage. There is age discrimination and some adoption societies may also discriminate against people in employment. Before this Bill goes to the Dáil I ask the Minister to consult the Adoptive Parents Association to find out the practice and the implications of the need for notice by adopting parents. That association has strong views on these issues and I have spoken to them.
I will have discussions with them.
If this works in practice it is the ideal position, but my understanding is that it will not. If it does work in practice employers need and should get four weeks notice of anyone leaving employment for a period. The notice now allowed may create difficulties for parents who are working.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 27, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, subsection 2 (a), line 30, to delete "4" and substitute "1".
I withdraw this amendment on the understanding that the matter will be examined as outlined by the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 7, subsection (3), line 44, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 8, subsection (4), line 3, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother (or sole male adopter)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 15, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 20, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 8, subsection (4), line 23, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 8, subsection (4), line 26, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 8, subsection (5), line 28, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 8, subsection (6), line 34, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 8, subsection (6) (a), lines 37 and 38, to delete "of her intention to take such additional adoptive leave" and substitute "of the intended date of commencement of such additional adoptive leave".
This amendment will address a lacuna in section 8 (6) (a) of the Bill as published. This paragraph sets down the arrangements for notifying the employer with which an adopting mother or sole male adopter should comply in order to avail of additional adoptive leave before the day of placement in certain foreign adoption cases. The section as drafted would allow notification of the employer without any indication of the intended date of commencement of the leave. The proposed substitution through this amendment would fill this lacuna, thus giving the employer the necessary basis for putting arrangements in hand to cope with the employee's absence on leave. I recommend the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 8, subsection (7), line 43, to delete "adopting mother" and substitute "employed adopting mother".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 8, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) A period of additional adoptive leave under subsection (5) shall expire immediately before the day of placement.".
This amendment proposes to add a new subsection to section 8. The section deals with entitlement to additional adoptive leave, which may be taken immediately after adoptive leave in a normal case; or some or all of the leave may be taken before the day of placement in the case of a foreign adoption. The subsection will clarify that additional adoptive leave, whether taken before or after the day of placement, should be continuous with the period of adoptive leave. Section 8 (1) makes clear that additional adoptive leave taken after adoptive leave must immediately follow that leave. The new section 8 (8) will provide similarly for additional adoptive leave which precedes adoptive leave.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 8, lines 45 to 50, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) Where an adopting mother dies, the adopting father shall be entitled to leave (‘adoptive leave') from his employment for one of the following periods as may be appropriate—
(a) 10 weeks, or
(b) in a case where the adopting mother dies on or after the day of placement, 10 weeks less a period equivalent to the period beginning on the day of placement and ending on the date of her death, or
(c) such other period as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance, by order prescribe.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 9, lines 1 to 6, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 9, subsection (3), line 7, to delete "subsections (1) and (2)" and substitute "subsection 1".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 9, subparagraph (ii), lines 13 and 14, to delete "while on adoptive leave" and substitute "after the day of placement".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 9, subsection (3) (b), line 20, after "day of placement," to insert "as may be appropriate,".
This amendment makes an insertion into section 9 (3) (b). This paragraph requires an adopting father to inform his employer of the day of placement of the child. The paragraph might be more broadly interpreted than intended in a case where the child had yet to be placed with the adopting father. In such a case the paragraph could be interpreted as allowing the adopting father the option of informing his employer either of the expected day of placement in advance or wait until the child had been placed before informing the employer of the date. Such latter interpretation could leave the employer without information about the timing of the placement that would otherwise be available to him. Insertion of the words "as may be appropriate" removes the ambiguity of interpretation when the paragraph is read together with subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of the earlier paragraph (a). I ask the House to assent to this technical proposal.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments No. 33 and No. 42 are cognate and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 9, subsection (3) (d), line 37, after "causing" to insert ", if requested,".
As drafted section 9 (3) (d) would require an adopting father who wished to avail of adoptive leave to provide documentary proof, by way of a death certificate of the adopting mother, of his eligibility for adoptive leave. This amendment limits the requirement to produce such evidence to cases where it is requested by the employer. Amendment No. 42 is identical in effect in respect of a similar provision of section 11 (2) (c) of the Bill. I consider these amendments strike the necessary balance between the interests of the employer and the desirability of minimising the amount of documentary evidence to be supplied by the adopting father. I ask the House to accept the amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 9, subsection (4), lines 40 and 41, to delete "subsections (1) and (2)" and substitute "subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 10, lines 3 to 17, to delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute the following subsection:
"(1) Where an adopting mother dies the adopting father shall, if he so requests, be entitled to leave (‘additional adoptive leave') from his employment for one of the following periods as may be appropriate—
(a) 4 weeks, or
(b) in a case where the adopting mother dies on or after the expiration of 10 weeks from the day of placement, 4 weeks less a period equivalent to the period beginning on the day immediately following the expiration of 10 weeks from the day of placement and ending on the date of her death, or
(c) such other period as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance, by order prescribe.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 10, subsection (3), line 18, to delete "subsections (1) and (2)" and substitute "subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 37:
In page 10, subsection (4), line 23, to delete "subsections (1) and (2)" and substitute "subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 10, subsection (4), lines 24 and 25, to delete "subsections (1) and (2)" and substitute "subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 10, subsection (6), lines 30 and 31, to delete "subsections (1) and (2)" and substitute "subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 40 is out of order as it is outside the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.
I want to refer briefly to the amendment which has been ruled out of order and ask the Minister to take into consideration the concern of many potential adoptive parents on the lowering of the age limits applied by most adoption societies. This has been as low as 37 years for men and 35 years for women. I do not understand why such age limits should be put on parents who intend to adopt. I appreciate that there should be an upper age limit but this should not be 37 years.
This is outside the scope of the Bill.
I appreciate that. We discussed this at length on Second Stage and I wanted the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to it.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 41 to 44, inclusive, have already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 10, lines 37 to 45, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) In the case of a foreign adoption, where the adopting mother dies and the adopting father requires a period of additional adoptive leave before the day of placement, for the purposes of familiarisation with the child who is to be adopted, some or all of the additional adoptive leave undersection 10 may be taken immediately before the day of placement.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 11, paragraph (c), line 9, after "causing", to insert ", if requested,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 11, subsection (3), line 13, to delete "within 7 days of" and substitute "as soon as is reasonably practicable after".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 11, subsection (3), to delete lines 14 and 15.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 25, after "weeks" to insert "(other than as a result of the death of the child)".
It has been suggested that section 12 as circulated in the Bill could apply to a situation where a placement is of less than 14 weeks owing to the death of the adopted child. This is not the intention of the proposal. It is intended to apply to a situation where the child is removed from, or given up by, the adoptive parent. The amendment will ensure that the proposal gives effect to what was originally intended.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 26, after "notified" to insert "in writing".
This amendment is intended to address a lacuna in the Bill as published. Unlike other notification procedures, under section 12 (1) of the Bill as published one cannot require a notification to be in writing.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 27, after "than" to insert "7 days after".
This amendment is intended to give an adopting parent increased flexibility in the timing of the notification to the employer in the case where the placement of a child is terminated by the adoption agency or other person responsible for the placement. Section 12 (1) requires the adopting parent to notify the employer of the termination of the placement no later than the date of the termination itself. The amendment would replace the existing requirement to notify the employer no later than the termination date with the requirement to notify no later than seven days after the termination date.
This is a very sensible amendment because the circumstance to which this applies can be very traumatic for parents. The stipulation that they should immediately inform the employer was a little unfair. The approach taken in the amendment is much more sensible and compassionate.
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.