I move:
That Seanad Éireann approve the draft Order entitled:
Maternity Protection Act, 1994 (Extension of Periods of Leave) Order, 2000,
copies of which were laid before Seanad Éireann on the 31st day of January, 2001.
Maternity Protection Act, 1994: Motion.
These orders provide for an extension to maternity and adoptive leave which attracts payment of four weeks and an extension of 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 a 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 Irish society and in the make up of the labour force due to Ireland's unprecedented rate of economic growth. The participation rate of women aged between 15 and 45, roughly corresponding to child bearing years, is 61.5%. We should provide workplace conditions which value the contribution of women.
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 of age is particularly acute at present. The proposed increases in maternity and adoptive leave will contribute towards an alleviation of this serious problem.
The orders before us are the result of recommendations of a working group which was set up by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to review and improve maternity protection legislation. The working group was set up in accordance with commitments in the Government's 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. The working group's recommendation to increase maternity leave has been fast tracked ahead of the other recommendations to ensure women could benefit from the increase as quickly as possible. The report will be published later this month. Adoptive leave was not within the remit of the working group but the Government decided that, in the interest of equity, the increases in maternity leave recommended by the group would also be made applicable to adoptive leave.
Many of the recommendations will involve primary legislation and I assure Senators that there will be ample opportunity to discuss issues surrounding maternity protection when legislation to implement the other recommendations is published.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is empowered under the Maternity Protection Act, 1994, with the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Social, Community and Family Affairs, to increase by order maternity leave which attracts a payment and unpaid maternity leave. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has 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. Today we are here to discuss the orders and to pass the resolutions.
On 6 December the Minister for Finance announced that the increased entitlements will apply from early April 2001. Most increases provided for by the annual social welfare Bill apply from April, or even somewhat later. After the budget announcement officials in my Department examined the possibility of applying the maternity and adoptive leave increases not only to women who commence maternity and adoptive leave on or after early April but also to women who go on leave prior to that date. This issue was examined in conjunction with officials from the Departments of Finance and Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General. It is, of course, essential that the orders comply with the parent Acts. The Attorney General has advised that it would not be possible to have the orders to 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.
The notice requirements under the Acts are as follows. An employee must notify her employer of her intention to take maternity or adoptive leave at least four weeks before the commencement of leave. In the case of unpaid maternity or adoptive leave she must notify her employer of her intention to take leave at least four weeks before the commencement of the unpaid leave. There are different requirements in respect of notice where a father is applying for leave in the event of the death of a mother. The Minister has been constrained by the notice requirements under the Acts in terms of how soon he could implement the budget announcement.
The increases in maternity and adoptive leave are not merely a matter of the State paying out extra weeks of maternity and adoptive benefit. They 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 obligations 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.
The aim of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is to implement the increases as far in advance of 2 April as possible while complying with the parent Acts. The passing of the resolution here today will mean that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be in a position, together with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, to sign the orders immediately into law. The extended periods of maternity and adoptive leave which attract payment will, therefore, apply to persons commencing maternity or adoptive leave in early March, instead of on 2 April. Similarly, the entitlement to the extra 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. The revised entitlement to unpaid leave will, in effect, apply to persons who went on maternity leave from the end of November 2000.
In an effort to ensure clarity for both employees and employers in relation to the increased entitlements to leave, officials in my Department, following consultation with representatives of employers and employees, decided that the commencement dates specified in the order should be those when the various types of employees eligible for maternity and adoptive leave would start maternity and adoptive leave. The date of starting leave is the date most clearly understood by both employees and employers, particularly as some employees give notice well in advance of the statutory minimum requirement.
Article 2 of both orders relates to the commencement dates and takes account of the notice requirements in the parent Acts in respect of the various categories of persons eligible for maternity leave. Articles 1 and 3 of both orders are standard technical provisions.
Article 5 of the maternity leave order amends section 13(2) of the parent Act. Section 13(2) of the parent Act 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 weeks 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 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 weeks 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 weeks 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.
Once this motion has been passed by the House, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs will be in a position to sign the orders later today and an advertisement will be placed in tomorrow's papers setting out the details of the increased entitlements.
In summary, therefore, the orders provide that: any woman who commences maternity leave on or after 8 March will be entitled to 18 weeks paid leave and eight weeks unpaid leave; any woman who commences additional unpaid maternity leave on or after 8 March following on her 14 weeks paid leave will be entitled to eight weeks unpaid leave; any adopting mother or sole male adopter who commences adoptive leave on or after 8 March will be entitled to 14 weeks paid leave and eight weeks unpaid leave; and any adopting mother or sole male adopter who commences additional unpaid adoptive leave on or after 8 March will be entitled to eight weeks unpaid leave. Entitlement of fathers to paternity and adoptive leave in the event of the death of the mother will also be increased in respect of fathers commencing leave on or after 8 February. In the case of a father who is already on paternity leave, the increased entitlement to additional unpaid paternity leave will apply with effect from 8 March. I recommend the orders to the House.
The introduction of this overdue extension of maternity and adoptive leave, with pay, from 14 to 18 weeks is very welcome. It comes against a background of the shameful fact that in terms of the length of maternity, adoptive and parental leave this country ranks second lowest in the European league of nations. For instance, in almost all the Scandinavian countries a mother is entitled to six months maternity leave with full pay. This is also true of France and Luxembourg. Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany have paid maternity leave for up to 20 weeks, which is at least two weeks longer than Ireland under the new orders.
Our parental leave provisions are the second worst in the European Union, if not the worst when non-EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland are included in the equation. Nowadays, Norway, Austria, France and Sweden provide for 12 months parental leave. Ireland, on the other hand, as a result of fairly recent legislation, still has a miserly 14 week period, all of it unpaid.
When the Parental Leave Bill, now the Parental Leave Act, was before the House it was well debated and subject to a number of amendments. One of the amendments provided that at least part of the 14 week period would include paid parental leave. The Minister resisted the amendment but, under pressure, he stated that the Government would actively examine the prospect of having at least some weeks of paid parental leave in the public service, and that in turn would give a lead to the private sector. Two and a half years later, there is still no sign that the Government is even thinking about making such a concession on paid parental leave.
Since the enactment of that legislation, gross domestic product has increased by 12%, which represents a huge amount of money. Given the economic growth in recent years, 1% of GDP is also a huge amount. The Government should be thinking of introducing paid parental leave. I am not a parent and so I do not come to the subject with a great deal of knowledge. People may be critical of me for taking up this stance, but I recognise that in the formation of society it is very important for parents to have time to spend with their young children. In the first year of a child's life it is most important for him or her to spend as much time as possible with his or her parents. In the world in which we live, with both parents working and everybody struggling to pay for mortgages and cars, there have to be two incomes in every household. To a large extent, child rearing is left to cre±ches or child-minding services. The Government should be doing everything possible to encourage leave for parents to spend with their young children. The influence of parents on their children in the formative months and years has an enormous amount to do with the adults those children will later become. While this matter may not be strictly relevant to these orders, it allows us to revisit the Parental Leave Act two years on. I appeal to the Minister to introduce provision for paid parental leave, starting in the public service. We are not seeking 14 weeks paid leave, but it should be possible to start with a shorter period.
While I welcome what is being done today, it is rather late. On budget day the Minister said this measure would come into effect on 2 April, but there was a hue and cry among pregnant mothers and families that this measure should have been introduced forthwith on budget day. That could have been done. If the Minister can introduce a measure that raises excise duty on petrol or tobacco at midnight on budget day, the same could have been done for this measure. It was not done, however, and there was no commitment to do so. The commitment was to introduce the measure on 2 April.
While I am glad the entitlement will now come three or four weeks earlier, we have to bear in mind that in the two months since the budget, there have been between 9,000 and 10,000 births. If one extends it to 2 April, then one is talking about somewhere between 17,000 and 18,000 new borns, that is, between budget day and 2 April.
Approximately 60% of mothers would qualify for maternity benefit so thousands of them will lose benefit because this was not with effect from budget night, which it should have been. I appeal to the Minister – this appeal was also made in the other House – to introduce a measure by which a lump sum is payable to parents, mothers in particular, for the loss of up to for weeks of this leave. That is only fair. At this stage, the Minister is bringing it forward by a number of weeks so it should now be applicable to everybody affected since the budget announcement on 6 December.
This country does not score well in terms of maternity leave. The period of maternity leave in most Scandinavian and European countries is longer than ours. In fact, I think somebody mentioned that only the United Kingdom is worse than we are in terms of these benefits. It is very difficult to justify that given the growth and increasing wealth of this country in the last five to nine years. I do not know when the last extension to maternity and adoptive leave was made. I do not remember dealing with it in this House to which I came back over three years ago or when I was in the other House so it is probably a number of years ago. If I remember correctly, we dealt with a maternity leave Act in the other House in 1995. Six years on, it would appear it has taken us that length of time to give an extension. I hope that in next year's budget we would look again at extending maternity leave. If other European countries, which are not much wealthier than we are, can give 20 weeks and 26 weeks, we can do it. The Government should look at this positively to ensure that in the forthcoming budget, we are up with the best of them in terms of these matters.
In the context of next year's budget, which will be introduced around 1 October, I do not think the European Commission will rap us on the knuckles if we introduce a measure which would initiate some form of paid parental leave starting with the public service, because somebody has to start it. Obviously, we cannot expect the private sector, which did not like the introduction of parental leave in the first instance and did quite a lot of lobbying against it, to give the lead. There may be some employers in the private sector who allow some payment for parental leave, although that would be done on an individual basis. I make the plea that the Government should look at this in the context of the forthcoming budget to be introduced next October.
I commend these orders to the House and welcome the Minister of State. I would like to place on record my tremendous admiration for the work she has done since her appointment in the area of disability and so on which is recognised throughout the country.
These orders came about as a result of negotiation and the setting up of a working group as part of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The Minister has acted in accordance with what was agreed and set down in these negotiations. These were protracted and serious negotiations involving representatives of the private and public sector. Arising out of that consultation and the work of the working group, this measure was put in place. Whatever the parallels elsewhere in Europe, these two orders are fully in line with the PPF and the thrust of the negotiations prior to that. It is important to recognise that this was not done willy-nilly by the Minister as a sop to a certain sector of society.
It is tremendous to note that arising out of these orders, paid maternity leave will be increased to 18 weeks. On top of that, there is an entitlement to eight weeks unpaid leave which will bring the total amount of leave to 26 weeks. I am a small employer employing about nine or ten women. This year three of my staff will notify me of their intention to take maternity leave. It places me under certain constraints when three loyal staff take maternity leave in or around the same time because, in this day and age, it is difficult to replace them. A number of the girls working for me have taken leave on maybe two, three or four occasions but I have noticed that once the period of time with their new born child of 14 weeks or 26 weeks, if there are difficulties, is over, they are very anxious to get back into the workforce.
The Minister of State said that 61% of women who are what we term broadly child bearing age – 15 to 45 years of age – are likely to participate in this scheme. Bearing in mind that the majority of girls between the ages of 15 and 22 years or thereabouts are in third level education, it gives great significance to the figures mentioned.
Senator Connor asked why this measure was not introduced on budget night, 6 December, and I see his point. I do not think it would have been possible to do that because we must take into consideration the employers' constitutional rights and obligations. I can image the reaction of employers if this had been introduced on budget night or if it was made retrospective, particularly in the case of a big employer with many women working for him who would suddenly be faced with a huge demand for this leave.
Under the legislation, there is a statutory obligation, which is only right, to serve four weeks' notice on one's employer, whether in the private or public sector, of one's intention to take maternity leave. It is only fair that an employer knows that come 1 May or whatever, a person is taking maternity leave and that they will be off for 18 weeks. It is only fair in this day and age that is done. On the advice of the Attorney General, it was suggested that this part of the legislation should be complied with. The co-operation of three Departments – the Departments of Finance, Social, Community and Family Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform – is needed to effect this measure. This is not new legislation. These are orders which the Minister can make by virtue of the 1996 legislation. This is another of the many initiatives this Minister and Government have taken in the area of equality and women's rights. It is another giant step in that direction. I have no doubt that in time, we will have 22 weeks paid leave if that is what is demanded and required. It is significant to note that what has been done here by the Government and the Ministers concerned is fully in line with the positive thrust of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness which is very significant.
I read the speech the Minister made in the Dáil recently. In the negotiations prior to the PPF to negotiate this extra paid and unpaid leave, as set out in the orders, there was no mention of adoptive leave. The Government decided to extend maternity leave and graciously included adoptive leave. According to my records, this was not dealt with in the negotiations prior to the PPF. This is wonderful news and the Government should be commended on bringing it forward. I hope the orders can be signed immediately so that applicants can apply on or before 8 March. As I understand it, a person who is on maternity leave can serve notice on 8 March that she wishes to acquire the extended unpaid leave.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, for coming before the House and outlining the significant progress that has been made by the Government in the whole area of equality and law reform. I recognise the wonderful work she is doing, sometimes without publicity, particularly for those who are disadvantaged due a physical or other disability. The Government and the Ministers concerned should be commended for moving this forward. It is a significant improvement.
The vibes I am getting from those with whom I work and associate in both the private and public sectors are positive. They recognise the significant leap forward that is being made. I expect it will bring much joy and financial reward to expectant mothers who on or after 8 March will serve four weeks' notice on their employers for the extended leave, which amounts to 26 weeks. The 18 weeks and the eight weeks unpaid leave combined is a reasonable time to allow a mother to be with her child. It is an important time and is a significant step forward compared to 25 years ago when maternity leave was very restricted.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome the orders. It is extraordinary that in a country which refers in its Constitution to women solely as mothers that we should be so far behind in doing something for mothers in this area. While this was a poor country in the past and there were not as many women in the workforce as in other countries, we have a long way to go, as Senator Connor pointed out. I am sure the Minister will continue to see what further money can be provided in this area, particularly in terms of providing a greater amount of paid leave. For economic reasons a large number of women have to go back to work. If the measure can be extended so that the paid leave continues for another four weeks over the next year it would be tremendous progress. As Senator Connor said, this is a measure for the improvement of society in general.
I attended the launch of the family friendly workplace day at the Employment Equality Agency recently – 1 March 2001 will be family friendly workplace day. It is important that employers understand they have a responsibility to encourage the parents of young children to fulfil all their obligations to those children and should make it possible for them to do so. That is why it is important to have paternity leave as well as maternity leave and parental leave. It is sad that we have to state in Article 7 that fathers, on the deaths of mothers, will be entitled either to birth or adoptive leave. Nevertheless, it is important that that is stated.
I recall the death of a friend of mine years ago, following the birth of her fourth child. If at that time the widower had been able to take some time off, the family situation might have been better. I had my children before there was maternity leave. Having gone back to work two days after the birth of my second child, in case I lost my job, I am extremely sympathetic to these proposals.
There is another matter about which, although it is not a matter for her Department, the Minister of State might do something. Over 18 months ago I brought a Private Members' Bill before the House regarding the regulation of invitro fertilisation. While a commission has been set up, nothing has been done. I am concerned because there may be more than one woman claiming to be the mother of the child. An advertisement in The Irish Times looking for human eggs was sent to me, the text of which stated: “Anonymous egg donor under 35 years needed for childless couple. Please contact.” That was not for someone within the State. We are in the forefront of the techniques of invitro fertilisation, yet there is no legislation in this area. Neither have we a register of those clinics which carry out invitro fertilisation. I ask the Minister, knowing her concerns in these areas, to encourage the Department of Health and Children to do something about this. There are surrogate mothers abroad. Their children come back here but they are not covered by maternity Acts or adoptive Acts because money has changed hands. At the centre of all this legislation it is the child we are thinking of all the time. I urge the Minister of State to see what progress can be made in that area.
The adoptive leave is extraordinarily important. It is interesting that parents who want to get leave under these regulations have to produce a certificate to show they have adopted a child. They have to show to a third person an extract from the adoption register. There are still great difficulties regarding adoptive persons getting more than extracts from the adoption register. It is interesting that third parties can have more information on adoption than someone who was adopted in the past. That needs to be considered.
The last time we spoke about adoption in this House was in 1977. I could almost have reproduced today the speech I made then. At that time I asked if the Government would set up a statutory adoption contact register. This has been promised since 1991 by various Governments but it still has not been set up. However, a register is being set up by the adoptive persons association which is a voluntary organisation. It is too much to expect them to do so, the Government should get active in this area. The people who want to go on these registers do so voluntarily. They are the parents of children who were given up for adoption many years ago or adopted children who have reached the age of 18. This voluntary register is accessible on the web – worldwide web.adoption.ireland.com – and 1,700 people registered in about six months. There have been three successful cases as a result of the register and it is reckoned that about ten other groups of people managed to make contact with each other. There is a need for it and it would be preferable for the Government to be in charge rather than its being run by a voluntary organisation.
I warmly praise the Minister of State for introducing this motion and I encourage her to do more. When one thinks of the small amount of leave granted to women, especially post birth, is it any wonder we have the lowest breast feeding rates in Europe. Perhaps we could encourage this activity in those women who will take more prolonged leave.
I warmly welcome this development. I have been involved in its gestation, if I may use the pun, in various different negotiating fora over the years. A prime objective of social partnership is the creation of family friendly policies. This is a step in that direction. I ask the Minister of State to look at ways to build on this. I agree with the points raised by Senator Henry about the family friendly day on 1 March. I had a meeting in my office this morning to see how we might mark it.
In cold European bureaucratic terms this would be described as a pro-natal policy to encourage people or make it easier for them to have children. An examination of the fertility rate in different countries over the past ten to 15 years shows that in many countries the birth rate dropped dramatically, especially in the 1980s and up to the early 1990s when it then began to climb in countries such as France, the UK and in Scandinavia. In the meantime in the countries where the birth rate had not dropped – the Catholic countries of Italy, Spain and Ireland – the same pattern emerged when they became familiar with contraception. In 1989 the Department of Finance incorrectly forecast that the birth rate for the period 1996-2000 would be approximately 45,000 per year. It is now 55,000 per year and rising. The Masters of the maternity hospitals are crying out for more resources every day.
We need to be careful about this because patterns of family living have changed to the extent that it is the exception rather than the rule not to have both parents working. Given this and the lack of child care facilities, many people are going out to work much earlier than they might like because they have to pay their mortgages. They seek a good portion of maternity leave, paid and unpaid, before returning to work.
The regulations for child care facilities for very young children – infants under the age of 18 months – make it almost impossible to create a viable economic unit to provide that service. Many of the crèche facilities cannot afford to take in children under the age of 18 months. I am sure the Minister of State will be aware of that from her personal experience. It is something we need to look at.
What is proposed here is the outcome of negotiations by the social partners under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. In the course of the review of the PPF last year a further commitment was made by the Government to the social partners. The Minister announced in the budget that he would introduce this measure and it has now become a reality, which I welcome. I agree with Senator Connor when he said he could not understand why it was not introduced from the date of the Budget Statement in early December, although I recognise the initial proposal was to introduce it from 1 April. Over the last month we put pressure on the various Departments to bring it forward and I welcome the fact that it becomes operable from 8 March. The ICTU and other trade unions will be very pleased with that.
We need to focus to a greater extent on this area. We also need to ensure that there is a young population that continues to grow. To ensure population maintenance a fertility rate of approximately 2.1 is required. That is not a difficulty at present and between births and immigration the population is beginning to increase. However, we need further improvements in this area. In this regard if there is a change of Government I will be the first person to pursue Senator Connor on behalf of the trade union movement to ensure that his party delivers on the improved maternity regulations he advocates.
That is if I am Minister.
I agree with the Senator's views, which does not happen too often. Last Sunday when I reviewed the Order of Business for the week I noted that this item was on the Order of Business for yesterday with a proposal that it be referred to a committee without discussion. Given the delays involved I appreciate that the Department and the House co-operated to have the matter dealt with here. It is as well this happened because the Dáil had to follow suit. It means the motion will be passed in an expeditious manner. I understand it will be signed this afternoon. I would like confirmation of that because there will be a queue of people telephoning my office later this evening to ascertain if they can submit their notice of maternity leave. The matter is that vital. It is also more evidence of the importance of social partnership. We might also explain to our European colleagues before they set out to reprimand us that these are the things that are important to us.
I thank the Minister of State for introducing the motion and I look forward to further improvements of other aspects of maternity regulations over the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.