Eric J. Byrne
Ceist:11 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Labour if he has considered the possible introduction of (1) longer maternity leave and (2) some form of paternity leave; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Maternity/Paternity Leave.
I have no plans at present to introduce longer maternity leave or to introduce paternity leave.
The question of protection for pregnant workers has recently been considered in detail at European Community level. As a result, a new directive on the protection at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding was the subject of political agreement at the council of Social Affairs Ministers on 6 November 1991 and is being referred to the European Parliament in accordance with the normal procedure relating to health and safety directives under Article 118A of the Treaty. This directive is part of the overall social action programme for the implementation of the Social Charter. Its focus is towards ensuring safe working conditions for pregnant workers. It provides for 14 weeks maternity leave. This proposal is in line with the existing national legislative provision under the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981. That Act provides for 14 weeks maternity leave and 4 weeks additional maternity leave at the option of the employee.
The question of paternity leave is a separate issue. Such leave would involve additional costs for employers which would be difficult to contemplate in present circumstances because of the possible implications for competitiveness and employment.
Would the Minister accept that it is anomalous that maternity leave is made available to the mother of a couple fortunate enough to have a child themselves while no such leave is provided in circumstances in which a child is adopted? Would the Minister agree that it is anomalous that a woman who is at work and makes social insurance contributions will get maternity leave and appropriate benefits whereas a woman unable to have a child, who adopts a child, is deprived of those benefits? Would the Minister agree that our legislation, and indeed the directive to which he referred which is now to go before the European Parliament, should be amended to include a provision to allow, in particular, the mother of an adopted child to have a period of weeks leave following the placement of a child with her for adoption purposes?
Of course the actual physical circumstances of the mother in each case varies considerably. I do not claim to be an expert in this area but the Deputy will be aware that the provision in respect of a natural mother of 14 weeks maternity leave is linked to the date of birth of a child.
A significant portion of that maternity leave is post-date of birth.
Yes, but nonetheless it is linked, as I have said, to the date of birth, whereas the circumstances of an adoptive mother are somewhat different. Though the maternal responsibilities are quite the same, the circumstances, to say the least of it, are different. It is not a matter I have been asked to address in this question. I will consider it but I do not want to give any undue commitment at this point.
Would the Minister give serious consideration to providing, by way of legislation, a period of six to eight weeks leave for adoptive mothers, which would be less than the full maternity leave and which would only partly precede the birth of a child, but would be a reasonable period bearing in mind that social insurance contributions are the same and that part of the purpose of the leave would be the same, which is to allow the mother to have time with the child, in the early days following the child's birth or placement, when the mother would have time to formulate a relationship with the child without being under work or financial pressures?
This does not arise from the question. Therefore, I do not want to give any commitment at this point on any such issue without having considered all of its implications. The Deputy will appreciate that.
I am just asking the Minister to consider it.
What I was asked to consider in respect of this question was the introduction of longer maternity leave. As the Deputy will know that does exclude at this point and in all respect adoptive mothers. I do not have any information on that. All I can say to the Deputy is that, while I am not prepared to exclude it from my considerations, I do not want to give the impression that that means there is a real prospect of a change at this point.
I just asked the Minister to consider it.
I will look at it, certainly.
In pursuit of the question of adoptive mothers, may I remind the Minister that on 29 May last his predecessor gave an undertaking in this House to have the question of maternity leave for adoptive mothers examined by his Department. As a new Minister in the Department I appreciate that the present Minister would not be entirely au fait with every commitment given by his predecessor. Would he pursue that matter in his Department so that, when it is raised in the House again, there might be some progress to report?
On the question of paternity leave, would the Minister accept that paternity leave is now commonplace in that fathers play a more active role at the time of the birth of a child, that many good employers have already voluntarily concluded agreements with their employees for periods of paternity leave; and that it would be of assistance to those employers and their competitiveness if the Minister were to consider giving legislative effect to some length of paternity leave now in view of fathers commitments at the time of the birth of a child?
I would have to say that if the Deputy were to ask our taxpayers, in particular PAYE taxpayers — who, as I have said, are already very hard pressed — whether they considered this proposal for paternity leave a priority or would fund that kind of programme, I do not think they would rush to support it. Probably they would tell one there were more urgent causes to which their tax could contribute rather than paternity leave. I do not want to give the House any impression that it features fairly high on my priority list either at this point.
May I remind the Minister that many of the PAYE taxpayers to whom he refers are people who might avail of paternity leave? May I express some surprise at what I consider to be a very unenlightened reply from the Minister, in view of his expressed public commitments to the family, that he should resist the provision of paternity leave which is now a standard provision in many good employments? For example, there are agreements in many employments for paternity leave. Understandably, the periods of paternity leave are much shorter than for maternity leave, but may I suggest to the Minister that it is not unreasonable to suggest that there be legislation introduced to provide for, say, one week's paternity leave for fathers who need such a facility?
I am not suggesting that we discourage the allowance of paternity leave by employers who are so minded. A number of them are providing for it and I commend them but I cannot see that it has high priority as regards a State contribution. Some small and medium-sized businesses would not be able to introduce this facility. I do not want to impose a burden on people who would be unable to bear it. Perhaps we can encourage it but not impose it.
At the meeting in Europe on 6 November when the pay entitlements of pregnant women were discussed, the Irish Government offered the greatest resistance. It would seem that we were out of step with our Community partners. Would the Minister explain why?
The Deputy has gone back to the previous question.
It is an entirely different question.
It is not. The Deputy is referring now to pregnant workers.
The payment of pregnant workers.
That was dealt with in the previous question. Far from resisting the proposals made, we did quite the opposite. I do not know where the Deputy got his information.
I will give the Minister the information.
Please do. It was adopted with our support.