Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1994

Vol. 446 No. 4

Maternity Protection Bill, 1994: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I said earlier that I look forward to hearing Members' contributions to this debate because I know there is a genuine interest among many of them on the subjects raised in this Bill. It is my intention to listen carefully to what is said and to retain an open mind on any constructive suggestions put forward.

This Bill is part of a wider package of initiatives in this area. It complements the Adoptive Leave Bill, 1993, currently before the other House, which provides for leave in relation to adoption of children. This Bill will not be the last word on the subject of leave since I am continuing to examine the area of parental leave in the light of the draft EU directive on that subject. As far as pregnant workers are concerned, this Bill represents real progress, a real improvement of their rights. I commend it to the House.

I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on its introduction representing, as it does, a further step in establishing women's rights in the workplace and related matters.

I note in relation the Council Directive dated 28 November 1992 that we were supposed to implement it within a period of two years. It appears the Minister is eight days late.

Very often we have been worse vis-á-vis the implementation of these directives.

I am aware of that. Nonetheless we like to get these things right if we can particularly in circumstances in which it would have meant additional money for a number of women had it been implemented earlier. While it may be a matter of some small concern to some of us, it will be a matter of more concern to those who will have lost out financially. However, I welcome it despite its being eight days late.

I note that in Article 3 of the Council Directive on Guidelines states at paragraph 1:

In consultation with the Member States and assisted by the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work, the Commission shall draw up guidelines on the assessment of the chemical, physical and biological agents and industrial processes considered hazardous for the safety or health of workers within the meaning of Article 2.

Has that work been done? Have these guidelines been drawn up and, if so, is there any reference to them? Are they available to us? Other member states in the European Union have additional reasons to ours for bringing in regulations and legislation of this nature. Because of the low birth rate, falling short of replacement level in many countries, particularly Germany and France, women are being encouraged to have more children. That has been the case in a number of countries in continental Europe for some time. Our motives in that regard are purer and more idealistic from the point of view of women's rights. We have not had the problem of a diminishing birth rate; indeed, it has been to the contrary. However, some figures released the other day suggested that the position is different now, that in the past year or two our birth rate has been below replacement level. To that extent perhaps we are beginning to conform with the trend in other European countries. I do not know the last time births were below replacement level. Presumably we would have to go back a very long time.

Probably never.

That was always a problem from the point of view of participation in the workforce.

It may have happened in the exceptional conditions around the time of the famine. Apart from that I cannot remember any time when the replacement level was below the death level. We are, indeed, living in exceptional times.

I have welcomed this legislation. However, there is disquiet in some sectors, particularly among small employers who are asking if, in view of all the trouble it will cause, all the changes that would have to be made, the expense and the inconvenience caused to them and to other employees, they should employ a woman of childbearing age. This question has been posed more and more recently. Employers point out that men are more adaptable and more willing to undertake tasks formerly described as women's work, and more and more men are available for this type of work. Why, therefore, employ women if it can be avoided? It has also been suggested that women over childbearing age have certain advantages in the workplace.

In response, such arguments have been used for centuries and certainly since women first came into the workforce in considerable numbers, had this argument been accepted in the past, women would still be confined to the sink and to the bed, no progress would have been made on these matters and the enormous discrimination against women would still be at its height. I pointed out to one person in particular that if the financial and commercial considerations argued for by him had been conceded, children would still be working in the mines and women and children would still be cleaning our chimneys. To that extent, the argument does not hold water.

The Minister will be aware from his own experience that such a case is being made in certain quarters. That mode of talk is about and increasing in certain quarters and this measure has led to comments of that nature. This is a worrying development which we cannot ignore. We should do what we can to counter it as I have in my discussions with people who have made these points to me.

Other reservations which we have a duty to face up to are being expressed on this and similar legislation although not in the same dogmatic way or in the same context as those to which I have just referred. There is a fear among employers and employers' organisations that the end result of legislation of this nature will be less competitive industry and services in Ireland and in the European Union generally, in Ireland because it has to catch up with other member states within which such rights have been developed gradually and organically within their industrial relations systems. We can accept that in a number of other countries there has been that organic development of such rights to a much greater extent than in this country or in Great Britain. My comments refer not only to countries in other parts of the European Union but to New Zealand where there has been what I described as organic development. IBEC has made this point in a positive and constructive way which is worthy of consideration.

I have also referred to the encouragement to reproduce for demographic reasons in countries like France, Germany and Sweden. There is a fear in the European Union, because it was considered to be inward-looking where competition is concerned and was not addressing the issue of the effects of the high social cost on its competitive position within, say, the Pacific Rim and other emerging competitors on the world market. That ought to be put on the record.

There are other matters to which I would like to refer. I have found a surprising degree of unanimity among both employers and employees I have spoken to, including women, about section 18 of the Bill which deals with leave on health and safety grounds. I refer specifically to subsection (4) which provides:

For the first three weeks of leave granted to an employee by an employer under this section in any period of twelve months, the employee shall be entitled to receive from the employer remuneration of an amount determined in accordance with regulations.

The objections of employers might be relatively obvious in this context. The Minister referred to consultation with employers, but I am not aware of the extent. He might indicate what consultations took place. In simplistic terms some employers who employ a large number of women in their workforce would consider that provision a serious imposition. It could mean the difference between making a profit or a loss, staying in or going out of business. Some women to whom I spoke about this matter, in particular a women's organisation, expressed reservations in respect of the proposed three weeks payment by an employer on the basis that some women will be reluctant to approach their employers for such payment. Some would find it intimidating to make such a request at a sensitive time in their pregnancy and unmarried pregnant women, in particular, might feel some pressure would be exerted on them. I note the spokespersons for the other two Opposition parties are women——

The Deputy is very perceptive.

——and they might be in a better position than I to express those views. I am merely reporting what has been said to me by women whose intelligence and sensitivity I respect. They would prefer responsibility for the payment of the first three weeks to lie with the State rather than employers. I look forward to the observations of the Minister and my female colleagues on these benches on that matter.

Section 14 deals with entitlement to additional maternity leave. I welcome the provision allowing time off from work without loss of pay for the purpose of ante and postnatal medical visits. I note the Minister stated that such leave is in addition to that provided in the Council directive of the European Union. I have not had an opportunity to check that but I take his word on it. Assuming that is the position he is to be congratulated. From the point of view of women's health that significant advance is welcome. I understand that some employers may have reservations about it and I wonder what rules and regulations will be laid down regarding the duration of time involved in medical visits. That matter concerns not only women. In early all employment problems arise in respect of leave to attend the doctor or the dentist. If we cast our minds back to our school days we will all recognise the possibilities inherent in such a mission. Today the queues in the doctor's surgery are longer than they were in the past and the question of duration of such visits may have to be considered. However, my comments do not take from my support for that provision.

Section 16 deals with the entitlement of an employed father to leave on the death of a mother. That new provision provides that when a mother dies within 14 weeks of a child's birth the father will be entitled to special leave. I welcome that without reservation. I do not know whether it was included in the original regulations.

That provision is particularly welcome in the circumstances of grief experienced by a father when the mother of his child dies and having regard to the new responsibility placed on his shoulders, particularly in the case of a first child. Some fathers are more adaptable in such circumstances than others, but I do not believe any father would not find it an onerous responsibility. Everything possible should be done to assist. That provision is most welcome.

Section 17 may present some problems for categories of workers where suitable work cannot be found on return to work from maternity leave. That is why I asked a question about the guidelines in the directive on the chemical, physical and biological agents and industrial processes considered hazardous for the safety or health of workers within the meaning of Article 2.

In the case of air hostesses two matters must be taken into account. They will come under the section dealing with employees who work at night. The conditions under which they work are exceptional in that they may suffer tension, strain and pressures over a comparatively short period of time. In the case of air hostesses who inform their employers of their pregnancy other matters come into consideration in addition to their health, namely the attitude of some airlines to the appearance of female employees in particular.

Let us take, for example, the position in Aer Lingus — my previous remarks were not aimed at Aer Lingus. If alternative suitable work is not available in that airline — an air hostess is usually grounded in those circumstances and given appropriate work behind a desk — an air hostess would have little or no alternative but to go on social security and that seems unfair. I would ask the Minister to consider the regulations from the point of view of air hostesses.

In some respects there may be discrimination against men. There are certain conditions from which men, and indeed women, suffer — for example, epilepsy. I am thinking of one case where a constituent was told by his doctor that he was fit to work and he should carry on with his normal duties, but the company doctor took a different view and said that he should not be allowed work in the company. This may be slightly removed from the Bill before us, and I am not comparing epilepsy with pregnancy, but this is a matter that should be considered although not in the context of this legislation. Perhaps we should compile a list of "conditions" where this problem would arise.

I would like clarification on some points in the Minister's script. I welcome the Minister's statement that he proposes a number of improvements in the protection of pregnant workers which are separate from and additional to the directive and which he believes will be of real benefit. On the placing of what he describes as particularly important obligations on the employer, will the Minister say what consultations took place?

This legislation is preferable to amendment of the 1981 Act. As the Minister said, the value of repealing that Act and re-enacting it by way of this Bill is that it provides, in a single source, for the employment rights of this group of workers, which is very important. The Bill is complicated and it would add to the complication if there were a number of separate Acts, particularly given the number of EU directives in this area. I agree that this matter should be dealt with in one Act and this legislation is a step in the right direction.

The Minister said that in the past there may have been confusion as to whether an employment agency or the agency's client availing of the employee's services was the employer for the purposes of meeting maternity protection obligations. Under section 2 the employer is deemed to be the party who is liable to pay the employee. I am glad that confusion has been cleared up. I have already referred to the matter of the three days and that is worthy of consideration.

The Minister, when referring to sections 21 to 29 which deal with the protection of employment rights, said that this part also deals with the requirement to provide suitable alternative employment to the employee on her return to work where it is not practical for the employer to reassign the worker to her original job. I foresee difficulties here, particularly in small firms. For example, when an employee returns after a period she may find someone else in her job and it would be a matter of possibly sacking that person from the job — further difficulties would be encountered there — and replacing him or her with the woman who returned from maternity leave. Difficulties may arise not only from the point of view of the employer but also the other employees. Perhaps the Minister will consider this matter further.

I welcome the Bill. It is legislation of which I entirely approve. It is a step down the road in the protection of women in their place of employment. I have put on the record reservations that have been voiced by employers and these should be dealt with.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I welcome this Bill. It is just a few days over the due date for implementation of the directive. On the anticipatory complaints of employers' representatives, it is important to listen to employers in this matter. The Bill deals with practical issues of the workforce and it would be folly for us to ignore the problems that may be anticipated by employers' representatives. For a long time Ireland has had one of the lowest participation levels of women in the workforce, but in the last ten years or so this position has improved. The key reason for low participation of women in the workforce in comparision with other European countries was the low level of participation by married women. In the early 1970s it was extremely unusual for a married woman to go out to work; only one married woman in 20 had a job. The position began to change in the 1970s, through the 1980s and the boom years before the figure began to fall again during the years of recession.

The main factors which prohibit married women from participating in the work force are the presence of a pre-school child in the family and the lack of adequate childcare facilities. However, the changing role of women in society has influenced an increasing number of married women to participate. We have now reached the stage where almost one third of married women have jobs. There are many reasons for this not least of which is the provision of protection.

The employer representatives have voiced reservations. While we should listen to them we have to be cautious and should not allow such concerns prejudice our view or stunt our commitment to implement protective legislation for women. This is not just a matter which affects the work force, it is a question of women's rights. If anything is to be said about the furtherance of women's rights it is that nothing happens by chance, that everything has to be put in place. If we were to wait for evolution, women would still be firmly in the home with no opportunities.

This is also a question of children's rights. It is essential that new born children are guaranteed the presence of their mother at home following the birth. There should be no pressure on women to return to work speedily; they should have adequate time to bond with their children. This has an impact on the proper functioning of the family.

This therefore is a broad issue and much has been said by the Minister about the role of the Department of Enterprise and Employment. This legislation has major sociological implications.

The directive which has been implemented in other member states will make a valuable contribution in helping women play their full role in society, particularly in the work force. It has to be accepted that children form part of the bounty of life, not just of individual women and families. Therefore those employers and employees who decide not to have children must give their support for these measures. Everybody should be interested in the welfare of children.

The directive is entitled Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breast feeding. This Bill has three main purposes the first of which is to implement the directive. It is also proposed to re-enact with amendments the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981 as amended by the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991.

It is further proposed to make a significant change whereby a male employee will be entitled to take leave in certain cases, for example, when the mother of his child dies. This is provided for in section 16. This section should be debated and perhaps amended on Committee Stage. We should consider allowing a male employee to take leave not only when his wife dies but also when the child dies or his wife is stricken with post natal depression. This condition affects approximately 14 per cent of Irish women. It can range from baby blues which is so normal as to be predictable to serious psychosis which can render a woman incapable of looking after her own child. In such circumstances the father should be allowed to take leave to care for the child. To my knowledge this has happened on a number of occasions and there was no provision in legislation to allow the father take leave to assume the role of the mother who in some cases may be confined to an institution for a period of up to six months. I welcome this section. While it is compassionate there is room for manoeuvre.

Article 14 of the directive adopted by the Council on 14 October 1992, specifies that it should be implemented within two years. It deals extensively with the rights of pregnant workers and largely focuses on health and safety issues affecting pregnant workers. The principal change is that where a pregnant worker or a worker who has recently given birth or is breast feeding is exposed to a health risk at work and the employer cannot provide suitable alternative employment she will be given leave which will come to an end when the employee no longer needs to take leave or when the employer takes measures to remove the risk. While this is necessary it can only be applied in circumstances where the employer is required by regulation under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 to move a pregnant worker to other work. I note that these regulations have not yet been made. I ask the Minister to clarify the position as this part of the Bill will have no effect until this is done.

The provisions of the directive impose stringent obligations on employers to assess the risks to the safety and health of pregnant workers or workers who have recently given birth or are breast feeding. It is easy to introduce such regulations and imagine that all employers are the same but such stringent requirements might present difficulties for small employers employing between one and three employees in taking on the responsibilities inherent in this legislation. There is much red tape involved in the normal employment process. It is important to simplify the system to ensure that it will not be too much trouble for an employer to take on a woman of childbearing years.

Parts IV and V of the Bill re-enact the Acts of 1981 and 1991 with minor changes. The directive lays down a minimum period of maternity leave of 14 weeks. That is already the position here. There has been some talk about the introduction of paternity leave. I am aware this is still being discussed but my view, for what it is worth, is that it would be better to increase maternity leave and introduce flexibility to allow fathers to take leave during the year, for example, when a child is sick rather than introduce paternity leave on a statutory basis. Maternity leave of 14 weeks is inadequate as by the end of the 14 week period many women are not ready to return to work. I hear that sentiment voiced right across the board by women at senior professional and lower levels in the workforce. Fourteen weeks is a very short time to spend with a new baby. It usually takes women about seven or eight weeks to recover their mental — not to mention bodily — functions after the birth of a child. I think we should consider the possibility of extending the optional four week period, even if it is unpaid leave, to provide flexibility for those women who want to go back to their jobs but need extra time with their child. All women are different, some may experience postnatal depression but that is only one of the problems that might arise, a child may be in poor in health or different circumstances might arise. There should be more flexibility and a sympathetic approach to women who seek to extend the statutory period of leave.

Most of this legislation and the original maternity protection of employees legislation is confined to women with contracts of employment. However, many working women do not have employment contracts, for example, the self-employed, proprietary partners in firms of solicitors and so on. I raised this issue with the Minister when we debated the Solicitors Bill. Approximately half those who qualify as solicitors and barristers are women and when they arrive at the stage of being proprietary partnerships and no longer employees they have to negotiate maternity leave arrangements with their peers. Often this is a difficult situation because they do not know how other women have negotiated and they are usually very vulnerable. Most proprietary partners in firms of solicitors are men and very few women break through that glass ceiling but when they do, they have to negotiate their maternity leave. In England there are so many female solicitors they have formed a group within the Law Society and have managed to persuade it to recommend draft guidelines for inclusion in partnership deeds so that there is at least a standard maternity clause. This has not happened in Ireland and the Law Society is very reluctant to take it on board. A clock is ticking in regard to the participation of women at the higher echelons of the legal profession in Ireland and sooner or later the issue will have to be addressed. Women do not have any strict legal entitlement to maternity leave if they are not employed on a contract of employment. That area needs to be thought about. I realise there is a directive relating to the maternity rights of self-employed women and I would like to hear the Minister's views on that.

In Germany, a nurse who worked as a night attendant in a home for the elderly had a contract for an indefinite period but when she became pregnant her employer terminated the contract because of a provision in German law which prohibits pregnant German women from working at night. The case was heard initially by a German court and in 1994 it referred a number of questions to the European Court under Article 177 asking in particular whether the termination of the contract in the circumstances outlined above was compatible with Directive 76/207EEC, implemented in Ireland by the Employment Equality Act, 1977, on the principle of equal treatment for men and women. The court first established that the termination of the contract was based on the employee's pregnancy and, therefore, constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of sex. The net effect of the case is that where statutory restrictions prevent or restrict a pregnant woman from performing particular tasks in the course of her employment, they will not justify an employer dismissing a pregnant employee. This seems logical as otherwise an employer could circumvent protective legislation simply by dismissing the employee. Other cases were reported recently on the law relating to pregnant workers — I have a note of two — and the judgments mean that any unfavourable treatment of a pregnant woman either directly on the basis of her pregnancy or indirectly on the basis of the consequences flowing from her pregnancy, regardless of whether they have their origin in statute, will be considered direct discrimination by the court and contrary to Directive 76/207. There is no doubt that the court will champion this legislation. It may be difficult for employers to swallow when they anticipate the obligations inherent in the legislation but in Europe at any rate the legislation will be championed by the European Court.

In England new regulations have come into force for the protection of pregnant women and they prohibit women employees from being required or allowed to work in the two week period immediately following childbirth. Many women in Ireland are tempted to work as late as possible up to the time of confinement to have a longer period at home after the birth and I understand that doctors are facilitating their patients and certifying that the baby is due two weeks later than expected. This means that women are working almost right up to the time of birth which highlights the point I made earlier that women value the time after birth and want to have more time with their baby. The reason is obvious because it is a precious time of bonding with and breast feeding the baby. It would be very helpful if the Minister would address this temptation to work quite late ending up with the woman almost going straight from the office to the hospital. That is undesirable from the point of view of their own health but the only reason they do it, and their doctors facilitate them, is that they want to have a longer period at home after the birth.

The Department of Employment in Britain has advised me that the Maternity Compulsory Leave Regulations, 1994, apply to all women who qualify for statutory maternity leave under the new rights introduced in an Act of 1993. These regulations prohibit women from working and their employers from permitting them to work during the two weeks immediately following the birth of a child. Obviously it is desirable that women do not go back to work too early, regardless of the circumstances.

I welcome this Bill. One of the features of such legislation is that it can only be assessed in practice. The spirit of the Bill is firmly in the right place and it is another step in helping women to participate more fully in the workplace. It is compassionate towards women. It is certainly recommended in the report of the Commission on the Status of Women to which this Government is committed.

There has been much bleating generally that if we provide such social protections, Europe will become uncompetitive. I can see some point in that argument given the high rates of unemployment in Ireland and in Europe. The fear is that if we provide social protection and high levels of welfare, we will not improve the competitiveness of Ireland in the context of Europe. It is important to go back to basics, however, and realise that strong social policy objectives are justified and necessary to enhance the role of women in our society. As Deputy Currie said, if that advice had not been taken many years ago, the black community in America would still be shining shoes. Strong protective legislation, which encourages the participation of women in work and which also discourages discrimination, is justified.

I understand that during the negotiations on the enlargement of the European Union to include the Nordic countries of Scandinavia, Swedish women were very concerned that on entering the European Union they would lose many of their excellent maternity and childcare entitlements. They had to be reassured by the negotiators in Brussels that their entitlements would not be affected. While we feel that protection for women in the workplace is a high priority in Europe, women in Sweden were concerned they would lose their privileged legislative conditions for working.

We will have the opportunity to go through the Bill in more detail on Committee Stage. It is a practical Bill and I welcome the fact that the Minister is co-operating with the Minister for Enterprise and Employment because it is in the workplace that the practical implementation of this legislation will be tested.

This Bill is disappointing. It is minimalist in its objectives and pedestrian in its approach. The case for family leave arrangements for workers is well proven — they contribute towards the reconciliation of employment and family responsibilities as well as other social and economic policy objectives, including equal opportunities, the health and well-being of children and parents, the well-being of families, improved economic performance and reducing unemployment.

The European Commission Network on Childcare, in its review of leave arrangements for workers with children, concludes that because leave arrangements are of such basic importance to reconciling employment and family responsibilities, a basic entitlement to the four types of leave needs to be guaranteed to all workers by law. This entitlement should be paid and flexible to include at least 16 weeks post natal maternity leave, two weeks paternity leave, 12 months parental leave and ten days leave for family reasons per child per year.

I am a realist and I accept that provision may be the optimum and is unlikely to be reached in the short term but it is clear that this Bill falls far short of fulfilling that brief. It is not only too little, but, as Deputy O'Donnell said, it is late. To comply with the European Directive the Bill should never been enacted before now.

In 1981 we were the last country in the EU to enact maternity leave legislation. Yet again, Ireland is at the bottom of the league, scraping through at the last minute with minor legislation to comply with a directive rather than looking seriously and imaginatively at the changes taking place both at work and in the family.

Looking at the Bill it is difficult to justify the claim that we are good Europeans. Nor is it compatible with the concept that we, as a nation, are pro-family. Maternity leave is still pegged at the minimum requirement which has been in force for many years. Since this is the Year of the Family it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that mothers and children benefit from more extended time together.

It is also hard to reconcile the fact that the father's role is not taken into account. A Minister for equality is surely expected to introduce the concept of equality into a Bill which will shape the family roles of men and women. In 1992 the Council of Ministers adopted a recommendation on child care. Article 6, which was agreed by member states, including Ireland, states:

It is recommended that member states should promote and encourage, with due respect for freedom of the individual, increased participation by men (in the care and upbringing of children) in order to achieve a more equal sharing of parental responsibilities between men and women.

The Minister had an opportunity to being to act on this commitment but he chose not to. There is no provision for paternity leave except in one instance. Is there not something macabre about the fact that a father can only get leave to mind his child when the mother of his child has died within fourteen weeks of delivery?

Recently, a European workshop was held in Dublin on the subject of families, labour markets and gender roles. It was, ironically, opened by the Minister, Deputy Taylor, he said:

Demographic change faces Ireland as it faces most other countries in Europe. The latest statistics on childbirth here show that we now have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. This represents a dramatic change from a position where traditionally Ireland had one of the highest birth rates in Europe, and in fact one of the highest in the world. I firmly believe that the change in the birth rate will itself have major implications for the future of the Irish labour force and will necessitate the more rapid overhaul of outdated employment practices and social structures. Such changes will undoubtedly have their effect on the realities of life, particularly for women in Irish society and may very well change their roles fundamentally.

Fine words, however, do not contribute to a rapid overhaul. In the Bill I could not find any indication of the promise offered by the Minister's words. It is a paltry document that largely reinforces the status quo. The Minister will no doubt state that parental leave is a separate issue to be tackled in the future, but the reality is that unless there is an integrated and flexible approach towards leave arrangements he is simply reinforcing inequality.

At the same workshop where the Minister spoke so glowingly about the future, the background paper, prepared by Drew, Mahon and Emerek, stated unequivocally

The provision of parental leave — usually taken to mean parental leave in addition to maternal leave — is one sign that an organisation recognises paternal family obligations. If used by men and women, it could be seen as a new way of combining family and working life. The provision of maternal leave, while a significant gain in EU states, only reifies existing gendered divisions in the labour market unless it is accompanied by paternal leave.

The Minister, in the Bill, is solidifying existing gender divisions when he should have lived up to his office. As a Minister for Equality he should and could have adopted that recommended integrated approach. There is no need to wait for some future directive to set the pace for reform in Ireland. The directive on parental leave will not arise again for consideration for at least a year.

In the past the Government enacted legislation relating to part-time workers without waiting for a directive to lead the way. The initiative was taken because it was right, not because it was imposed. It hardly justifies a Minister for equality if, in this most basic area of family life, we are simply being dragged along in the wake of European reform.

The opportunity was also lost to extend maternity leave, which is what many people want. Even if the unpaid, optional leave were extended it would have signalled improvement. People who could afford to avail of this extension would have benefited. People take leave for family reasons on an unplanned basis which can disrupt workplace patterns. If leave were regularised and extended, employers could benefit in being able to replace workers temporarily. This would serve to spread work around and give unemployed people, particularly women, a chance to work. If work is not to be the sole province of the better-off then the opportunity for job-sharing and part-time work must be developed for parents.

The European Pregnancy Directive provides that workers taking leave must receive payment at least equivalent to disability payment. This directive was put forward as a health and safety measure. It is worth noting that one of Deputy McCreevy's "Dirty Dozen" was to slash the minimum rate of maternity benefit from £69 to £60 per week, a reduction which affected many women on low incomes. Our record of providing for pregnant women workers is not a proud one.

I would be concerned if the health and safety provisions of the Bill which I welcome, might lead to discrimination against women workers of child bearing age being taken into the workforce. Inevitably the response by employers to social reforms has been to resist change. The almost hysterical response of IBEC to the extension of workers' rights regarding part-time work and parental leave is a case in point. The Minister must ensure that women do not lose out as a result of any backlash. Three weeks pay is a small price for employers to pay for the safety of their workers.

IBEC might look at the example of other modern European states which have not only implemented legal entitlements for parental leave but have also developed collective or company agreements which are making a significant contribution. In Germany 14 per cent of private companies covered in a 1991 survey had agreements offering employees a longer period of parental leave. Some agreements offer opportunities for part-time employment after the end of parental leave. In Denmark 95 per cent of those in the private sector have the right to take paid leave on the first day of a child's illness and all workers in the public sector are entitled to the same facility. Other countries make arrangements which vary from the most comprehensive in Sweden to more individual and modest arrangements within companies.

This morning we debated the terms of the Treaty providing for the accession of Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden to the EU. Three of these countries provide for parental leave. In 1991, 45 per cent of fathers in Finland took parental leave which shows the take-up where such leave is provided. In Sweden, almost all mothers took paid parental leave and, in 1990 86 per cent of fathers in Sweden took two weeks paternity leave. There is also a very generous system of leave in case of illness among children or their normal carers. From the private employers' point of view, it is interesting to note that large companies may be better able to replace workers on leave from their own resources or to establish dynamic arrangements but the longer and more predictable the leave, the more likely it is that a substitute employee will be employed.

What is striking about Sweden, which has a long established and extensive system of parental leave, is how little difficulty it seems to cause most employers. A report produced by Rapoport & Moss in 1990 pointed out:

...statutory parental leave in Sweden does not seem to present any

major problems to employers. Experience has shown that parental leave is workable and that what employers think is impossible is not impossible. Initial worries went as it became apparent there were no really big problems. In general, implementation is facilitated because parental leave is predictable and employers get advance notice of an employee taking it. It only affects a small part of the workforce at any one time.

That is an important point. A declining number of people will be affected by the need for parental leave. Fewer Irish people are getting married and fewer are having babies. The rate has dropped below replacement level again and now stands at 1.93, the lowest total fertility rate ever recorded. It has been highlighted in the media that the number of non-marital births has risen to almost 20 per cent.

Poverty is very much a feature of the lives of many lone parents and the opportunity to work is the best chance that many have to extract themselves from the poverty trap. But a lone parent has a double responsibility to carry — if they hold down a job then the provision of adequate maternity leave would ensure that responsibility is met in a realistic way.

Social change has led to a drop in the birth rate, a decrease in family size, an increase in non-marital births, a decrease in marriage rates, an increase in marital separation and divorce, a rise in the participation of mothers in the labour force, an increase in lone parent families, a rise in cohabitation and a growing acceptance of independence between sexuality and procreation.

These are all features of modern life in Europe and we are affected by those trends. They reflect the process of modernisation of the family and are tied in with the process of social change. It is lamentable that this Bill fails to acknowledge the major social changes that have, and will continue to take place in Ireland.

The most interesting trend which is emerging indicates the importance of providing a family-friendly work environment. In the Nordic countries where parental leave and accommodation of families is made by employers and by the State and where employment is still relatively high the birth rate has begun to increase. It is in the southern countries and in Ireland — countries experiencing high unemployment with workplaces which are generally inimical to the family — that the birthrate is dropping.

In the long term, the implications of a very low fertility rate are serious. We must ensure that there is a healthy birthrate. The best way to do this, as experience in the more developed European countries shows, is to ensure good supports for families, the provision of parental leave, the facility for parents to move in and out of the workforce without losing out and the establishment of the principle of equality between parents. Many of us are concerned about employment for young people but they grow old and we must look at the implications of a low birth rate and its effect on society.

Much of the Bill is a repeat of earlier legislation. A number of problems relating to written notification were experienced in the past. I have no argument with the procedures but the Minister must ensure that workers and employers are fully informed about them so that deadlines are not missed as happened in the past. Will the provisions governed by regulations and in the Social Welfare Act be retained? I refer in particular to the provision for mothers of stillborn babies.

Section 10 states that at least four weeks must be taken before and after the birth of the baby. I wonder in these days of generally healthy mothers and safe pregnancies whether this stipulation is not too rigid. Most mothers prefer to take their leave after the baby is born and are able to work until a few days before delivery. Surely we should leave it to mothers to make that decision rather than impose it on them.

Section 17 outlines the arrangements relating to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, a change which is welcome. However, after the first three weeks it is dependent on provision being made by the Minister for Social Welfare and I would like to know that there will be no short fall between the enactment of this Bill and provision being made by the Minister for Social Welfare.

The provision for appeals to be heard is largely satisfactory although it is important to ensure that there is no delay in hearing them. Since we are dealing with pregnancy, any appeal on a claim for maternity leave or leave on health and safety grounds cannot be long drawn out, for obvious reasons. I am not aware that this caused any problems in the past but since employers, for the first time, will be liable for three weeks payment in certain instances more claims may be taken under this Bill than under the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act.

My party will support this Bill, but we have no illusions about its meagre provisions. Across Europe there is a demand for well-educated people in the labour force and a need for stable families to ensure the growth of the next generation. Other European countries have developed flexible and generous leave arrangements based on the principle of equality. They recognise that the State can encourage men to adopt a greater share of caring and domestic work. They recognise that women have adapted to the opportunities afforded them by expanding opportunities while still maintaining their domestic and family roles as carers. Generally, and particularly in Ireland, men have not done so. How to ensure that happens is a fundamental issue of equality. The Minister failed to face up to this challenge. It is its greatest disappointment and the Bill's greatest failing.

I welcome the Bill. I wish first to comment on some of the points made by Deputies O'Donnell and McManus. Deputy O'Donnell referred to the position of self-employed women and what might be termed "proprietary partnerships" in small businesses where one partner is male and the other is female. Difficulties may arise in such cases, particularly between partners in the legal profession, and I ask the Minister in his reply to outline how the legislation deals with the self-employed.

I was disappointed at Deputy McManus's description of the legislation as minimalist. This Bill builds on the 1981 and 1991 legislation on part-time workers and maternity leave. For example, section 28, which deals with notification of return to work, is additional to the provisions in the directive. Under the previous legislation if the rigid provisions on notification of return to work, the four-week period and the two-week period, were not satisfied workers had no protection. I welcome the important new developments in this area. Under section 50 scope is provided for the payment of medical cheques outside the provisions of the directive.

The Minister has strongly supported the introduction of paternity leave. I have no doubt that paternity leave would have been dealt with in a European directive were it not for the opposition of Britain. The other 11 member states have strongly supported such a directive and I hope it will be introduced in the near future.

This important legislation will implement in Ireland the European directive on pregnant workers. The Commission on the Status of Women has recommended the introduction of such legislation, which fits in very well with the rights of the family under the Constitution. Reference is made in the Programme for a Partnership Government to the need to put support mechanisms in place to ensure that the family is a stable and vibrant unit of society. This is gradually being done by the Minister and this legislation is an essential element in that regard.

The Bill builds on the 1981 legislation which provides for 14 weeks paid maternity leave and an additional four week's unpaid leave. Under the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, these provisions were extended to part-time workers. These are essential elements of the protection given to pregnant women and mothers. Very substantial rights are being conferred on employees who are pregnant, who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding. Women who have to leave the work place when they become pregnant will be given support mechanisms to ensure that they are fully recovered by the time they return to work. Theoretically, a pregnant women could be given paid leave, depending on her medical condition, for the duration of her pregnancy and up to 26 weeks after the birth of her child, approximately 15 months. Obviously a women availing of this option would have to meet the conditions specified in the regulations. This is a substantial improvement on the previous legislation which provided for 14 weeks maternity leave and four weeks' unpaid leave.

Under section 16 a father will be entitled to leave if the mother has died within 14 weeks of the birth of the child. This is a logical and rational provision. It is the only type of paternity leave available to fathers. The European Commissioner for Social Affairs, Padraig Flynn, has submitted draft proposals on paternity leave to the Commission and the only reason they have not been dealt with in a directive is that the British Government is refusing to countenance them and is dragging its feet on this issue. The Minister has strongly supported these proposals on behalf of the Government. I welcome this improvement in the legislation which answers Deputy McManus's unjustified complaint that no concern has been shown for the rights of fathers. The Government has indicated its support for legislation on paternity leave. Under the terms of the Maastrict Treaty the Commissioner can submit proposals on paternity leave without the agreement of Britain. I look forward to the introduction of legislation on that subject.

Leave for adoptive parents is covered in the Bill being debated in the Seanad. The Bill will extend further protection to mothers following the adoption of a child in that maternity leave of ten paid weeks and four unpaid weeks will be granted. That is a substantial development. This area of the law is building up, step by step, towards further protections for the family.

I referred earlier to section 28 which deals with notification of intention to return to work after maternity leave, something which was prescribed rigidly in the 1981 legislation. Obviously a small number of women will opt not to return to work. It appears that the legislation has penalised the others by requiring everybody who intends to return to work to notify the employer of their intention four weeks in advance and to confirm it two weeks before the date of return. That is a very rigid requirement and failure to comply deprives the worker who has taken maternity leave of the protection of the 1981 legislation. I am pleased the Minister has availed of the opportunity to relax that rigidity so that the two weeks notification is no longer required and if notice is not given in extenuating circumstances arguments could be put to the rights commissioner or the employment tribunal. Clearly the position has been improved. I have always regarded that rigidity as totally unnecessary and it took from some of the better aspects of the legislation.

Section 15 extends protection to mothers who have returned to work after pregnancy, child birth and maternity leave. The mother is entitled to further paid leave from work for the purposes of medical care and check ups. That is a very favourable development which has to be decided by regulation.

This legislation is important in terms of its impact in the workplace. It gives stability to the family and conforms to constitutional requirements. The workplace has been negative, hostile and cold towards women, particularly married women. We have come a long way from when women had to surrender their jobs once they became pregnant. We are now assisting, facilitating and encouraging women to come to the workplace.

I will put in the context of our economy. Our economy is becoming unique in the western world in that the economy is growing but few extra jobs are being created so that employers can cherrypick workers. It is extremely important that we have legislation to protect the employee. Legislation to protect the rights of the full time employee and on a pro rata basis the rights of the part time employee is equally important in curbing the growing lack of concern for full time workers granting them the rights to which they are entitiled. That is one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is that this legislation, contrary to what IBEC appears to think, will benefit the workplace. In the first instance it will ensure that there will be healthy women in the workplace. So long as there is the opportunity for adequate parental and maternity leave and adequate check ups subsequently, the women who return to the work place will be healthy and that is better in terms of productivity for the employer.

It will help to ensure that employers begin to look at their workers as people rather than as a unit of labour. We have not made sufficient progress in providing creche facilities in the workplace. Once the legislation provides for greater flexibility, female workers will have more time with their new born children and it will be possible to provide facilities so that the newborn child can be close to the mother in the workplace. The provision of creche facilities will be a welcome development in fostering the concept of family life. Women are constrained by the fact that they give birth and by and large the workplace has not been geared to take that into consideration. Now that there are greater statutory rights for women in the workforce, employers will begin to change their attitudes to women and work. This type of legislation will improve the context in which work is done and that will have advantages for the employer as well as for employees because it will do away with much of the rigidity and the single sex type workplace.

I welcome the legislation. It is a further support for women in the workplace and in the home. I expect the Government to build on this legislation, a commitment given in the Programme for a Partnership Government. An earnest of that commitment is that we have appointed a Minister for Equality and Law Reform, a Ministry which, to my knowledge, does not exist in any of the other European States. I wholeheartedly welcome the legislation and applaud the Minister for introducing and extending it to the areas not covered by the directive.

If more women had been at the Council of Ministers' meeting when the European Union debated this directive in Brussels, its provisions relating to women would have been much more generous. Eleven men and one women debated this directive in Europe and when it was passed in 1992 it was far from clear whether Ireland would support it.

I followed the developments of the directive at European level and I was very concerned that the Government was not up front in its approach, it hid behind the UK's approach. I am delighted the directive was passed, but it is not surprising that Swedish women are concerned about joining the European Union. They fear their welfare rights, particularly those concerning maternity and paternity leave and child care, may be diminished. It is also not surprising Swedish women may determine its vote on accession to the European Union when we see its proposals in terms of maternity leave provisions.

We heard differing views from Members tonight. While Deputy McManus said the directive did not go far enough, Deputy Costello said the Minister was building on existing provision and that improvements had been made. Both Members are correct. There is no doubt that this directive and its implementation in Irish law does not go far enough, but the Minister has gone beyond its provisions in some cases and that is welcome. Irish women will welcome the improvements resulting in time off for ante and post natal care. It is extraordinary that we are only now addressing this issue. Up to now women have had to make excuses and take official holiday leave to keep maternity appointments.

If we are serious as a civilised society about equal opportunities, the issue of maternity leave and children is critical. That is one of the matters addressed in the Bill. It is regrettable that maternity leave remains at 14 weeks, it is not enough. Compared with other European, Nordic and OECD countries we fare badly in terms of leave entitlements for women after they give birth. We are not a child or woman centred society and we have a long way to go before providing leave entitlements that will give women proper equal opportunities. Our record in supporting the family is poor.

It is interesting that a number of comments were made about the concerns of employers in this regard which also received much attention in the press. The other side of the coin is that happy workers are productive workers and this is evident in Germany, a regulated economy with high productivity rates. We must adopt a different approach and ascertain what will increase productivity in the workplace. Employees who are well cared for and whose medical and health needs are appropriately met will give a good return to employers. We should be highlighting that aspect this evening.

This Bill addresses the issue of paternity rights, particularly on the sad occasion of the death of the mother. This is a start but, again, it is not enough. I welcome the Minister's support for the development of paternity rights. With changing family structures, changing approaches to the involvement of men and women in the workforce and a greater understanding of children's needs and those of their mothers and fathers, our laws relating to the role of fathers must be more sensitive than in the past. We have been very slow to change in that regard.

Our birth rate is plummeting and, at 1.93 children per couple, is the second lowest in Europe and below the population replacement level of 2.1. The fall in the fertility rate has been so rapid and dramatic that it has not yet impinged on the minds of policy makers. Because of the changed pattern in women's economic and social roles the tendency to have small families is not likely to be a flash in the pan and this must be considered if the problems associated with an ageing population are to be avoided in the future. It is interesting that, faced with this trend, other European countries adopted pro-natal policies, including more generous maternity and parental leave and improved child care provisions, and in France and Sweden the fertility rate has increased. Because of our high unemployment rate, people tend to avoid discussion on such measures. Despite the progress we have made in terms of equal opportunities there is still resistance to the full integration of women in the workforce and it comes to light when we talk about provisions such as those contained in the Bill.

It is regrettable the Bill does not go further. I urge the Minister to create a climate for further detailed and reasoned discussion on extending the provisions of the Bill. In view of the changing economic position, work patterns, family size and the changing roles of men and women, we must discuss in a more rational manner the issues addressed in the Bill.

The health and safety measures, especially those relating to breast feeding and the fact that an employer will have to provide a woman who has given birth with alternative work if the work carried out by her before the birth might endanger her health, will also be welcomed by women. Will the Minister explain more fully the provisions relating to breast feeding? Although women will tune in quickly to the provisions of the Bill, when discussing further legal rights for women it is important that employers and women are informed.

I should like to broaden the scope of the debate somewhat and refer to our general support services for women and children in respect of which we have a very poor record. Indeed, the reactions in the press to the possibility of paternity leave were very interesting. The suggestion was ridiculed and many of what I would consider to be over the top articles were published.

On income support of families, at a recent conference organised by the Minister for Social Welfare, Dr. Woods, in Dublin Castle, some research was presented on how much we support the family. We were described as the laggards of Europe. It is very clear that we have a long way to go to being financially supportive of families. For example, we lag far behind the Nordic countries. Indeed, if their referenda go ahead it will be interesting to ascertain what will be the impact in this area of their joining the European Union. Will they sensitise us into being more supportive of families? Babies grow up, become pre-school children, under-fives, undersevens and go on to primary school. The whole issue of day care provision, of providing a whole range of very supportive options for men and women in relation to their children needs to be developed. We have the worst record in Europe in the public provision of day care facilities for children. While the Minister is not addressing that issue in this Bill nonetheless it is linked to the type of maternity protection we provide, being part of the same continuum, and clearly we need to take enormous steps. Perhaps we are worried that, in supporting the family in this way, or in providing a range of day care alternatives, somehow we are undermining the family rather than supporting it. We support the family in such endeavour.

It is possible to make mistakes in the type of care we provide for children. Recently I heard a person from Denmark speak about the range of crèches they have for their children. They are now reassessing what they have done, feeling that they have, perhaps, institutionalised their care of children a little too much, which is a great danger. They are endeavouring to give men and women greater choice, particularly when their children are aged under three, in order to create a society in which parents and families can spend more time with very young children rather than feel they must return to work immediately and avail of these crèches during the very early pre-school years. We are ideally placed to develop services which would better match our needs and respect our traditions in terms of caring for children while at the same time affording men and women the choices they want.

The question of co-ordination between Government Departments to make them more child-centred warrants urgent attention. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform is afforded an opportunity to examine this matter and, hopefully, will take some action in this area. In this respect the demarcation lines between the Departments of Health, Education, Equality and Law Reform and Justice as far as our children are concerned are not helpful. There is a need for greater co-ordination and flexibility between Government Departments if we are to meet the needs of very young children and of families generally.

I look forward to the implementation of the occupational safety and health and social welfare measures. When will they be presented to the House? Let us hope it will be in the near future. It is important that all elements to which the Minister referred are implemented as soon as possible.

The Minister said that a careful balancing of rights and of obligations is maintained in this Bill and that employers will continue to be entitled to adequate notification. Will the Minister look at that again to determine whether it is somewhat over-stringent. I look forward to some further discussion on that on Committee Stage.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has consolidated this legislation in this Bill which is very important. I regret that the Bill does not go further which, undoubtedly, tells us something about our attitude to these issues. For example, it tells us the kind of economic constraint placed on the provision of the services and support we ought provide for pregnant women. If we are serious about women's involvement and participation in the workforce we shall be returning to this issue in the not too distant future. We shall need to re-examine this area, to reassess and, perhaps, develop the provisions of this Bill.

The tide of change sweeping through Europe in terms of women working, combining work and family responsibilities and related issues will have to be addressed here in a broader way. We have the lowest participation rate in the European Union of mothers with dependent children but that pattern is rapidly changing. For example, in 1985, 18 per cent only of such mothers were in employment whereas, by 1991, the relevant figure stood at 38 per cent. The figures suggest that the younger the child the more likely it is that the mother will be employed. This implies there will be a steady, continuing increase in the number of mothers, with children, in the workforce. Our figures may rise to the European Union average currently at 58 per cent and increasing, which will mean there will be a steady growth in demand for the services I have outlined in addition to a greater demand for better maternity protection and better legislation in this area. Great participation by women in the workforce means that new approaches and services are needed, that facilities such as child care, now often available and undertaken on a voluntary basis, increasingly will be undertaken on a paid basis.

The Minister should continue to ensure, in whatever way he can, that we have a wide-ranging debate on these issues, that employers' concerns are responded to and that some of the other needs to which I referred are clearly spelled out.

Some of the provisions of this Bill provide greater flexibility generally. There has been reference to the fact that this Bill represents another progressive measure initiated or dictated at European level. It is important to recognise and acknowledge that fact.

In the 1970s I worked in the personnel section of Blanchardstown Hospital. Since we joined the European Community, the advances made for people, especially women, in the workplace have been astronomical. The Bill represents another step in that direction, providing for the implementation of the employment rights contained in the 1992 European Union Directive on pregnant workers.

However, we need to examine maternity provisions in particular. Today 50 per cent of our population are economically active, 12 per cent in fulltime education and a quarter engaged in what official speak describes as home duties, that is duties undertaken by those working in the home. It is interesting to look at the participation of males and females in the workplace. Here it is quite different — 66 per cent of males are active in the work place and 34 per cent of females. Five per cent of males and 47 per cent of females are active in the home. This Bill is primarily directed at 35 per cent of the workforce who are female. Although a section of the Bill does refer to paternity leave, it is basically a Bill for this 35 per cent of the workforce.

An issue addressed by the Commission on the Status of Women but not in the Bill is the rate payable for maternity benefit. It is payable for a continuous period of 14 weeks and, of those 14 weeks, a woman must take at least four weeks before the baby is due. The weekly rate is 70 per cent of the woman's average reckonable weekly earnings in the relevant income tax year, subject to minimum and maximum amounts. It is the maximum amount that I would like to refer to in that I understand it is based on earnings of £11,500. If a woman earns any more than that she still gets 70 per cent of that figure. That maximum rate needs to be increased as women progress in the workplace. If a woman's earnings are £20,000 per annum, 70 per cent of £11,500 is quite a drop, especially if she has a mortgage. I would like to see that addressed, as recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women.

I welcome sections 11 and 12 which allow for flexibility in regard to the four week periods before and after the birth of a baby because these areas of life do not work to the clock.

The Bill provides that where a risk to health and safety exists and no other suitable work is available for an employee who is pregnant, breast feeding or who has recently given birth such leave will apply and will also apply in the case where it is medically certified that a female employee must not be required to perform night work when no day work is available. I am particularly interested in that because I followed a case closely last year where a woman who worked in a shop lost her job because she was pregnant. In 1992 she had a miscarriage and in 1993 she became pregnant. The doctor was concerned because of the initial pregnancy which had resulted in a miscarriage and advised her to take a month's leave from work. She did so and then the doctor said she could go back to work in the shop but that she was not to use a vacuum cleaner, reach up high or pull at the security shutters. They were simple instructions which did not involve the selling of merchandise. However, the employer said that unless she could perform all those duties she had no business coming back to work. She then negotiated to go back after the birth of the child, whereupon the employer sent out her tax forms. That woman's child was born in April 1994 and she now has no job. Without a shadow of doubt she lost a job because she was unable to do duties which were not necessarily hers. She was quite willing to sell merchandise over the counter. Her case was brought to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the result is due within the next couple of weeks. What particularly concerns me about this case is that this woman had been working for that employer for 14 years and had never in that time been out sick. It is directly as a result of being pregnant that she has no job, having given 14 years of good service. The principle of leave on health and safety grounds needs to be stressed. Although we need to be concerned about employers, we must be concerned about the protection of employees in the workplace, their rights on health and safety grounds and their right to return to work after pregnancy. I am glad those rights are strengthened in the Bill. I ask the Minister to monitor this area in view of the example I gave.

The provision relating to the granting of time off work for ante and postnatal medical visists without any loss of earnings is very important. It is particularly important to people who are on a low income for whom it may be economically impossible to take days off without pay. It is important that they attend ante and postnatal sessions. This provision brings the legislation onto a more progressive level.

I would like to see much of the red tape involved in the payment of maternity benefit cut out. The method of payment of maternity benefit varies depending on where one comes within the system. This may not be a matter for the Minister's Department but it is confusing. Under existing arrangements, should a woman be in receipt of lone parent, widow's, deserted wife's or prisoner's wife's allowance, she would receive half the rate of maternity benefit, and they are dealt with in different ways. I would like to see the payment simplified. It is proposed to bring in a new allowance in the area of health and safety to be provided for employees from the fourth week onwards. I warmly welcome that allowance which is very important especially in the light of the example I gave. The system should be streamlined and the red tape cut out to avoid confusion about eligibility for such allowances.

We are begining to recognise the role of the father after birth and the important role he plays in rearing his children. I hope the fleeting reference to paternity leave in the Bill means that we will see progress from here on. Here we provide for paternity or special leave for the father if the mother is unfortunate enough to die in childbirth. An extension of that would be if the mother were very ill and, on either physical or mental grounds, unable to look after the child, especially during the initial 14-week period. That would be another step in the right direction. In Portugal legislation provides for paternity leave in cases of physical or mental incapacity of the mother. It may be argued that there would be financial difficulties in implementing that here but if it can be implemented in Portugal surely there is no good reason we should not look seriously at the possibility of introducing it. A much broader definition of paternity leave is found in many other European member states. Greater flexibility is allowed in countries such as Denmark and Spain. In Spain, for example, if both parents are employed, four weeks of the mother's leave can be transferred in favour of the father. This is often important because no longer is the man the chief breadwinner in homes and frequently the mother must return to work within the 14-week period. Who better to take on looking after the child for two, three or four weeks than the father of that child? We could give serious consideration to sharing the 14-week period.

The Minister should consider implementing the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women in relation to paternity leave. The commission proposes that statutory paternity leave be introduced to allow fathers to fulfil their responsibility on the birth of their child. As a positive move in this direction the Commission proposed that a minimum of five days paternity leave be introduced by 1995. Five days is a very short leave period. Having regard to the improvement in this regard that, for, instance Portugal can afford, it is time we dealt with this area. The Minister may have considered it and there may be a difficulty in introducing changes at this time, but it is important that the issue be addressed. The Bill is the first step in that direction.

This Bill is welcome and credit is due to the European Union for issuing the directive and other legislative improvements to cater for employees, and women in particular, in the workplace. Having regard to the example I referred to of the lady who lost her job, the health and safety provisions in the Bill are of major importance. Those aspects should be monitored and amended, as necessary. I welcome the introduction of flexibility in the area of maternity leave and the protection of employees' rights, and I hope there will be further improvements in respect of paternity leave.

I welcome the Bill which is constructive and progressive. It is timely and perhaps inspired or in some way assisted by EC directives as is much other legislation. Nonetheless, it is a recognition of the important role women play in society. As the Bill supports equality for women we must welcome it.

It is appropriate that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform should introduce this legislation because it deals with the area of equality for which he has responsibility. There is a health, work and welfare aspect to provisions in the Bill and that is necessary. I would like the Minister to use his initiative to encourage his ministerial colleagues to update legislation in line with modern requirements. The areas of social welfare and health should be addressed and I am sure the Minister is applying himself to those areas. He can be assured of my support as health spokesperson for those matters and I am sure that other Members on this side would be supportive of him also in that regard. It is welcome that the Bill takes account of the possibility of employees losing their jobs because of being pregnant or for reasons closely associated with their pregnancy.

The provisions dealing with post and ante-natal care are also timely because there have been instances of women having had their employment terminated when the reason given was not necessarily the reasons provided for here, namely, pregnancy, giving birth, breast feeding or other matters associated with the woman's health. I hope when the Bill is enacted the Minister will monitor its progress to ensure that measures are not taken which would circumnavigate it in respect of employers who might identify other means they could use to discriminate against women in such circumstances.

Deputy Wallace made the valid point that a GP might inform a patient that on returning to work following a pregnancy she should not perform duties which, for instance, involve over reaching and heavier than average work. Employers should consider such circumstances, but some might take advantage of the position and advise employees who cannot perform the duties they performed prior to their pregnancy that because they do not have other suitable work for them, their employment must be terminated. The Bill covers such circumstances in, I understand, so far as it is possible to do so. When enacted it will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that positions are not contrived to make it possible to militate against the interests of women.

I hope the Minister will consider the area of women's health in the context of Hepatitis C contracted not through any fault of those affected but by their following procedures laid down and accepted by various Departments. Some women who followed those procedures have been seriously discriminated against in terms of their health. Given that it is some time since the virus was identified, there are about 1,000 women who still do not know what lies ahead of them. They do not know whether the treatment they will receive will be adequate. In some cases difficulties have arisen in that many do not know if they will be able to continue in employment and in one case it has been indicated that the women concerned will have to leave work. This legislation does not cover that area, but it is one in respect of which the Minister should consider introducing specific legislation. I do not wish to score any political point on such issue but it must be addressed. A similar problem arose a few years ago in respect of haemophiliacs. The Legislature must address such problems. The Minister for Health has responsibility for this area but the Minister for Equality and Law Reform has an ancillary role to play also.

The Minister for Equality and Law Reform could constructively examine the criteria governing qualification for social welfare benefits or assistance with a view to identifying areas in which the rights of women are eroded on the grounds of their gender and circumstances. This is usually a matter of a woman's word against that of someone else. I will come back to that at a later stage.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn