Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 31 Jan 1995

Vol. 448 No. 3

Adoptive Leave Bill, 1993 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am very pleased to bring the Bill before the Dáil at last. The Bill was well received in the Seanad where it was given detailed but constructive scrutiny. I look forward to a lively and helpful debate in this House also.

Legislation for adoptive maternity leave was favoured by the Second Commission on the Status of Women. I am glad to record that the Bill will give concrete effect to that specific recommendation of the Commission. However, the initial proposal for the introduction of adoptive maternity leave was made in the 1992 Budget Statement of the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern. Subsequently, in 1993, the Programme for a Partnership Government gave a firm commitment to the introduction of legislation for adoptive maternity leave. Enactment of the present Bill will also fulfil these commitments.

The purpose of the Bill is to redress an imbalance between the way a new adoptive mother is treated with regard to leave as compared with a natural mother who has given birth. Each natural mother has had a statutory entitlement to leave from work on the birth of a child since enactment of maternity protection legislation in 1981. The Bill makes provision for analogous leave for each new adopting mother by giving her a minimum of ten weeks statutory leave from work at the time of the placement of a child with her for adoption.

There are obvious health and safety reasons associated with the provision of statutory maternity leave for a natural mother at the time of a birth. There is an equally obvious absence of any similar health and safety reasons in the case of adoption. However, every mother will be only too aware of the opportunity presented indirectly by maternity leave, which arises primarily from health and safety considerations, for the integration of a new baby into the household and for the development of the mother-child bond in the crucial initial weeks of the relationship.

It is the perceived value of the leave in facilitating these opportunities that has been the focus of calls for similar leave for adoptive mothers. In the end, the policy to extend maternity protection leave to adoptive mothers has been very much a decision to address this anomaly for the minority of women who become mothers without having given birth. These women, up until now, have been perceived as disadvantaged on this ground alone. In so far as practicable, the legislation seeks to replicate all the relevant benefits of maternity leave for women whose motherhood arises from adoption. The length of the leave, the option for additional leave, the protection in respect of return to work and other key conditions are modelled on the maternity leave provisions. The leave will be available also to a man in circumstances where he is the sole adopting parent.

This Bill will redress a small but significant anomaly in our treatment of adoptive mothers as compared with natural mothers. In the medium term, I would welcome the development of a framework of law and practice that will facilitate all workers, whether men or women in combining their working life and family responsibility. I regard the development of a viable proposal for parental leave as a key element in any framework of this kind.

A draft EU Directive for parental leave was considered by the Council of Social Affairs Ministers at a meeting on 22 September last. Unfortunately, after more than a year of work on the dossier, the Council failed to reach the unanimity of agreement necessary for adoption of the Directive. The initiative is now with the European Commission to bring forward a new proposal. I expect that the Commission will present a new parental leave proposal for consideration and that they will do this sooner rather than later.

The old draft Directive envisaged that each working parent would be entitled to a minimum of three months leave from work during the initial years of a child's life. The draft Directive also envisaged short term leave to deal with certain family difficulties. It remains to be seen what shape the new proposals will take. It is my view that they are likely to be at least as generous as the old draft Directive.

Ireland has been well disposed towards the proposal for parental leave since work re-commenced on the dossier during 1993. Indeed, an intervention of mine was instrumental in broadening the scope of the proposal to bring adoptive parents as well as natural parents within its remit.

The essential feature of parental leave is that leave should be available as a right to each working parent individually. The leave would encourage each working parent, whether mother or father, to participate fully in the parenting of their children and they would be facilitated in doing so with statutory time off from work.

The development of parental leave arrangements can be expected to have important implications for gender equality. Such arrangements would foster a new social acceptability for an enhanced role for men in the upbringing of their children. At the same time, the arrangements could be expected to give women more freedom to pursue equal careers with men in the world of work. Future work in my Department will focus on consideration of the options for parental leave, especially in the context of the new proposals in the area that can be expected to emerge from the EU Commission fairly soon.

I note the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women has adopted a broadly similar framework to that which I would like to see advanced. They welcomed the proposal for adoptive maternity leave and identified the need to supplement existing provision for maternity leave with parental leave. In this connection, they mention particularly the proposal for an EU Directive on parental leave and the introduction of paternity leave. These recommendations will be considered fully in the development of any future policy proposals for family leave.

I would now like to outline to the House some of the main features of the Bill. Part I, comprising sections 1 to 5, contains preliminary and general provisions.

The Bill provides for the grant of adoptive leave to women employees on a basis similar to maternity leave. There is provision also to grant such leave to a man, if he is a sole male adopter and in certain other limited circumstances. In particular, it should be noted that the leave arrangements apply to all eligible employees regardless of hours worked or length of service. It also applies to workers with fixed term contracts, up until the date of expiry of their contract of employment and to agency workers. In the past, there may have been some confusion in employment protection legislation as to whether an employment agency or the agency's client availing of the employer's services was the employer. Under section 2, the party liable to pay the employee is deemed the employer for the purposes of this Bill.

Part II covers the grant of adoptive leave and additional adoptive leave. It also sets out the notification procedures with which an employee must comply in order to avail of the benefits of the legislation. The notification procedures are similar to those contained in the Maternity Protection Act, 1994.

Section 6 provides for the grant to an employed adopting mother or to a sole male adopter of ten weeks adoptive leave beginning on the day the child is placed for adoption. To qualify, section 7 requires an employed adopting mother or sole male adopter to give the employer at least four weeks notice of her intention to take adoptive leave.

She must also notify her employer in writing, as soon as is reasonably practicable, of the expected day of placement and furnish appropriate evidence of the placement. These provisions will ensure that the employer is given adequate notification of the employee's intention to take leave.

In line with existing provisions on maternity leave, section 8 allows an employee to take up to four consecutive weeks additional adoptive leave, immediately following the adoptive leave. In the case of a foreign adoption, some or all of the period of additional adoptive leave may be taken before the day of placement. This flexibility in the timing of leave will facilitate an employee who needs to travel abroad for the purpose of familiarisation with the child to be adopted.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 entitle an adopting father to adoptive leave and/or additional adoptive leave as appropriate where the adopting mother has died within 14 weeks of the day of placement of the child. The House will be aware that similar provisions were introduced in the Maternity Protection Act, 1994.

An employee availing of her entitlement to adoptive leave is required to furnish her employer with a certificate of placement. Section 13 requires the agency placing the child for adoption, or the Adoption Board in certain circumstances, to issue to the adopting parent within seven days of her request a certificate of placement.

Part III of the Bill contains provisions relating to contracts of employment. Complementary to the right to take adoptive leave is the employee's right to return to work afterwards and to have her employment rights protected during her absence on such leave. Under the Bill, the right to take adoptive leave and to return to work afterwards may be freely exercised, provided the employee complies with the requisite notification procedures. Part III provides the necessary protections for an employee availing of her rights under the Bill.

Section 15 requires that an employee absent on adoptive leave must be treated as if she had not been absent. All her employment rights, except the right to remuneration, will remain unaffected by the fact that she is absent on adoptive leave. Section 15 also provides that employment before the absence on additional adoptive leave will be regarded as continuous with employment following such absence and that periods of probation, initial training and apprenticeship, will be suspended during leave.

Sections 16 and 17 confer protection against dismissal during adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave. Section 18 entitles an employee to return to work after adoptive leave and additional adoptive leave and to the job she held before the leave. However, where it is not reasonably practicable for an employer to allow her to return to her usual job, section 19 allows for the offer of a new contract of employment. Here the new contract must offer work suitable to the employee concerned and its terms must not be substantially less favourable than the old contract.

Under section 20, an adopting parent must give her employer notice in writing of her intention to return to work after adoptive or additional adoptive leave at least four weeks before the due date of return to work. However, where there is a general interruption or cessation of work at her employment, such as that arising from a strike or lay-off, section 21 allows for the postponement of the resumption of work by an employee.

Part IV of the Bill ensures that other relevant enactments take specific account of the position of an employee on, or returning from, adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave so as to guarantee her rights under other social protection legislation.

Under these provisions, the failure by an employer to allow an employee, who is otherwise entitled to do so, to resume work after the leave will be deemed to be an unfair dismissal— unless there are substantial grounds justifying it. In addition, the dismissal of an employee solely or mainly for reasons connected with the exercise of rights under the Bill will be deemed to be an unfair dismissal. There are also amendments to the redundancy payments and minimum notice legislation to protect the rights of workers on adoptive leave.

Part V establishes redress procedures in the event of a dispute relating to entitlement under the Bill between an adopting parent and her employer. These procedures are similar to those in the Maternity Protection Act, 1994 and similarly provide that any dispute relating to dismissal will be dealt with under the unfair dismissals legislation. The main features of the redress procedures in cases other than dismissals are a right of redress in the first instance to a rights commissioner, followed by a right of appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on the facts and to the High Court on a point of law. Provision is made for compensation of up to 20 weeks remuneration.

Part VI of the Bill was introduced on Committee Stage in the Seanad. It sets down transitional arrangements to grant of adoptive leave in the initial period following commencement of the legislation or where a child is placed with an employee before the commencement date of the legislation. It also deals with where an employee commences employment shortly before the day of placement. I have introduced these provisions so as to ensure that an adopting parent who would otherwise be entitled to leave under the Bill does not lose out on her entitlement to leave and to return to work under the Bill for purely technical reasons — for example due to her inability to comply with the notification requirements set out in the legislation.

I have no hesitation in recommending this Bill to the House. It represents real progress and a real improvement in the rights of adopting mothers and I commend it to the House accordingly.

Dr. Woods

This is important legislation. I have a high regard for the Minister and the work he is doing. I find it difficult to be critical of him when I see him labouring so hard to bring about change in this area. Therefore I was relieved when he said he looked forward to a lively and helpful debate. I felt at ease because I must disagree with the Minister.

I welcome the Bill which introduces adoptive leave on a statutory basis for adopting mothers but I am opposed to what I regard as blatant discrimination against men inherent in the Minister's approach. It is also unfair to mothers that fathers are excluded by and large from this measure. Instead of removing inequality between men and women the Minister perpetuates it in this Bill.

This is a simple and inexpensive measure. It is new legislation in which the Minister can and must provide for equal treatment. To fail to do so would be a failure for his ministry and a failure to reflect the changes which have taken place in society and the more complex positions in which families find themselves today.

The introduction of the Bill meets a commitment in the Fianna Fáil/Labour Programme for a Partnership Government and also gives effect to a recommendation made by the Second Commission on the Status of Women. It will give statutory leave to adopting mothers on a basis similar to that provided for a natural mother under existing maternity leave legislation. The Bill provides for a minimum of ten weeks leave. This will attract a social welfare benefit on the placement of a child for adoption. The Minister for Social Welfare will introduce the necessary legislation to provide for this. According to the explanatory memorandum the costs of providing this adoptive leave scheme nationally are insignificant, estimated at approximately £200,000 per annum. Since that is an initial estimate, one can take it that it will probably amount to somewhat less.

The Bill provides for four weeks unpaid additional adoptive leave to be taken by an adopting mother in the period immediately after her paid leave. The £200,000 per annum is insignificant compared with an expenditure of £3.9 billion and Members will recognise that the financial cost cannot be a concern in this case. I am quite satisfied that it is not a concern.

All of these provisions are welcome as is the new flexibility in the case of a foreign adoption, to allow some or all of the adoptive leave to be taken before the day of placement. Since the implementation of the Adoption Act, 1991, on 31 May 1991, to 31 December 1993 a total of 422 foreign adoptions have been recognised and registered by the Adoption Board here. In many of those cases the adopting parents needed to spend some time outside the country making arrangements for the adoption and becoming familiar with the child or children to be adopted. The provisions here will greatly facilitate the adopting mother in that respect.

The Bill as a special concession also provides new arrangements for adoptive leave for a sole male adopter and for a man whose partner may have died during the period of leave. The Minister set out in detail how this will work. I welcome this small recognition of the role, function and importance of the male partner in adoption but it does not go far enough: adoption, unlike maternity, is not a health matter; both parents may have an equal role, function and status in the adoption and care of the child. Accordingly, I call on the Minister and the Government to extend the right to adoptive leave to the father on the same basis as will apply to the mother. Either the father or mother should be enabled to avail of the adoptive leave and to benefit from the payments scheme to be administered by the Department of Social Welfare. Will the Minister request the Minister for Social Welfare to introduce and implement that payments scheme immediately? There is no need for delay. It should be brought into operation at the earliest possible date.

The total number of adoptions approved and registered by the Adoption Board in 1993 was 500. As the explanatory memorandum confirms, there is no significant cost involved but there is one of equal treatment of men and women, fathers and mothers alike; there arises an issue of equal status in respect of the father and mother. This is not a health or maternity matter and, in that sense, is not related to maternity benefit. It is simply a question of the mother and father having an equal right to adoptive leave to arrange care for an adopted child.

There is a need also to make adequate provision for the adoption of children with special needs, children with physical, mental or emotional disabilities needing special support during adoption. Therefore, the adopting mother and father need an opportunity to bond with the child who suffers from such a disability. Again, the adoptive leave arrangements provided for in this Bill should be made available to both adopting parents, depending on the choice of the father and mother, since both can be regarded equally in the circumstances surrounding adoption; if you like, both are expecting.

The experience of those concerned with the placement of children for adoption has been that fathers take a much more active part in adoption than was the case heretofore and, accordingly, need the opportunity to share in the period of adoptive leave with the mother. On that basis, I call on the Minister to provide adoptive leave for fathers in this Bill. I intend tabling an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage but I would be quite happy to see the Minister table such an amendment, when he would have the support of this side of the House. If he does, I can assure him of my full support and that of my party.

The Minister continued at some length to stress that the adoptive leave will be available to a male in circumstances in which he is a sole, adopting parent, and in other very limited circumstances. However, there is no reason for not providing equal treatment of the father and mother in the case of adoptive leave. From what the Minister said in the course of his remarks, it is obvious that he thought the same way when he said:

In the medium term, I would welcome the development of a framework of law and practice that will facilitate all workers, whether men or women, in combining their working life and family responsibility. I regard the development of a viable proposal for parental leave as a key element in any framework of this kind.

Those two sentences express the Minister's sentiment on the overall development of parental leave which I too believe will be particularly important in the future. Although I know there is great resistance to it in many quarters. As the Minister said also, it has not been possible to make progress on a draft European Union directive on parental leave which was considered by the Council of Social Affairs Ministers as recently as 22 September last. I note also that the Minister visualises the Commission returning, in the very near future, with additional proposals in this area. As he knows well, that is a major issue, a substantial development in regard to equal treatment which will lead to a great deal of discussion and consideration. There will be substantial financial implications which will have to be addressed in the future. The Minister said that in the medium term he would foresee a development along those lines.

That supports the case I am making today because, if that is where we are going in the medium or longer term then, as far as this Bill is concerned, we should take action now and include a provision for adoptive leave for men as well as women in the case of adoptions here. I am familiar with many adoption cases and feel very strongly that men and women should be treated equally in these circumstances.

We are afforded an opportunity today to take an important, if small, step in that direction. I would not be put off by the statements of people who fear long term European Union developments indicated by the Council of Ministers and the Commission. I suggest that the Minister, if necessary, table an amendment for Committee Stage in order to provide equal treatment of mother and father in the case of adoptive leave.

I have pleasure in supporting this important legislation which represents an improvement in family law. I trust that the new social welfare adoptive leave benefit scheme will be introduced without delay. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward and he will have our full support in ensuring it is implemented as quickly as possible.

Ms Keogh

I, too, welcome this Bill but the Minister should not expect too many brownie points for introducing it after all this time. It is indicative of an attitude towards equality, which perhaps the Minister does not share, that provision on equality which affects relatively few people should have taken such a long time to process. The gestation period of this Bill has been longer than any pregnancy. However, I am pleased it provides for adoptive leave on a similar basis to maternity leave. As the Minister said, it fulfils the promise given in a statement made by the then Minister for Finance on the 1992 budget. It is remarkable that we managed to secure that promise at the time. The then Minister said:

The Government are particularly conscious of the pressures placed on adoptive parents by the lack of provision to facilitate absences from employment related to the adoption of young children. I am, therefore, very pleased to announce that we will be promoting legislation to provide for leave from employment for adoptive mothers and intend making available a benefit to these mothers along the lines of the existing maternity benefit scheme for women in employment. These new arrangements will operate for ten weeks immediately following the placing of the child with the adoptive parents, and will be introduced later this year.

As we know now, the Bill goes a good deal further than was promised at that time.

Mr. Taylor

Who said that?

Ms Keogh

Deputy Bertie Ahern. On foot of welcoming the recognition by the Government of the needs of adoptive parents, the Second Commission on the Status of Women endorsed this decision by Government and in addition the need for a number of day's paternity leave to enable fathers to take on responsibility in caring for their children and to facilitate bonding. That should also apply to adoptive fathers and I take on board the point made about them. We know, in general, that adoptive leave has been available in the public service and by some enlightened private employers. The one thing adoptive parents do not have is the usual nine months' preparation for parenthood. I do not know if the weeks make up for that but it reinforces the need for a period of bonding between the parents — particularly the mother — and their new child.

It has taken a long time to get the legislation to this stage. I wish to refer to the genesis of the Bill. As originally framed, it was introduced in the other House in November 1993. At that time there was criticism as to how long it took to have the legislation produced. Obviously that is not the fault of this Minister as the delay covers many years. On checking the Official Report I was surprised to find that while Committee Stage was taken in November 1994 a full year had elapsed since Second Stage was taken. On Committee Stage the Minister produced a number of amendments. I have no difficulty with them and they are now incorporated in the Bill but I take issue with the way the Bill was initiated and then left in abeyance for such a considerable time. The good outcome of this is that the provisions of the Bill are in concert with those in the maternity protection Bill. The Bill, as initiated, did not make provision for additional adoptive leave for the adopting father when the adopting mother dies. Those provisions are incorporated in the Bill and are welcome. The Minister said he is open — and I believe he is — to accepting amendments to legislation but unfortunately not all amendments. We should examine the area of parental leave for adoptive parents.

It is extraordinary it took so long to introduce the legislation. Unfortunately, that is indicative of how slowly our society moves, particularly in relation to equality and how our laws reflect it. The Bill recognises the increasing participation of married women in paid employment and, albeit in a limited way, that children have parents, not just mothers. That relates to the question raised by Deputy Woods regarding leave for adoptive fathers. The reality of women working outside the home has met with real, if not overt, discrimination from adoption agencies. Although not specifically part of some rule or regulation, the stringent investigation of the suitability of the prospective adopting parents was accompanied by, in many cases, an assumption, if not a tacit agreement, that the adopting mother could not — or should not — work outside the home. The fact that an increasing number of single parents, women in the main of course, choose to rear their children rather than place them for adoption is one of the reasons the number of children adopted each year has fallen from a figure of thousands in the 1960s to approximately 500 in 1993. That, too, places extra pressures on parents who want to conform to what may be presented as traditional family roles in their anxiety to have children.

A number of interesting points not directly related to the Bill were raised during the debate in the other House about the wider area of adoption. One was the notion of a contact register. At the time the Minister gave a commitment to raise some of these issues with the Minister for Health. Has he had an opportunity to pursue that? At a time when increasingly we have anecdotal evidence of people, particularly in early middle age, who have a great wish to know about their origins, particularly their so-called "natural" mother, it should be possible to have such a register which could be used in a sensitive fashion. While it may well be that couples who wish to adopt will opt for the mother to stay at home, I emphasise that this should be the result of discussion and agreement, not pressure.

I mentioned that many single parents now prefer to raise their children rather than arrange to have them adopted. There has been a considerable change in social attitudes, allied to legislation, about legitimacy and social welfare support that makes this more feasible now. I know that many women would have wished to have had the choice to rear their child rather than to have been hidden in a home, as happened a long time ago, until their child was born and, in many cases, practically forced to give their child away. Conversely, many children who have been adopted by loving parents enjoyed a secure and loving home because of adoption and many childless couples have experienced the joy of parenthood.

However, now that different social situations apply it is essential that adoptive parents receive the same protection as natural parents. In terms of adoption, it is impossible to ignore issues which are not part of this Bill. Regarding the procedures of the various agencies, women, in particular, may feel under some degree of pressure to work inside the home rather than to continue to work outside it. It is right that the procedures of the adoption agencies and so on should be open to public scrutiny by way of the Minister's Department or the Department of Health.

Obviously adoption agencies have stringent regulations about the suitability of adopting parents but there is no regulation that provides that pressure should be put on women not to work outside the home. However, a restriction applies in respect of age limits. Many agencies automatically disqualify parents even if the mother is only in her mid-30s. I am not suggesting that a child should become the only child of elderly parents, but it should be acknowledged that natural mothers have babies well into their 40s. It is unfair that a couple who are rejected by an agency should not know why their application was unsuccessful.

It is significant that there has been a great deal of pressure to deal with the question of foreign adoptions. The Adoption Act, which dealt with foreign adoptions, was introduced to cater for couples who longed to have children and adopted them from places such as Romania. For various reasons many of those couples were unable to adopt children here and were emotionally affected by the appalling plight of the children in Romania. The protections which apply in the context of foreign adoptions are very important.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill. Those of us who availed of maternity leave will recall how grateful we were to have had an opportunity to spend time with our babies. The birth of a baby is a most important event in the life of a couple. While adoptive mothers do not have the experience of pregnancy and giving birth, they face the responsibility of caring for and bonding with the child. This applies equally to fathers. Any legal enactment that reinforces the rights and responsibilities of fathers should be upheld. The responsibilities of fathers for their children should be the subject of debate. The decision in the Joseph Keegan case on unmarried fathers in 1994 should encourage us to challenge the traditional concepts of male and female role models. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Woods that there should be equal treatment in terms of adoptive fathers and mothers. That should be the case not because the cost to the Exchequer would be negligible but because we have re-examined the role of parents and acknowledged the rights and responsibilities of fathers in terms of their children.

Subsequent to giving birth, a mother is allowed time off work, apart from the ten week maternity leave limit, for a post-natal check-up. Adoptive parents should be given similar time off work to attend counselling agencies and so on. While I am sure that is incorporated in the spirit of the Bill, adoptive parents should not be discriminated against in that regard.

It is regrettable that the Council of Social Affairs Ministers failed to reach agreement on adoption of the directive on parental leave. I was pleased to note that the Commission will introduce a new parental leave proposal for consideration "sooner rather than later" but it is difficult to know when such a proposal might be implemented. Will the Minister find out what is meant by "sooner rather than later"? I congratulate him on his intervention in broadening the scope of the proposal to bring adoptive as well as natural parents within the remit. It is important that the word "sooner" in this regard should mean very soon. As Deputy Woods stated, we should not wait around and merely follow Europe. We should have the confidence to introduce legislation and, to a large extent, this legislation will implement effective measures. I am sure the Bill will be welcomed by the small number of people involved and with very little tinkering it should become excellent legislation. I congratulate the Minister on introducing it and I will support it.

Kathleen Lynch

I welcome the legislation which is long overdue, but perhaps good things take additional time. While only a few will avail of it, I am sure they will welcome it.

The words "parity of esteem" have been used frequently in recent months. This Bill goes some way towards increasing parity of esteem between adoptive and biological parents and I welcome that. Like Deputy Woods, I hope that when paternity leave is introduced similar rights will apply to adoptive parents. I know the Minister will take that on board because in his fine Second Stage speech it appears he is anxious to get this right.

Deputy Woods appears to be held up as the champion of equality. It was difficult to recognise this in his speech because he was the Minister for Social Welfare who held forth on the biggest inequality issue in the State involving of a large number of women. However, I am sure Deputy Woods would not accuse us of being cynical about what he says on equality.

While I welcome the legislation it forms yet another part of the sometimes impenetrable jigsaw of our adoption law. In practice, our adoption law remains riddled with anomalies which I hope the Government will address, preferably through the introduction of an adoption Act which would consolidate all adoption laws and give us effective legislation in an emotional and important part of our lives, namely, the care, protection and adoption of children.

There is an urgent need to establish a contract register which would ease the process whereby adoptive children on reaching adulthood could trace their natural mothers. While it is important that the Minister extends paternity leave to adoptive fathers, he should also consider extending to adoptive children the rights which children on reaching adulthood have in terms of their natural mother. Now that we have become more open about our past — often a cruel past — we have heard many women in their 50s and 60s talking about the intolerable pressures they faced as single mothers having babies in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. They were not informed of the options available to them — in most cases they had no option other than allow their children to be adopted, something from which they have never recovered. They do not have the right to try to find out the whereabouts of their children. The protection afforded to the natural mother could equally be afforded to adoptive children seeking their natural mother. If the child does not want to have contact with the mother, so be it. As of now, if the natural mother does not want contact with the child, that is the end of the process. The same rights could be afforded to the natural mother depending on the circumstances. I am sure all Members would agree that mothers, by their nature, are not hard-hearted or cold. There are usually exceptional reasons for a mother putting her child up for adoption and those reasons can be dealt with by the agency dealing with the mother. I ask the Minister to examine this area.

Any contact between natural mothers and adopted children must be strictly regulated to protect the individual's privacy and to ensure that psychological and emotional strain is kept to a minimum. However, there are already strict regulations governing the rights of adopted children to trace their natural mothers and these regulations can easily be adapted for the reverse situation.

I am also concerned about the regulations governing adoptions today. At present, adoption procedures are largely determined by individual adoption societies. That is what I meant earlier when I spoke about a consolidated adoption Act to make adoption easier. I hope that all adoptions can be regulated because they cannot continue in the manner which operated in the past. This legislation is merely a worthy first step.

Many of the criteria applied to prospective adoptive parents are too stringent and, in some cases, militate against the child's best interest. Children for adoption who, by definition, are vulnerable must be placed in a stable and secure environment. However, current practice effectively excludes many prospective parents for financial or age reasons. I do not believe anyone agrees that the poor or people without a large income should not have children. Therefore, to apply this rule to an adoption procedure is unjust. This area comes within the remit of the Minister and it should be regulated. Age barriers in respect of adoptions should no longer apply. Neither financial nor age constraints prevent one from being a natural mother. If this legislation aims to have adoptive parents treated as natural parents, then we must look at these factors. Reasons which would not prevent them from becoming parents in the natural course of events need not prevent them providing a loving and stable home. We see examples of this every day of the week. I would like to see a regulatory system which is transparent, unbureaucratic and takes full account of the individual circumstances of all concerned — children, natural parents and adoptive parents.

In recent years we have become aware of the plight of many children in our society abused and neglected by those they trust and, most disturbing of all, children who are abused while in care. I welcome the guidelines for the employment of child care staff issued by the Minister. The voluntary sector may be facing a crisis in this regard so we must put in place mechanisms which will ensure there is not a breakdown in child care services.

The full implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991, promised by A Government of Renewal, will do much to redress these problems. The Government's programme is committed to child welfare in a number of areas. I hope the Minister will undertake a thorough review of adoption procedures.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not certain if this is the Deputy's maiden speech. If so, I wish to congratulate her most heartily and wish her boundless success in her future undertakings here and great personal happiness.

Kathleen Lynch

Thank you very much.

Mr. Taylor

I too would like to be associated with those remarks.

Mr. Kenneally

My contribution on this Bill will be brief. In Opposition, a position I have not occupied previously, some people think one opposes for the sake of opposition, but I do not necessarily subscribe to that theory. By and large, I commend the Minister on introducing this legislation and because I agree with it, it is difficult to make a long dissertation on the Bill. It is interesting to note that the maternity protection legislation came into force only in 1981. As my children were born after that time my wife was covered by the Bill. If such legislation did not exist, there would be an outcry that we were not looking after mothers. I am amazed that the legislation has been in force for such a short time.

When I read this Bill I immediately began to think in terms of its cost — this probably comes from my accountancy background. Frequently, we introduce measures without thinking of the cost to the Exchequer. I was pleased to read in the explanatory memorandum that the estimated cost is only £200,000 which, in the context of general public expenditure, is peanuts.

When I was appointed as spokesperson on Equality and Law Reform I jokingly said to some of my colleagues that I would be trying to get equality for men because everyone was talking about equality for women. Now I am not sure if it was funny because Deputy Woods referred to it, and there are provisions in the Bill which appear to give more support and adoptive leave to the woman, even in the case of marriage. He suggested bringing forward an amendment on Committee Stage. If we are talking about the whole area of equality, why should a man not have the same rights as a woman? They should be able to choose whether the man or the woman takes the adoptive leave. That is one possible flaw in the Bill. The only case where the male is covered is where he is the sole adopter. Obviously, I am not an expert in this area but I doubt if there are many such cases, particularly bearing in mind that the number of babies for adoption has decreased significantly and is now down to about 500 per annum. It is highly unlikely, where there is so much competition — if we can use that word — that a male would be the sole adopter. I ask the Minister to examine this area again in the context of men rather than women getting the maternity leave.

Obviously, there is a certain bonding between parent and child in the case of a natural as well as an adoptive mother. The child — by and large we are speaking about small babies — does not know whether the parent is the natural parent or an adoptive parent and regardless of which is the case bonding will occur. This measure is extremely important. There was an anomaly whereby people adopting children were not granted leave, but young babies, regardless of whether they are adopted, need great care and adoptive leave should be granted.

The last few speakers mentioned age constraints in that adoptive boards tend to allow adoptions only to people aged up to mid-thirties. It seems ridiculous that people over that age are not allowed to adopt children. This is not a matter for this Bill but perhaps the adoption agencies would consider it.

Section 8 refers to the four weeks the adoptive parent may take in addition to adoptive leave. I assume, as in the case of maternity leave — this is not clearly spelled out — those four weeks would be taken at a cost to the person. I do not know whether that is laid down in the legislation. I see the Minister nodding and I am glad that is the case because employers must also be taken into consideration in terms of cost of disruption to them.

Section 12 deals with placement for a period of less than 14 weeks and notice must be given by the employee if he or she intends to go back to work before that. I welcome the regulations on foreign adoptions which are an improvement on the previous position. I particularly welcome the four weeks pre-adoption provision for people adopting foreign babies. I understand the 14 week provision primarily refers to foreign adoptions.

We process only 500 adoptions each year, but in the unlikely event that adoptive leave is granted and after a period of ten weeks the child is taken back by the adoption board or the authorities, and a few months later another baby is placed with the couple, are these people entitled to a second period of adoptive leave? I am also thinking of the employer whose business would be disrupted. What rights would the employer have in this regard?

We may bring forward amendments on Committee Stage. This is important legislation which gives the lie to the view that parents of adoptive children are held in less regard by the State. Under this legislation they are entitled to the same treatment as other parents. I commend the Minister on the Bill and I welcome it.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it in. It is extraordinary it has taken such a long time to introduce legislation to give rights to adoptive parents. It is ironic the legislation is introduced when the number of adoptions is decreasing. The number of foreign adoptions may be on the increase but adoptions in Ireland have declined dramatically.

I welcome the commitment from Fianna Fáil to support parental and paternity leave. I hope the Minister, when bringing in legislation in these areas, will receive the support given today by Deputy Woods for this Bill.

I spoke to a woman this morning who adopted a daughter 19 years ago. When she went into work on the Monday morning and told her employer she had brought home her adopted daughter, her employer congratulated her and told her to stay at home until the baby settled. She was very pleased he gave her leave at his discretion. This Bill makes such leave obligatory. The absence of legislation in this area up to now shows our attitude to adoption although some adoption agencies do not now insist that the mother is working at home full time and are more flexible in this regard.

It is ironic that many people have spent such a long time lobbying for this legislation and it has taken so long to bring it in, as in the case of the register of stillbirths legislation and the Interpretation Act. It is very important that the Government is committed to reform and to introducing necessary legislation speedily and effectively. To this end it must ensure there is a sufficient number of people working in the Bills Office. Ministers should ensure that the necessary social legislation is enacted as quickly as possible. Our job is to react to changing social circumstances quickly and effectively. People have become disillusioned with politics because politicians and Governments do not react quickly enough in bringing in legislation when needed. There have been undue delays resulting in legislation being out of touch with the real needs of people.

This legislation addresses an anomaly that existed since maternity leave was introduced. It gives equal rights to women who adopt children and who were previously excluded from these arrangements. I welcome the improvements made by the Minister as a result of the EU Directive in 1994. A period of 14 weeks is now granted for maternity leave — these rights were extended under the 1994 Bill. The changes in the social welfare code will also be welcome.

I welcome the Minister's statement that this is simply a first step in his examination of reconciling work and family responsibilities. We have given too little attention to this matter to date and questions arise in this regard. I congratulate the Minister who supported discussions at European level on parental leave. I note in his speech he said he has been responsible for ensuring that adoptive arrangements are included in EU Directives and this is important. It is unfortunate that Ministers were not able to support the draft directive being reviewed by the Commission before being discussed by the social partners under the social Protocol arrangements of the Maastricht Treaty. The matter will come back to Council but will not require unanimous support for adoption. I look forward to the outcome of those discussions and the introduction of legislation here to make it possible for women and men to combine work and family responsibilities.

Deputy Woods referred to the need for men to be able to take leave at the time of an adoption. I assume the Minister is dealing with this point in the context of the EU Directive on parental leave. I look forward to hearing his views on this.

In recent times there have been strong economic arguments against the introduction of adoptive or paternity leave. As I said in the debate on the maternity protection Bill, it must be borne in mind that countries with very good progressive legislation and which have provided long periods for maternity leave also have very high productivity rates. There is a terrible fear that such leave will lead to a decrease in productivity and employers will not be able to bear the costs. However, I agree with the well made arguments that happy workers are productive workers and factors such as the atmosphere in the workplace and employee satisfaction with the terms of employment are very important when it comes to productivity.

If we are serious about equal opportunities then the way in which we handle maternity and paternity leave is critical. The Minister has made provision for leave for men but, unfortunately this will only be in the sad circumstance where the mother dies or where the man is the sole adopter. The previous speaker said that such cases will be rate and while this may have been the case to date in Ireland, in other countries there is a trend among single parents to adopt.

There is not much argument about the details of the Bill and we must, therefore, debate the wider issues such as social benefits in the workplace, the need to ensure a good balance so that employers do not think it is more difficult to create jobs and support for employees. I think the Minister said during the debate on the maternity protection Bill that he intended to create a climate for debate on this issue. I hope he will do so.

We have the second lowest birth rate in Europe and the trend is towards smaller families. The changed pattern in women's economic and social roles will lead to a continuation of this trend. Other countries have adopted very pronatal policies to deal with this trend, for example, longer maternity and paternity leave and improved child care facilities. It is important to point out that far too much lip service has been paid to supporting families and the ideals of family life and not enough practical support given. It is worth stating that we have the second lowest provision in publicly funded day care services in Europe — I think only Great Britain is lower. This tells us much about the priority given to families. Much work remains to be done. This legislation continues the improvements for children and families, areas which require serious consideration.

We have the lowest participation rate in the European Union of working mothers with dependent children. However, that pattern is rapidly changing. In 1985, 18 per cent of such mothers were in employment while the figure had risen to 38 per cent by 1991. The figures suggest that the younger the child the more likely it is that the mother will be employed. I believe this trend will continue.

The period of 14 weeks maternity leave is much too short. The Bill includes a provision which will enable a Minister to change the order. I hope some Minister will change it upwards and that the country will be in a position economically to support such a move. Many women who have availed of maternity leave believe 14 weeks is too short and would like a more flexible arrangement. Our attitude to career breaks and job sharing is too rigid and employers must give more consideration to flexibility in the workplace. Under our law men and women must have conditions of employment which enable them to reconcile work and family responsibilities.

I congratulate the Minister on taking up the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. It is important that this House monitors the implementation of those recommendations. It is important also that employees be allowed to take the additional four weeks adoptive leave immediately following the 14 week period. The fact that this leave can be taken before the placement of the child will be very useful, particularly for those families considering foreign adoptions which clearly involve much travel. The Bill will ensure that the protection afforded under other legislation dealing with the workplace will apply equally to adoptive families.

Some very good points were made during the debate in the Seanad. The Minister took up some of those points and, I think, passed them on to the Department of Health. Some people trying to trace their natural parents still receive unsatisfactory information and support, and there is scope for a more comprehensive and consistent approach to such matters. Reference was made to the transparency of adoption societies and the age of adopters. This issue needs to be re-examined and consideration given to the introduction of a comprehensive package which will ensure that people are given the best legal advice and emotional support. I commended the many voluntary organisations which have made great efforts to give this service to individuals.

I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of welcome and long overdue legislation. The fact that it is overdue is not the Minister's fault; he brought it before the House as quickly as possible. Even though the number of families who will benefit from the legislation is decreasing nevertheless it is welcome. I welcome, in particular, Fianna Fáil's commitment to parental and paternity leave and urge the Minister to look at the implications of the EU Directive for Ireland.

Miss Flaherty

I, too, welcome this Bill. When I returned from maternity leave after having my fourth child I was surprised to learn that this Bill was still before the House. Perhaps it is a comment on the inefficient legislative capacity of this House that in 1995 we are debating this uncontentious and modest Bill which has broad support.

Speakers have debated different aspects of the Bill. Deputy Lynch made an interesting contribution on the topic of adoption. Between June 1981 and February 1982 I was Minister of State at the Department of Health with special responsibility for child care. During that short period I worked virtually full time on this legislation and promised — I thought this was realistic — to introduce within a period of months a comprehensive child care Bill which would have covered the areas of juvenile justice, child case, illegitimacy and adoption which was also to be the subject of a separate Bill. It is interesting to note that almost 13 years later some legislation has been introduced. While the Child Care Act and the Status of Children Act have been enacted no substantive legislation on adoption has been introduced and we are still waiting for a juvenile justice Bill. I, therefore, welcome the appointment of Deputy Currie as Minister of State with special responsibility for this area and hope that this may lead to this legislation being treated with urgency.

Deputy Kenneally sent a shiver down my spine. As he admitted, he approached the issue from an accountant's point of view. I am glad he has discovered that this measure will only cost "peanuts". Perhaps if it were to cost more he may not support it. He will have to come to terms with the fact that these socially desirable objectives have to be supported. As Deputy Fitzgerald suggested, there is an economic return in terms of happy and contented employees and a healthy society.

As usual Deputy Woods, in his new role, proved to be intelligent and reforming and provided the Minister with a challenge which he will have to meet. That is not to say that in an earlier role the Deputy did not engage in activities which were seriously criticised. Deputy Lynch also referred to this. Deputy Woods will, however, have a contribution to make and while he is a man to watch he is usually more constructive than destructive.

In 1991 I began to draft a Private Members' Bill on this issue. A previous speaker referred to the fact that in 1992 the Minister gave a commitment to introduce legislation. This is a simple and just reform and the Minister deserves commendation for bringing it before the House. The Bill extends to adoptive parents comparable rights to leave as to those that have been available to natural parents since 1981. As such it should be warmly welcomed and we should speed its passage through the House and into law. We should also commend our colleagues in the Seanad for the work done in amending the Bill to bring it into line with the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1994 and the requirements of the pregnant workers' directive. Each week that passes workers are left without the protection of this legislation unless they are lucky enough to be in State or other employment where local arrangements exist. Even in those schemes the entitlement to social welfare payments would cause problems.

This Bill makes one minor reform in parental leave. In introducing the Bill in the Seanad in November 1993 the Minister said the Bill marked the first step in his examination of the entire area and in reconciling work and family life. I regret that in 1995 the story is still the same; we are awaiting an EU agreement before we move any further in this regard. I do not accept that this is an adequate response unless it is a confession that social reform will only follow agreement on a EU directive. The arrangements in most other countries are more advanced than ours.

There is hardly a Deputy in the House who is better placed to know about the problems associated with reconciling work and family responsibilities. Some of my male colleagues have families as young as my own and it would be interesting to hear their views on this topic. Deputy Kenneally showed an interest in these matters and referred to the importance of bonding. Life as a public representative is an interesting topic because it is particularly difficult to reconcile work and family responsibilities, especially for those who do not live within the city where the parliament is located and have to travel great distances. To speak here involves making provision for the shift change at home when the childminder leaves, the children need to be picked up from friends' houses and partners have to liaise to make it all work. It is no accident, therefore, that participation rates in the workplace for Irish women are so low because there is virtually no support available for parents who wish or need to work.

The "Gay Byrne Show" today was interesting. In dealing with this issue Joe Duffy was surprised at what he described as the anger of all those involved on both sides of the discussion. He tapped into a well of anger of women, and some men, who are trying to provide care for children without any State assistance or adequate leave entitlements to take time off work to provide this care themselves and retain the right to return to work. There is also the knock-on effect on child care workers who are on low wages and often have no social protection. This area has been neglected unlike most other European states on which we wish to model ourselves. This is surprising for a country which prides itself on the value it places on children and the family.

Is it any wonder that our labour force participation rates are so low? For example, based on the 1991 statistics, the most recent to hand, our participation rate for women was approximately 41 per cent for the particular age group referred to whereas in the United Kingdom the figure was almost 65 per cent and 77 per cent in Denmark. The figure was lower in Spain, Portugal and Greece and then only marginally. The rate in Scandanavian countries ranged between 71 per cent and 81 per cent.

The 1992 annual report of the European Commission Network on Child Care — I read parts of this report into the record of the House during the course of the debate on the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Bill — summarised the leave arrangements for employed persons in EU countries. While we wait and hide behind EU directives most other countries have maternity leave entitlements in excess of ours, many at pay levels in excess of ours, and many have statutory parental leave entitlements. In France, for example, it applies for the first three years of a child's life. Interestingly — this is welcome — in many countries there is a non-transferable right to leave for fathers also.

In extending to adoptive parents the pitifully inadequate entitlements to leave currently available to working mothers and to fathers on the death of the mother only I urge the Minister to ensure that progress is made on the broader issues as a matter of urgency. I hope he will take the opportunity at the end of Second Stage debate to outline his thinking on this matter.

The Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for National Recovery contained a number of commitments to equality. Progress has been piecemeal, this legislation being one of the pieces. If the commitments on equality for women in employment and other spheres are to be met a huge increase in output, in terms of commitments, legislation and funding, will be needed. I appreciate fully that the Minister has to cope with enormous demands in his Department, in terms of the divorce referendum and substantive equality legislation, but it strikes me that it was an oversight not to include a section in the programme. The Minister should have sought the assistance of one of the spare Ministers of State to pursue some of these issues as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Taylor

I hope the Deputy is not suggesting that we have more.

Miss Flaherty

I certainly am not. There is also a need for a substantial commitment from the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare because there is a limit to what the Department of Equality and Law Reform can do without the mainline support of the Government.

I regret the Minister was unable to make progress on the position outlined in 1993. In welcoming the Bill, therefore, I ask him to pardon, but not to ignore, the impatience of women concerning the snail's pace of progress in giving family duties the financial and legislative support they deserve.

Mrs. Moynihan-Cronin

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill which is designed to give adoptive leave to employees similar to that given to their colleagues who avail of maternity leave. The Bill redresses a long standing gap in the existing maternity legislation as far as adopting mothere are concerned. I am pleased a Labour Party Minister is introducing this particular reform.

As the House knows, the Labour Party was instrumental in creating the Department of Equality and Law Reform. The decision to create such a Department was both ground-breaking and radical. The Labour Party sought the creation of this Department to ensure that equality, through reform, is a right for all our citizens.

Since the creation of the Department of Equality and Law Reform my colleague, Deputy Taylor, has undertaken a great amount of work in this area. The Government is committed to implementing change in a manner that will facilitate greater participation of women, who comprise more than half the population, at every level of life.

This Bill has been on the stocks for a considerable time and I am glad that it will soon become law. During the time the Bill was in circulation, it has been improved by a number of amendments. In short, the Bill gives leave from work to adoptive mothers. It proposes to give a ten week period of leave, in addition to social welfare payments, and an option of an additional four weeks which will not attract payment. Comparable leave is already available to natural mothers and it is only fair and proper that a similar right is extended to women adopting children. I could never understand why there was one law for a natural mother but a different one for the adoptive mother.

The Second Commission on the Status of Women specifically recommended the introduction of such a proposal to correct the anomaly whereby some women can get leave as a matter of course and others cannot. It is only correct that this anomaly will now be reversed. Those women who were not afforded such leave have been excluded from availing of this right. Not only did this anomoly affect adoptive mothers, it affected adoptive fathers and, more importantly, the children who were being adopted. The stage at which an adopted child joins a new family is an important one. It is the stage where parents and children need as much time as possible to lay the foundations of the parent-child relationship. This bonding phase is of crucial importance to the child and the parents. It is only fair that this right is afforded to adoptive mothers and I am glad the Bill covers fathers in circumstances where he is the sole parent adopting a child.

The Bill also represents, in a small but important manner, the Government's commitment to the family. Such leave gives women who adopt children the scope to work outside the home and devote the necessary amount of time to their children. Without doubt, the family is the most fundamental basic group in society and the State must play a role in protecting and helping all families. In this case the State is helping parents who decide to adopt children and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform should be commended for introducing this progressive legislation.

I am pleased to note also that the Bill is sensitive to the reality that adoptive parents may not always have the opportunity of advanced notice of the impending adoption of a child. While they must give four weeks notice of their general intention to adopt, there is no fixed time for notifying the specific date for the placement of a child. I particularly welcome the provision of section 20 which gives adoptive parents the necessary flexibility when returning to work. For example, if the adoptive mother cannot give the required four weeks notice of her intention to return to work, it can be dealt with in a flexible manner.

This Bill is part of a broader package of measures designed to protect workers' rights and, in particular, to assist women in reconciling work and family responsibilities. I look forward to the introduction of many more positive social reforms during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Connaughton

I broadly welcome this Bill which should have been enacted a long time ago and I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Taylor, on its introduction. I remember having a heated debate with Deputy Woods in this House some years ago when I was my party's spokesperson on social welfare. I could never understand why we did not have this particular provision. I am sure there must have been many good reasons at the time but I am unaware of them. I know many adoptive parents and there are some other points which I would like to bring to the Minister's attention.

I could never understand why an adoptive mother was not entitled to the same benefits as those bestowed on a natural mother as they both face the same problems.

Dr. Woods

I proposed it a long time ago but it was a Justice matter then, in the first instance, so we could not proceed with the scheme. It is an old story.

Mr. Connaughton

I accept that but now that the provision has been delivered, it is only reasonable and fair that I compliment the Minister for Equality and Law Reform on its introduction. Most people throughout the State who are interested in adoption will welcome this legislation.

It is important that employers take note of this legislation. I hope there will note be any difficulty in that regard because the conditions of employment are important and if we are to have a satisfied workforce and, more importantly, a satisfied and fulfilled family environment, the child and the mother must be given the chance to bond. This seems to be the new "in" word but we all understand what it means. The pychologists tell us that unless bonding takes place in the initial stages of a child's life, society will pay the price at a later stage. This Bill is a step along that road but many other measures will need to be implemented in so far as that is concerned.

I compliment the various agencies involved in adoption. In my ten or 15 years as a public representative I have never seen such joy as that brought to parents lucky enough to adopt a child. The decision in a case heard by the European Court of Justice some months ago cast a cloud over adoption in certain circumstances and I will mention it briefly. The judgment handed down by the European Court means that babies cannot be legally adopted unless the birth father has been informed. Many people will think that a most necessary and sensible condition. However, where the father is not available or the mother does not want him identified, problems can arise. It is a nightmare for social workers who, on the one hand, have to meet the conditions laid down by the European Court of Justice and, on the other, ensure that babies are placed with caring, loving adoptive parents. In the present impasse, there is a real danger that children will become the unfortunate pawns in the legal process. I find it difficult to understand why a father who has demonstrated a lack of responsibility towards his new baby should be notified about the mother's intention to place the baby with an adoptive agency. This legal ruling may also affect the attitude of potential adoptive parents. Some parents may not wish to live under a legal cloud where the natural father of the child may turn up some day with certain legal rights.

Many more persons want to adopt children than there are children available for adoption. For instance, for the period since 1 January 1994 to date only 15 babies were adopted in the Western Health Board area of Galway. Mayo and Roscommon. It is estimated that there are about 400 babies nationally in circumstances where legal adoption cannot take place. In 1975 the combined total of children who were legally adopted was 1,400. In 1992 this had fallen to under 600. The literal interpretation of the new law is that if the father does not know about the adoption the child cannot be legally adopted irrespective of the mother's wishes. Social workers see many cases where the mother does not know who the father is or where he lives. That might seem strange but I am told it is common. In other cases the mother refuses to divulage the father's name for a variety of reasons. Countless thousands of parents have been enriched by the adoption of children to the mutual benefit of parent and child. Because I am not a legal person I do not fully understand the legal implications, but social workers are under great strain. Children are available for adoption and there are adoptive parents waiting anxiously for children who will enrich their lives, but because the natural father must be told about an impending adoption, the job of social workers is made most difficult. The law should provide that every effort must be made to notify the natural father but where that is not possible he should, after a short period, have no rights whatsoever and the child should be able to be legally adopted.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Taylor, on this Bill and ask him to take to heart what I have said. I accept that is somewhat outside the parameters of the Bill but it is certainly very much related to the issue of adoption and I am thankful to have been given the opportunity of putting it on the record because it is so important.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate for their very constructive contributions. It is generally agreed that this Bill, which will entitle adopting mothers to leave on a similar basis to natural mothers, is to be welcomed and I am pleased with the response from all sides of the House.

Deputy Keogh and other Deputies referred to the delay in the processing of the Bill through the Oireachtas. I acknowledge that there has been an unusually long delay in processing this legislation. In mitigation I can only say that I was concerned to ensure correspondence between the provisions of this Bill and the provisions of the Maternity Protection Act, 1994 which was passed just before Christmas. The maternity legislation was introduced to give effect to the EU pregnancy directive and was given priority in my Department. Because of my wish to ensure consistency between the two Bills I had to introduce a large number of amendments to this Bill on Committee Stage in the Seanad and that was a contributing factor in the delay. I very much appreciate the supportive remarks of Deputy Woods about the work of my Department. However, I refute his suggestion that this Bill offends the principle of equality. It was Deputy Woods' colleague, Deputy Ahern, who first proposed adoptive leave for mothers.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Connaughton and I go back further on the issue.

Mr. Taylor

Let us go to a more recent time when this Bill was processed and approved by the Government of which Deputy Woods and I were privileged Members. That Bill was approved by Government and by the Seanad while he and I were still in office together.

Dr. Woods

I am not allowed to disclose what I said at Cabinet.

Mr. Taylor

I would not ask the Deputy to do that, but we all know that by constitutional law unanimous consensus decision are given in Government so the consequences inevitably follow. Furthermore, the Second Commission on the Status of Women saw the merit of adoptive leave for mothers in the context where parental leave would be available. There is a view, propounded by Deputy Woods and others, that because it is unlike maternity leave owing to the absence of direct health and safety considerations, adoptive leave should be available to new adoptive fathers as well. I am surprised that Deputy Woods has not sought extension also of the ten weeks leave to natural fathers as well as to adoptive fathers because, if it is a question of equal treatment for men and women that would have to pertain also.

Some of the debate relating to adoptive fathers arises from a failure to see the broader context within which the Adoptive Leave Bill is set. There are two distinct elements to the family leave agenda envisaged in the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women and in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The first element concerns enhanced protection for women at the time of pregnancy and maternity. Deputies will be aware that the Maternity Protection Bill was passed in 1994, just before Christmas. The Adoptive Leave Bill is part of this first element. It sets out to treat adopting mothers, with regard to leave from work, in a way that is analogous to the maternity provisions where this is appropriate. The other element of the family leave agenda is the question of parental leave and paternity leave.

As I indicated to the House on opening the Second Stage debate, I regard the development of a viable proposal for parental leave as a key element in the development of a framework of law and practice that will facilitate all workers, whether men or women, and enable them to combine their working life and family responsibilities. I outlined developments that have taken place to date towards the achievement of that objective. I have been fully supportive of the initiatives take by Commissioner Padraig Flynn in this area and that support will continue in the further initiatives he has indicated he proposes to take.

In the area of parental leave, I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments that favour the granting of leave equally to fathers and mothers. I accept also that parental leave would be appropriate in the case of both adoptive and natural parents. Indeed, as I said, an intervention of my own at a meeting of Ministers at EU level did succeed in broadening the debate at European level concerning parental leave to include adoptive parents also. In the meantime and pending developments in Europe, all this Bill before us intends to do is to redress a significant anomaly for those working women who adopt children each year. The approach I have adopted to this proposal, which confines eligibility primarily to women, arises solely from the maternity leave blueprint which alone gives a basis for dealing with adoptive leave in this way. I wish to assure the House that the approach has no implications for future policy as regards parental leave and leave for family reasons.

Deputy Keogh mentioned that the question of a contact register was raised in the Seanad and that I had undertaken to raise the matter with the Minister for Health, whose responsibility it is. The previous Minister for Health published a national health strategy and that has been endorsed by the present Minister for Health. The strategy contains a commitment to put in place formal arrangements to facilitate contact between adopted children and their natural parents, Where such is sought and vice versa. I understand that that commitment will be brought to fruition as soon as other immediate priorities in the child care area, including full implementation of the Child Care Act, are implemented.

I want to confirm my full commitment to advancing the important issue of child care in every way possible. Members will be aware that once again the Estimates for my Department include the provision of £1 million towards a number of pilot projects on the issue of child care. That scheme, which I initiated in 1994, is now well under way and some 70 child care projects have already been approved. That child care programme is run for the Department by Area Development Management Limited, the management company of the local boards and I invite Members who may have contact with local and voluntary groups in deprived areas in particular who may know of a voluntary group anxious to set up pilot programmes in the child care area to make application to my Department for assistance funding during the current year, now that moneys have been made available by the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Lynch spoke very constructively about the Bill and I thank her for her considered contribution. The question of extending rights which an adopted child has to the natural mother is one primarily for the Minister for Health and I will bring Deputy Lynch's concerns in that regard to his attention. It is very useful in considering this Adoptive Leave Bill to bear in mind the overall adoption context in which the adoptive leave arrangements apply. There were references during the debate to many matters which, strictly speaking, do not fall within the ambit of the Bill but which are referable to the broader issue of adoption. Some of the questions raised include the question of age limits, the contact register and so on.

I understand there are no statutory age limits operated by the adoption agencies. I also understand from the Department of Health that each case of adoption is considered on its own merits. There is the notion abroad that there are age limits — perhaps there are unofficial age limits — but the information I have is that there are no statutory age limits. Deputy O'Dea has a particular knowledge of this from his time in the Department of Health.

The question of time off from work to see social workers and to consult with the agencies and so on in connection with adoptions was also raised. There is no specific provision in the legislation for leave for those purposes. In drawing up this Bill every effort was made to facilitate the needs of the adopting mother but at the same time I had to ensure that no undue or unfair burden was placed on employers. They are an important part of the equation and their needs have to be considered. It was considered that an adopting mother could reasonably meet the requirements of seeing social workers and so on outside normal working hours on during leave periods.

Deputy Kenneally expressed appreciation for the availability of this type of leave. I agree with him, as I said the proposed legislation is very good value for money. Deputy Woods said the actual cost is relatively low in budgetary terms but, nonetheless, it is an important contribution to our legislative plan in the parental area. The adoptive parent who, for the first time, will get leave under the Bill, will find it an invaluable help and a tremendous contribution to their need to bond with the child. Deputy Kenneally also referred to the question of achieving a balance regarding the burden the Bill will impose on employers and he spoke fairly and objectively on that subject.

As I said, I made every effort in preparing the Bill to strike a fair balance between providing the essential elements of adoptive leave protection for employees while at the same time trying to ensure the employers are facilitated to the greatest possible extent in the orderly conduct of their business. This is evident from the various requirements to give the employer prior written notification before an employee can lawfully exercise her rights under the Bill and the fact that her reinstatement after her adoptive leave may be to an equivalent job and that re-engagement may be offered to her in certain circumstances as an alternative to reinstatement.

I assure Deputies we are trying to strike a balance. Generally speaking employers are entitled to know at the earliest possible date that a placement by way of adoption is to be made in order to make plans to conduct their business. Many employers would rely on a particular employee to carry out certain vital functions in the course of the business and it is only fair that reasonable notification be given to the employer so that he can have an opportunity to find a replacement. In larger firms it is not such a problem because they can redeploy staff but it can be quite disruptive in a small firm to have a key member of staff take adoptive leave. We owe it to employers that they be given the maximum notice reasonably consistent with the needs of the adopting mother.

Deputy Kenneally was concerned about the position of an employee who takes adoptive leave where, due to some unfortunate circumstance, the placement of the child has to be terminated at an early stage. Such a person could be given the opportunity to avail of the placement of another child, possibly quite soon afterwards. He asked what the position would be in such a case while conceding that this position would not often arise. The legislation allows such an employee to avail of adoptive leave in respect of both the first and second adoption. Accordingly, the balance of the legislative provisions are weighted in favour of the adopting parent on this issue. We felt that was fair and appropriate in the rare cases in which it would arise.

The legislation allows an employer to require an employee to return to work before the end of the adoptive leave period in the case where a placement has been terminated, in other words, if the placement terminates before the end of the ten week period it is open to the employer, under the Bill, to require his employee to return to work earlier than the ten week period if the placement ceased in the intervening period. That is a fair quid pro quo given the generous allowance for further leave if a new placement arises shortly after the previous one terminated.

I welcome the comments by Deputy Fitzgerald on reconciling work with family commitments indicated in the Bill. This is a matter of major concern and I will seek every opportunity to advance the very progressive agenda in my remit in this area covering a broad spectrum of family activities. Much of the legislation at various stages of development in my Department recognises that fact and had its genesis during the period of the previous Government. I am grateful for the support of my former colleagues in its preparation. I draw attention to the specific contribution which child care provisions can make in this regard. This is an area I want to progress. We are looking at ways of advancing it through the pilot project underway in my Department and also by implementing, in every way possible, the report of the child care committee.

Deputy Flaherty spoke from experience and expressed impatience at the lack of progress on parental leave issues. I understand that concern but would point to the presentation not only of this Bill but also to the enactment of the revised Maternity Protection Act, 1994. I can report substantial progress on the major employment equality areas and the equal status legislation areas we discussed at Question Time. I know Deputies on all sides are anxious to see progress in those areas as quickly as possible. They absorbed a large amount of time and energy in my Department and with my colleagues in this and the previous Government. Two years of difficult work went into producing the two schemes approved by the previous Government.

While there is undoubted support across the House for parental leave, real concern is being expressed by employers and this requires consideration. Leave and other measures which reconcile work and family responsibilities have a positive value for employers, as Deputy Flaherty and others pointed out. Benefits in terms of increased productivity and improved morale should not be overlooked by employers, some of whom wish to resist this type of progressive legislation. It has in-built benefits not only for employees who get the leave but for employers in terms of improved output and morale in the workplace.

I thank Deputy Moynihan-Cronin for her contribution and succinct evaluation and description of the key issues. Her identification of the nature of the notification requirements and their suitability to the real circumstances of adoption is appreciated. The arrangements caused some confusion in the course of Committee Stage debate in the Seanad and I am glad to note that they make sense to some of the contributions in this House and have been broadly welcomed.

Deputy Connaughton welcomed the Bill and I thank him for his contribution. He showed a real interest in adoption arrangements and rightly acknowledged the valuable work undertaken by the adoption societies. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Adoption Society and the Adoption Board who have done so much to assist many families. It is regrettable that this legislation was not in place years ago when the number of children for adoption was higher than it is at present.

Many families would have welcomed the opportunity to take leave when a newly adopted child came into their life. Indeed one would argue that, in many ways, the need is even greater in the case of adoption than in natural child-birth, when there will have been preparation in the preceding nine months, mental and physical, leading to the birth of the baby. It is quite different in the case of adoption, when a child arrives suddenly without any period of preparation. Indeed many adoptions take place at short notice. I have heard cases of days' notice only having been given to adoptive parents by adoption societies or some of the boards, which causes difficulties. It highlights even more the importance of giving every opportunity, in particular, to the adopting mother — and in due course, to the adopting father — of being with the child, bonding with it and facilitating the whole family in the vital change in the family circumstances.

Deputy Connaughton expressed his concern about the impact on social workers of new developments arising from adoptions following the recent European Court of Justice case. That kind of issue is not covered in this Bill and I should like to see any problems encountered in this area overcome. Certainly, I shall bring these matters to the attention of the Minister for Health with whom I join in paying tribute to our many social workers who give so much. Many of us do not realise the very difficult, traumatic and demanding work they undertake in a variety of ways. The recent European Court of Justice case referred to, dealing with the rights of a father, will have to be carefully examined and amending legislation may be required to take cognisance of that decision.

I intend bringing forward a number of Government amendments on Committee Stage, perhaps three or four of a purely technical nature, in addition to one substantive Government amendment, the latter having become necessary because of an inconsistency which has arisen for employers between the provisions of this Bill and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, following a Labour Court determination concerning adoptive leave. I am advised that the outcome of this Labour Court determination, might leave an employer in breach of employment equality legislation if adoptive parents covered by the Bill are treated in a manner more beneficial in regard to adoption than to employees generally. This amendment is at present being considered in the Office of the Attorney General and I hope to have it available for circulation to Members in good time for Committee Stage.

I look forward to going into the detailed provisions of the various sections of this Bill with my colleagues on Committee Stage. I should like to see the provisions of this Bill enacted without further delay; unfortunately, they have been subjected to delay in the Seanad which I do not want to see recur here. At the same time I do not want to be overworking my opposite numbers, Deputies Woods and Keogh; we seem to have had a busy day today and, as observed from the schedule of business this week, it appears we will be heavily engaged again tomorrow and perhaps again on Thursday.

As this is the first occasion on which we have met in our new roles, I know I will have the co-operation of my opposite numbers, in particular Deputies Woods and Keogh, on all the interesting and important issues which will arise in the near future. It is an interesting brief for me and for Deputies Woods and Keogh in the knowledge that the legislation we are preparing will be new, containing major benefits for our people. In many cases, it is regrettable that all this legislation has taken so long to introduce. In particular, I welcome the experience Deputy Woods will bring to his role, the various portfolios and Ministers he held which will be of great help to us, particularly on Committee Stages, as we deal with the minutia of legislative provisions. I am anxious to implement this Bill but am also anxious that we get it right. If it takes some little extra time to do that, all the better.

I understand that the former committees of the House have not yet been formally reconstituted; I understand that to be the technical position. I am not sure whether, ultimately, this Bill will be considered by a committee of the whole House or by one of the new special committees to be established. If necessary, I am sure I can move an additional motion to cover such circumstances.

Once again, I thank all my colleagues who contributed so constructively to this debate and look forward to working with them until we complete all Stages.

Dr. Woods

If the Minister is ready next week, we shall have no objection to taking Committee Stage. I doubt that Committee Stage would take too long and we should like to facilitate the Minister in any way we can.

Mr. Taylor

I appreciate that but much will depend on whether we have the one key amendment ready from the Attorney General's office. Subject to its being available and the Whips making time available to the House. I have no problem with that proposal.

Ms Keogh

I do not have a difficulty with that proposal.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

In respect of Committee Stage, shall we say that matter lies with the Whips? Perhaps we might have a provisional date, not necessarily one to which we will adhere.

Mr. Taylor

I suggest Tuesday next, subject to agreement with the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 7 February 1995.