Adoptive Leave Bill, 1993 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
Section 1 is simple but important. The first subsection states that this Act may be cited as the Adoptive Leave Act. However, the second subsection provides that it shall come into operation on such day as the Minister shall by order appoint. It is important that we give consideration to the commencement date. It must be seen in the context of another Bill from the Department of Social Welfare for which we have been waiting for at least two years. In 1993 we were prepared to introduce a scheme to provide for adoptive leave benefit which must be provided by the Department of Social Welfare in parallel with the measures in this Bill. The Bill from the Department of Social Welfare must be published by the end of this week as it must be brought into operation before 6 April. There are good reasons why this must be so. Changes in PRSI have to be implemented by that date. There is, therefore, a fairly short time scale for the Social Welfare Bill.
It is important that this measure, which is a very simple and inexpensive one, should be implemented in parallel with the Social Welfare Bill and that both should operate from 6 April. There is no reason why this cannot be done as the cost in a full year is negligible. The Estimate is about £200,000 and, in practice, the cost will probably be less than that. In the context of a budget of £4 billion in the Department of Social Welfare, this is hardly a matter of consequence.We should, therefore, not leave adopting parents without the cover which would be provided by the Adoptive Leave Bill and by the parallel Social Welfare Bill. On that basis I propose that the Minister should bring this Bill into operation by 6 April. I expect the Minister would want to do this in any event.
I wish to have the measure brought in as quickly as possible.That has to be done in tandem with the social welfare legislation referred to by Deputy Woods. The House can be assured that we will bring the measure into operation at the earliest possible date.
I appreciate the Minister's sympathy, but I would like him to make a commitment on that date. Perhaps he would cross check to see if it is possible to bring it in by that date. Otherwise I would consider putting down an amendment on Report Stage. These things are left too long. I know it is not the Minister's fault because he has to deal with the Government, the Department of Finance, etc. in the background.
We make our points honestly and openly in Dáil Éireann — there is transparency — and the Minister is willing and anxious to facilitate and to be helpful but someone in the background will probably say that for some reason this legislation will not be implemented by that date. This is distressing and I would much prefer if the wishes of the House were respected. Unless there are serious problems there should be a sense of urgency. Is there any impediment which would prevent this legislation from being implemented from 6 April?
I am sorry to hear the Deputy is distressed about delays in the operation of this legislation. I will go to inordinate lengths to avoid causing him any distress on this issue. I do not want to discourage him from tabling amendments on Report Stage but it is my expectation that the Bill will be in operation by 6 April, perhaps sooner.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
There is a large number of amendments, I think 50 in all, in the name of Deputy Woods. Having carefully examined them I suggest that we should discuss them together. I can give my reasoning if the House so desires but it would be a rather long ruling.The House will accept that all the amendments are closely related and should be discussed together. Is that satisfactory?
I have received a note which states that the following amendments will be taken together for the purpose of debate and that all other amendments that are in order will be taken separately: amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, 13 to 54, inclusive, 59 and 60; 7 to 12, inclusive; the proposal to delete section 23, amendments Nos. 56a and 56b; 55, 56 and 57. Is it intended to take amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, as a group first or all the amendments together?
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 21, 32, 35, 49, 50, 51 and 60 form a composite proposal; Nos. 4, 6 and 16 form a related composite proposal; Nos. 13, 22, 26, 29, 31, 33, 36, 40 to 44, inclusive, 48 and 54 are related to both proposals; Nos. 17 to 20, inclusive, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53 and 59 are consequential on both proposals. It is the intention to discuss amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, 13 to 54, inclusive and 59 and 60 together.
Will each section be taken separately?
Normally if Members wish to discuss amendments separately there would be no hesitation but the Chair is concerned about repetition in such circumstances.
Deputy Woods is asking if each section will be taken separately, which is normal procedure.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 26, to delete "a male employee" and substitute "a man including an employed adopting father".
The Bill — this is disturbing — discriminates against men and treats working mothers unfairly by excluding adoptive fathers from the scheme. The Government, instead of eliminating inequality, is providing for it. This is a simple measure which will allow a small number of people annually to take adoptive leave. An estimated 500 adoptions take place each year. Consequently — I am conscious that the Minister is anxious to ensure equality — it would be simple to provide for equal treatment.
Under these amendments either the adoptive father or mother would be allowed to take the ten weeks' adoptive leave provided for in the Bill and to receive the accompanying social welfare benefits. Alternatively they could decide to share it. That is the proper way to approach the matter. It is essential that both parents have an opportunity to bond with an adopted child.
Unlike maternity, adoption is not a health matter. Issues such as childbirth and breast feeding do not arise. Both parents need to become familiar with the child. As adoptive parents do not have physical ties with the child, unlike natural parents, it is important that they be allowed to take leave to bond with the child. This is regarded by those involved in adoption services as extremely important not only for the mother but also for the father. This becomes even more important when children with special needs are adopted. Children with physical and mental disabilities need greater support and attention. Consequently, it is important that either the mother or father be allowed to take leave or, alternatively, to share it.
Fathers now play a much more active role in adoption and parenting. In today's society where, increasingly, both parents work parenting is a shared responsibility and it is right that either parent should be allowed to take adoptive leave. The leave arrangements in the Bill are welcome. Leave should be available on an equal basis depending on the choice of the adopting father and mother.
The total cost of this provision is insignificant in terms of the social welfare budget and the number of people affected is small. It is clear, however, that the Government could face a legal challenge if it does not provide for equal treatment in this scheme. Regardless of whether there may be a legal challenge, it is wrong to return to old practices.
The beneficial scheme provides an opportunity to put into practice some of the points that have been made on both sides of the House. If we do not do that those who listen to what we say about equal treatment are bound to ask whether we are being honest in what we are doing or merely hypocritical. This is a simple Bill in which equal treatment can be applied.
A number of the other amendments relate to this amendment but do not have any adverse effect on the costs involved. They will be beneficial for men and women and would meet the needs of people by making suitable provision for equal treatment in the case of adoptive leave. That is essentially the purpose of this amendment about which I feel strongly. I understand there are faceless people who are not present and who might have a different view on this. I am sure the Minister would want equal treatment for all but I must say what I believe to be right. The Minister should accept this amendment, and the consequential amendments, and provide equal treatment to adopting parents through this scheme.
Deputy Woods said I may have some faceless people behind me on this issue. One section of faceless people behind me on it was the Cabinet of which the Deputy and I were members and who approved this measure. The Bill passed all Stages in the Seanad with the support of the Government parties of the day, namely, Fianna Fáil and Labour. It is a little surprising, therefore, that Deputy Woods has tabled 50 amendments to change the entire focus of the Bill when he was a member of the Government which approved this measure. I realise that a Deputy in Opposition is free to take a somewhat utopian stand on many issues but Deputy Woods has lost sight of the nature of the proposal before the House.
The purpose of the Bill is to extend to adopting mothers at the time of placement of a child leave arrangements in line with those available to a natural mother at the time of the birth. It is straightforward legislation to remedy a serious anomaly in the way we treat working adopting mothers. My concern in this Bill, as it was in the recently enacted Maternity Protection Act, 1994, is the provision of maternity leave for mothers. Both pieces of legislation, however, make provision for similar leave for men in certain exceptional circumstances.
Deputy Woods's arguments in favour of extending the leave to all adopting fathers are interesting but I cannot regard them as valid in the context of the present proposal. The arguments may well be relevant in regard to parental leave but a proposal for parental leave is not before the House today. Parental leave is a separate issue and is one to which I am well disposed. As a matter of policy, however, I cannot agree to granting parental leave to adopting fathers in isolation from an evaluation of the merits of the proposal generally for working parents whether adopting or natural parents. Accordingly, with regret, I must reject Deputy Woods's amendments on this issue.
I thank the Minister for outlining his position. The Minister referred to the previous Cabinet. I cannot say exactly what I said at Cabinet meetings on this issue but the Minister should not be surprised about my position because reports will verify that I made similar points in regard to the Bill on previous occasions. I am therefore, being entirely consistent but I am now Opposition spokesman on Equality and Law Reform and it is my duty to make points in the House——
It is a luxury that Members of the Opposition enjoy.
——on an issue about which I feel strongly.
The Minister referred to a utopian stand. That suggests that the proposition is lavish, extensive and part of a utopian world. It is not; it is a simple and inexpensive measure. The Minister did not reply to my point about a potential legal challenge to a benefit scheme. He will recollect that a series of decisions between 1984 and 1986 — I was not a member of Government at that time — on equal treatment for women raised a large number of legal issues which were resolved only recently. Those decisions resulted in enormous expense for the Government. It would have been better if the Government of the day, which included the two major parties now in Government, Fine Gael and Labour, had implemented equal treatment for women in social welfare matters at that time. When equal treatment was finally granted in 1986 retrospective payments should have been made at that time.
The legal cases which arose from that continued up to the time of the decisions taken in this House in 1992. There were further challenges and the written formal judgment on the matter was issued in the past ten days. The Minister is aware that the estimates of the cost of that run to £240 million. If the decision had been taken to implement equal treatment when the Bill was first brought in the matter would not have been challenged in the European Court and the cost would have been minimal by comparison with the approximate cost at this stage of £240 million. Fewer are involved in adoptive leave and I really believe the Government should not at this stage go ahead with unequal treatment of men and women.
The Minister said the purpose of the Bill was to extend the leave arrangements essentially to adopting mothers and in certain circumstances to adopting fathers. Adopting fathers are recognised in certain exceptional circumstances in the Bill but why not go the whole way and recognise the rights of men on an equal basis? This is the age of equality. The Minister is responsible for equality and law reform and I believe men and women should be treated on an equal basis. The Minister has obviously been advised that this may have implications for parental leave. That is the kernel of the issue but it has nothing to do with the Adoptive Leave Bill. I am quite certain the Minister wants to go ahead with adoptive leave on an equal treatment basis but the Government will not back that. Why? Not because of the cost of adoptive leave, nor that it does not want equal treatment of men and women but because someone has suggested that in some way this can be compared to parental leave. The Government is very reluctant to address that issue or acknowledge that in this age most younger men and women are working. It should be addressing the issue of parental leave from the long term point of view and making out a programme to deal with it even if it has to be done on a step by step basis. Parental leave has very little to do with adoptive leave which, as the Minister said, replaces maternity leave for those who are adopting. It is for a very specific period.
I believe parental leave is a separate issue and must be addressed separately. What is at issue in this case is the extension of arrangements under the maternity leave scheme to those who are adopting children and it is specific to that purpose. The Minister should go ahead with equal treatment, with the other issues being addressed in due course. I ask him to consider so doing.
The issue of parental leave is being considered in detail in my Department and the Government will consider it in due course. The purpose of the Bill before the House is limited. It seeks to remedy an unfair anomaly in our laws in the way in which we treat working adopting mothers compared with the way the law treats natural mothers. The purpose of the Bill is to bring about parity between adopting mothers and natural mothers. The question of parental leave which, of course, would apply to both natural and adopting mothers is a separate, very important and worthwhile issue with implications in a number of areas. I can assure Deputy Woods that the matter is being considered both in the Department and at EU level and I would like to see progress being made on that in due course.
As we are considering the group of 50 amendments, I should perhaps address the other issues raised in those amendments.
That would be appropriate.
Deputy Woods has proposed 20 amendments that would insert both the masculine and feminine personal pronouns and possessive adjectives in the legislation wherever only the feminine form occurs in the Bill as published.The approach proposed by the Deputy is a departure from the normal practice in this House and from legal correctness. Normally only one personal pronoun or possessive adjective, either masculine or feminine, is used because the interpretation of each such adjective or pronoun is informed by the Interpretation Acts, 1937 and 1993. The 1937 Act requires that words importing the masculine gender shall be construed as if they imported the femine gender, unless the context requires otherwise. The Interpretation Act, 1993, legislated for a similar interpretation of words importing the feminine gender.
The 1993 Act was widely regarded as a significant step towards more equal language in legislation. The legislation gave practical effect to a recommendation of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. In the light of the 1993 Interpretation Act, Deputy Woods's amendments are quite unnecessary as under that Act the valid legal construction of "her" and "she" embraces also "his" and "he". Accordingly the text of the Bill as published refers appropriately to both male and female adopting parents even in the wider context envisaged in the Deputy's amendments.
The Deputy also put forward quite a number of amendments which would seek to insert in the Bill a right to leave for a sole female adopter. The Bill as drafted already gives a right to adoptive leave to every adopting mother, whether she is adopting with or without a partner. Accordingly, the Deputy's amendments in this regard are quite unnecessary as the objective he seeks through these amendments is already achieved in the Bill as drafted.
I will deal with the substantive issue and leave aside the question of pronouns and adjectives for the moment. The Minister has said that the Government will consider parental leave in due course and that this Bill is a measure relating to adopting mothers. The Bill should address the needs of mothers and fathers who are adopting a child. It is not a health matter, it is different from maternity. It is not just a simple question of the needs of the father as well as the mother but the needs of the mother if she is working as she may wish to share the time with her husband for very valid reasons relating to her work. It is a potential benefit to the mother as well. Our amendments are designed to meet that need. In the case of adopting parents the needs of the father and the mother in many cases can be equal and, consequently, they should have the opportunity of being treated in an equal way.
The number of amendments which the Chair says should be taken together make it difficult to follow. Amendment No. 1 is the major issue and I intend to call a vote on it as it is fundamental to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential and amendment No. 4 introduces the sole female adopter explicitly. The Minister said he considers the sole female adopter is adequately covered by virtue of the fact that every adopting female parent is covered. If the Minister can assure me about that I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. There is provision for a sole male adopter but not explicitly for a sole female adopter. The female could adopt a niece or nephew in the event of a tragic car crash or a child of the family generally. Amendment No. 6 is related to that and amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to delete section 6 and insert a new section. Section 6 as it stands gives ten week's adoptive leave to the employed adopting mother or the sole male adopter. Our new section gives ten weeks to an employed mother, an employed adopting father, a sole male or a sole female adopter. Subsection (2) limits the adoptive leave to ten weeks between the father and the mother. We are saying that the ten weeks' adoptive leave should be available for either the mother or the father or the sole male or the sole female. Acceptance of the amendment would involve deletion of section 6 of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 25 are consequential and the Minister referred to them in his comments. I am trying to ensure gender balance and I accept what the Minister said about the amendments.Amendment No. 26 is consequential and is to cover the situation where both adopting parents share leave. The employers must be informed and it also covers the sole male and sole female adopter. We could have a difference of opinion on that. The Minister would presumably claim that the sole female adopter is covered already.
Amendments Nos. 27 to 32 are consequential and deal with the question of gender balance. In amendment No. 33 we include the employed adopting father and the sole female adopter for the extra four weeks' leave. Amendment No. 34 relates to gender balance. Where the father and mother take additional leave amendment No. 35 seeks to ensure that they cannot have more than four weeks between them. It states:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 46, after "leave" to insert "provided that the total amount of time taken by either or both adoptive parents as additional adoptive leave shall not exceed 4 weeks, or such other period as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance, by order prescribe.
Amendment No. 36 is in the interests of gender balance and states:
In page 10, subsection (2), line 1, after "mother" to insert ", employed adoptive father and sole female adopter".
There is Fianna Fáil front bench approval for the line I am taking. This is the approach in terms of equal treatment in the Adoptive Leave Bill.
That was not your party leader's position when he announced it in the first place.
That is the position now. The Minister will have to move with the times. He will be surprised to find that people keep addressing new problems. He was in the other House for a good while with this Bill, he may have become a little detached from what is happening. Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 42 to 48, inclusive, are similar to some of the earlier gender balance amendments. Amendment No. 49 proposes to delete the three sections. Amendment No. 50 makes provision for the father to get leave where the mother dies and our amendments provide that either the father or the mother can take up the remainder of the leave.
Section 9 deals with the ten week period, section 10 deals with the four additional weeks and section 11 deals with the foreign adoptions. Where the additional leave is before the date of placement in the case of the foreign adoptions, either parent can take it up. Our amendments provide the notifications and the other consequential changes, so essentially this is to provide that either the father or the mother can take up the remainder of the additional leave. Amendment No. 52 which I will not press is similar to earlier amendments on gender balance as is Amendment No. 53. Amendment No. 54 relates to an employed adopting father or a sole female adopter and its purpose is to ensure that the sole female adopter is included. The Minister has given assurances that that is the case. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, also relate to gender balance.
We will have an opportunity to speak on the sections, but the substantive issue comes up on amendment No. 1, that is the question of providing equal treatment for the father and the mother. Will the Minister think hard about this, consider what he is doing and the desirability of providing for equality in this Bill and in the accompanying social welfare legislation. Equality in the social welfare scheme was to be in the Bill in 1993 and 1994 but had to await the passage of this Bill through the Houses so presumably it will be in the Bill in 1995. I assure the Minister that I want to facilitate him in getting this Bill through the House quickly. I do not want to see it delayed, but if he wishes to reconsider the position on equal treatment I will be very happy to facilitate him in that as well.
I assure Deputy Woods that the sole female adopter is provided for in the Bill as it stands. That is the advice I have and I am satisfied that is the position. I am also well satisfied that the gender descriptions, having regard to the Interpretation (Amendment) Act, 1993, are adequately covered.
On the question of equality and inequality, this Bill is an equal treatment measure, because it provides equal treatment for adopting mothers as compared with the position of natural mothers. If one widened this Bill to extend the leave facility to adopting fathers, an inequality would have been introduced; it would immediately introduce an inequality between adopting fathers and natural fathers.
The present position is that natural fathers do not have the leave entitlements under the maternity protection legislation, so a new inequality would be introduced there which would not be acceptable. That is what I meant when I said earlier that the question of parental leave is the next stop and that would involve leave arrangements for both adopting and natural fathers. As I said before that is a proposal with which I have great sympathy. The matter is being examined within my Department and at European Union level and I hope progress will be made on that in due course. I cannot really put the matter any further, we have debated it adequately.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister. It is a simple measure. We should have equal treatment in this measure and I will press amendment No. 1.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Foley, Denis.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheal.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Ferris; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Amendment No. 4 was discussed with amendment No. 1 which was decided by the House. The Deputy may move the amendment if he so desires.
I accept the Minister's assurance that the point is covered.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Section 3 deals with orders and regulations. I note that the Minister has included fairly stringent procedures in subsections (3), (4) and (5). For instance, subsection (3) states: "Where an order is proposed to be made under this Act, a draft of the order shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House".
Subsection (4) states: "Before making an order or regulation under the Act the Minister shall consult such organisations [that is fairly straightforward] or other bodies of persons representative of employers and such organisations or other bodies of persons representative of trades unions or bodies analogous to trades unions as the Minister considers appropriate".
In reality that just leaves it to the Minister as he considers appropriate. That is a consultative process.
Subsection (3) requires a resolution of each House approving the draft. Subsection (6) states: "Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which the House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulation".
Why has the Minister included these provisions? Does he not trust himself or does somebody not trust him? He is putting in a procedure which, in subsection (3), requires that where an order is proposed to be made under this Act, a draft will be laid before the House and the order shall not be made until a positive resolution is made.
Without doubt, the Minister has some good reasons for doing this. However, many regulations, resolutions and orders are dealt with by exemption in the sense that they are laid on the table and, if there is no objection within 21 days, they are deemed to be approved. This is a positive provision as it states that, when dealing with orders and regulations under this Act, a resolution must be passed. Will the Minister explain why he is adopting that approach?
Subsection (3) refers to orders, whereas subsection (6) refers to regulations. The nature of the items contemplated by each are different. The nature of an order would be more crucial to a term of the Bill than a regulation.For example, altering the period of ten weeks or four weeks would require an order as that goes to the root of the Bill. It would be appropriate to have a positive resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas before that comes into play. A regulation would deal with more ancillary matters and it would be more appropriate to have the negative procedure under which the regulation is laid and which would come into effect unless annulled by a resolution of either House.
I thank the Minister for his explanation. I understand the difference between regulations in subsection (6) and orders in subsection (3). The regulations in subsection (6) can be laid before the House and if a negative resolution is not passed they will come into operation. The Minister must allow sufficient flexibility in the Bill for developments, without the necessity to move a motion. I have no objection to the Minister's point. People often insist on such an arrangement, although it creates a barrier even if people want to implement the beneficial elements. This means one must find a suitable time for the House to meet in order to get agreement.This does not apply in many other areas. Improvements, such as extensions of a certain period or equal treatment, can be made. I appreciate the point made by the Minister, and I have no objection to it, but I wonder why it was set so tightly.
The Government takes the view that it should be transparent about these matters. If an important change is contemplated, such as altering the period for leave, an opportunity will be given to both Houses to debate that issue, if Members feel it is appropriate. This is important because it suggests a change in the law. As a result, it would be appropriate for the Houses to vote positively for that change which should be transparent. That is the Government's view and is the reason it appears in the format before the House.
The Government can be transparent without being administratively tied in. This legislation is upfront, especially when an extra benefit is being given. Most people agree with improvements in benefits, although some employers might not.
This is unusual because we are arguing the opposite viewpoint. The Opposition usually argues for restrictions to be put on a Minister, but, because of my experience, I am arguing for the opposite. The Minister should have the flexibility to be efficient, effective and administratively expedient in his work and we would like to facilitate him in this regard. Transparency is a separate question. It is easy to be transparent if one wants, especially when the media is always present. I would not confuse the two issues. It is a question of efficiency and getting things done without being tied up for too long. I made the argument for the Minister and he made mine.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, form a composite proposal and amendment No. 12 is related. Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:
(1) In this section "agreement" means an agreement, whether a contract of employment or not, and whether made before or after the commencement of this Act.
Amendment No. 12 is the substantive amendment in this group. Amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, are related; they are technical amendments. I will outline the purpose of the substantive amendment, amendment No. 12, and then describe briefly the related technical amendments.
Amendment No. 12, which is the substantive amendment in this group of amendments, replaces section 4 (3) of the Bill with two new subsections. The new subsection (3) is similar to, but broader in scope, than the subsection it replaces and it is a fairly common provision in labour legislation. It makes clear that a contract of employment or a collective agreement may provide arrangements which are more beneficial to an employee than the minimum provisions in the Bill. Examples of the more beneficial arrangements permitted by the provision would include 11 or more weeks adoptive leave instead of the ten weeks' statutory minimum or payment during the period of leave. The new section 4 (4) ensures that an employer who gives more beneficial arrangements to an adopting parent will not be obliged to make similar provisions for employees who are not adopting parents.
The purpose of the related technical amendments 7 to 11, inclusive, is as follows.Amendment No. 7 extracts a definitional element in the existing section 4 (1) and makes a new subsection (1), which deals only with the definition of "agreement". There is no change to definition of "agreement". Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are technical amendments to the existing section 4 (1) consequential on amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 9 deletes the definitional element in existing subsection (1) which is now contained in the new subsection (1). Amendment No. 8 replaces the reference to "any" agreement in the existing text with a reference to "an" agreement so that it is clear the references are to an agreement of the kind defined in the new subsection. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 similarly amend the existing section 4 (2).
This is amusing because we are making a provision for employers to make arrangements without the need to have them approved by the House. The Minister does not trust himself to make a simple approach to the House. This is desirable because it allows the employer to provide more leave if he or she so wishes. We are in favour of this if it is appropriate. One could ask if it is necessary to introduce legislation which states that one may provide more beneficial arrangements. but there is no point arguing about it. This is as a result of other labour law which was necessary at the time. It is not about parental leave because it is not for the non-adopting parent; it addresses that issue for employers.
Perhaps, on Report Stage, the Minister will introduce an amendment to use this in section 2 and give the male and female equal treatment and include a clause which states that it should not apply to anyone other than adopting people. We accept these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8.
In page 8, subsection (1), line 19, to delete "any" and substitute "an".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, subsection (1), lines 19 to 21, to delete "(whether a contract of employment or not, and whether made before or after the commencement of this Act)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 24, to delete "any" and substitute "an".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, subsection (2), lines 24 to 26, to delete "(whether a contract of employment or not, and whether made before or after the commencement of this Act)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, lines 30 to 32, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) Nothing in this or any other enactment shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion in an agreement of a provision (subsequently referred to in this section as ‘the additional provision') in relation to adoption, in addition to those required by this Act, the effect of which would be to render the agreement more favourable to an adopting parent than it would be if it did not include the additional provision.(4) The inclusion of the additional provision in an agreement shall not, by reason of the fact that it applies to an adopting parent only, confer any right under this or any other enactment on an employee who is not an adopting parent."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
We have seen the amendments the Minister has made to section 4, which allow the employer to provide more leave if he or she so wishes. The section, however, stops employers forcing terms on employees which would defeat the purpose of the Act. That is the main purpose of this section and we are happy to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, before section 6, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:
"6. (1) Subject to this Part, an employed adopting mother and an employed adopting father and a sole female adopter and a sole male adopter, shall be entitled to leave, referred to in this Act as ‘adoptive leave' from his or her employment for a period (‘the minimum period of adoptive leave') beginning on the day of placement, of not less than ten consecutive weeks or such other period as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance, by order prescribe.
(2) Where adoptive leave is taken by both an employed adopting mother and an employed adopting father, the leave to be taken in respect of an adoption by an employed adopting mother and an employed adopting father shall not when added together exceed more than ten weeks, or such other periods as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance, by order prescribe.".
Acting Chairman
This amendment has already been discussed with the earlier amendments. Do you wish to press it, Deputy?
I know it has been discussed earlier but I am not in favour of automatic, slot machine legislation. The Bill gives ten weeks' adoptive leave to the employed adopting mother or sole female adopter and my amendment proposes extending this to the employed adopting father. I will have to press the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 76.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheal.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Ferris.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos 14 to 16, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, subsection (1) (a), line 5, after "her" to insert "or his".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for proper notification and documentation to be furnished to employers. I have already spoken on amendment No. 26 the purpose of which was to cover the circumstances in which both adopting parents shared the leave, when employers must be informed, and covered the sole female adopter or sole male adopter. Otherwise this section is acceptable.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 40, after "she" to insert "or he".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 10, subsection (2), line 1, after "her" to insert "or his".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 38.
In page 10, subsection (2), line 2, after "her" to insert "or his".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 10, subsection (3), line 6, after "her" to insert "or his".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 40 to 48, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides an additional four weeks' adoptive leave and two points should be considered for Report Stage. While wanting to facilitate the Minister I regret that Report Stage is being taken immediately. I would have been happier if there had been some consideration of the points made on Committee Stage before embarking on Report Stage, even if that were to be a matter of hours, a day or something of that nature. In that sense, it is not good practice.
Since the amendment I had tabled on section 6 was not agreed, a possible amendment should be considered to entitle an adoptive father to four weeks' unpaid leave, in any event, after the mother's ten weeks. It does not really matter whether such leave is paid or unpaid because the cost of payment is a joke in the sense of the schemes about which we are talking. I have spoken to adoptive parents and ascertained that fathers would welcome a period of even four weeks' unpaid adoptive leave, relieving them from their normal working duties, enabling them to bond with the children, thus helping in the overall adoption process.
The second point that comes to mind on this section is that whenever children have special needs, physical, mental, other incapacity or disability, the 14 weeks' leave should apply in all such cases in any event. As we are all aware, the period of ordinary maternity leave is 14 weeks. The argument can be advanced that, where there is no medical or health aspect to the leave, ten weeks is adequate, with an optional four weeks' unpaid leave thereafter, but there is every argument to be advanced in favour of having the 14 weeks leave applied in the case of children with special needs when, obviously, the adjustments, bonding and support needed will be all the greater. The reality is that there will be no great cost involved, no burden would be imposed on the Exchequer or anybody else, to provide the full 14 weeks' adoptive leave in the case of parents adopting children with special needs.
I suggest that the Minister consider such an amendment for Report Stage but it is my firm conviction that we should build in any worthwhile, necessary provision while discussing these issues. I introduced the 14 weeks' maternity leave, it was 12 weeks at one point.
I am amazed the Deputy did not make it 18 weeks.
Well, those faceless men in the background were there then too.
——and the Deputy took notice of them.
Nonetheless I managed to raise it to 14 weeks which, at the time, was a fairly good average within the then EC.
But the Deputy did not provide for adoptive fathers.
We were not that far-seeing at the time, it was quite some years ago. That is why it is very important to seize the opportunity. In fact I think when our new party Leader was appointed he said to the Taoiseach —carpe diem— seize the day.
If the Minister can see his way to extending the adoptive leave period to 14 weeks in the case of children with special needs I do not think anybody will beat his door down because the cost would be negligible and there are no real indirect precedents involved.
Deputy Woods is doing what is entirely appropriate for an Opposition spokesman, attempting to push out the boundaries. However, I reiterate that this Bill is limited to bringing about parity between adoping and natural mothers in the leave context. The two issues the Deputy mentioned are interesting and would come within the ambit of a much broader extension of the whole principle of leave, on a parental basis, which is being examined and will be considered at a later date.
If we are talking about 14 weeks — since 14 weeks are allowed already for maternity leave — I should make it clear that the position of children with special needs would be on a par.
Question put and agreed to
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 49 moved.
Can you explain to me, Sir, the position with regard to this amendment?
It has already been discussed with amendment No. 1 and cannot be moved, as amendment No. 1 was negatived.
It deals also with foreign adoptions not included in amendment No. 1. In any event, I accept the ruling of the Chair.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Amendment No. 52 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".
Section 13 deals with a certificate of placement to be issued.
Section 13 (3) states:
The certificate of placement referred to in subsection (1) shall state the following—
(a) The date on which it is issued,
(b) The day of placement,
(c) The sex and date of birth of the child,
(d) The name and address of the adopting parent or parents,
and it shall be signed by a person authorised to issue it on behalf of the issuing authority.
An issue has been raised about the certificate to be issued in the case where the natural mother becomes the adopting mother and the names of the adopting parents appear on the certificate. I presume that the names of both parents will appear as adopting parents on the certificate. Where the adopting mother is the natural mother, she may wish to have that fact reflected on the certificate which issues. Is the Minister aware of that request and has he views on it?
That matter would fall more within the ambit of my colleague, the Minister for Health. It is an adoption matter rather than an adoptive leave matter. This section deals with the certificate for the purposes of adoptive leave. The certificate will verify the date of placement, date of issue, sex of child, the name and address of adopting parents and so on. I do not believe that the issue raised by the Deputy is a relevant factor in adoptive leave. It may well be relevant in the adopting context which comes under the responsibility of the Department of Health.
I appreciate that, but the certificate which will be issued under this section will show both names. Where the natural mother of a child marries a man other than the natural father of the child and they adopt the child as a married couple, under the 1952 Act the certificate they receive is an extract from the adopted children's register as set out in the second schedule to the 1952 Act which shows names of the adoptive parents. The 1952 Act did not envisage circumstances where a natural mother would adopt her own child and her name would not be shown as the natural mother but as an adopting mother. I accept the matter is basically related to the 1952 Act. This question has been raised regarding certification. This section deals with continuation of the certification and the same certificates would be used. The Minister might bear in mind that issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".
Section 15 preserves the employee's rights while on adoptive leave. It ensures that while the employee is on adoptive leave the employer cannot infringe or alter the employee's rights and that they are fully preserved during that leave period. Section 15 (6) states:
An adopting parent shall be deemed not to be an employed contributor for the purposes of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) act, 1993, for any contribution week (within the meaning of that Act) in a period of absence from her work on adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave if she does not receive any reckonable earnings (within the meaning of that Act) in respect of that week.
Will the Minister explain why that subsection has been inserted? This section relates to employment contracts and it provides for the preservation of the rights of an employee while on adoptive leave, but subsection (6) appears to provide something different. It states clearly that an adoptive parent shall not be deemed to be an employed contributor for the purposes of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain the subsection.
Where a female employee does not receive remuneration from her employer during any week of her adoptive leave because, for example, she is receiving payment under the new Department of Social Welfare adoptive allowance scheme instead, she will not by virtue of subsection (6) be insurable for the purposes of the social welfare code during the week or the weeks in question. The reason for that provision is that under the social welfare code a person is not insurable for any period during which he or she is receiving payment from the Department of Social Welfare. She would be in the same position as any person in receipt of social welfare benefit.
Will they be only credits? These women will not be paid contributions.
Credits. She will be in the same position as any person getting social welfare benefit.
It excludes her from a paid contribution, it will be just a credit contribution. Is the Minister sure she will get credits?
I am told that is so. I am satisfied——
Will the Minister for Social Welfare have to introduce a provision to extend credits to this category of people. If that is the position, we would want to ensure that it happens? One does not get credits automatically, it is only if they are defined. It seems a strange way of dealing with the issue. One could just as easily say, you will get credits in that time and your social welfare position will not be disrupted. Section 15 (6) states that:
"An adopting parent shall be deemed not to be an employed contributor for the purposes of the ... Act...".
That is a fairly heavy handed statement. Is it necessary? I ask the Minister to look at the subsection again before Report Stage. If we were to have Report Stage tomorrow I would consider tabling an amendment as I would like to have heard what the Minister had to say.
The language is very strong and consequently it is clear that an adopting parent is not regarded as an employed contributor. What are the implications other than that somebody will presumably extend credits to cover that situation but that is not mentioned? That point occurred to me when examining the section. The section is fine so far as I am concerned, it brings in other provisions which preserve the entitlements of employees but that question bothered me when I saw the language in which it was expressed. I would like to be assured about the operation of the section in all circumstances, not just in some of the more obvious cases. An adopting parent shall be deemed not to be an employed contributor for the purposes of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993 — that means everything in social welfare. The manner in which that is expressed in the Bill is disturbing. I ask the Minister for clear assurances on it on Report Stage.
As Deputy Woods knows well the position is that under the social welfare code a person is not insurable for a period during which he or she is receiving payment from the Department of Social Welfare. The provision in this Bill follows the maternity legislation and the same principles will apply. The Minister for Social Welfare will provide for the appropriate credits.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".
I welcome this section which provides that one cannot be fired or suspended while on adoptive leave.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill".
The Minister did not explain the sections. Section 18 deals with the general right to return to work and is similar to the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981. Section 19 deals with the right to suitable alternative employment in the event of the same work not being available.Section 20 deals with the notification of intention to return to work. This could cause a difficulty in some instances. It requires notification from the person returning to work to be given four weeks in advance and in writing. Section 20 (1) states:
An adopting parent who has been on adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave shall, not later than 4 weeks before the date on which she expects to return to work, cause her employer (or, where she is aware of a change of ownership of the undertaking concerned, the successor) to be notified in writing of her intention to return to work and of the date on which she expects to return to work.
Does the Minister think that is how it would happen in practice or is that normal?In many cases people just ring up and say they expect to be back at a certain time. There are fixed times in that one has ten weeks and four weeks optional time afterwards. This section requires the employees to say in writing that she will be returning to work in four weeks. In most practical situations, I wonder how necessary that is in this age of openness and modern methods of communication? As I understand it, most people would ring up and say they expected to be back at such and such a time. This section will require the employee to give the notice in writing. The provision could have practical importance if the employer insisted that the employee had not given notice in writing but had telephoned the office saying they expected to be back - in that case one could have an argument about it. I would like to hear the Minister's view.
We go through these sections which have all types of clauses that are practical for people outside. Somewhere in the drafting process somebody takes out a clause which existed previously and it is inserted again. As we do so we should look at how practical the sections are and whether they are necessary. In the past we may have had to have provisions to force a situation either on the employer or the employee but times change as do methods of communication.A small proportion of the people with whom I shall be dealing are not able to write.
I take the point Deputy Woods has made. The section gives a reasonable balance to the position, first, of the needs and rights being granted to mothers who take adoptive leave and, secondly, of their employers. One cannot overlook the position of the employer. They are entitled to know exactly, and without doubt or equivocation, what the position is regarding the work availability of their employees. They have their own arrangements to make. They have to plan their production schedules, work arrangements and all the rest of it. It is better that the notification be provided in writing as, otherwise, there can be a doubt as to what was indicated. The person returning from leave may be under the impression that she gave a particular date whereas the employer may have taken it up in a different way. This is an important matter from the employer's point of view.
We are obligated to give reasonable attention to the needs of the employer and the person taking leave. It is very specific in what it says but I would draw the Deputy's attention to section 20 (3) which will allow the tribunal or Circuit Court in special cases to accept a lesser notice than is provided for in section 20(1). That subsection will cover hard cases which will occasionally arise. This is a reasonable balance which will meet the needs of the adopting mother and the employer.
I will not press the issue further. In the majority of cases this is done by phone and we are not making provision for it in the Bill.
If both parties agree, there is no problem.
This measure will protect the employer.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
The proposal to delete section 23 and amendments Nos. 56a and 56b form a composite proposal. It is proposed to take the proposal to delete section 23 and amendments Nos. 56a and 56b together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Question proposed: "That section 23 be deleted".
The new provisions are modelled on similar provisions in the Maternity Protection Act, 1994. Amendments Nos. 56a and 56b are purely technical amendments and will have no practical implications for the scope of the provisions in the Bill. They will achieve in a neater format the same purpose as the text which is being replaced.
The deletion of section 23 seems to reduce the protection for the employee. The Minister said that employees will be fully protected under the new paragraph (h) in section 25. If he is satisfied that the provisions in the old paragraph (h) are fully covered in the new paragraph (h) then I accept the amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 55. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are cognate and it is proposed to take these amendments together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 18, lines 22 and 23, to delete "Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981" and substitute "Maternity Protection Act. 1994".
These technical amendments will replace three references to the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, with references to the Maternity Protection Act, 1994. The Maternity Protection Act, 1994, has been enacted since the Adoptive Leave Bill was considered by the Seanad in the autumn
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 18, line 36, to delete "Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981" and substitute "Maternity Protection Act, 1994".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56a:
In page 18, to delete lines 38 to 46 and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:
"‘(h) the exercise or contemplated exercise by an adopting parent of her right under the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995, to adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave.'.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 56b:
In page 19, before section 26, to insert the following new section:
26.—Section 6 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2A) (inserted by the Maternity Protection Act, 1994):
‘(2A) Sections 3 and 4 of this Act do not apply to a case falling within paragraph (f), (g) or (h) of subsection (2) of this section and, for the purposes of those paragraphs, "employee" and "adopting parent" include a person who would otherwise be excluded from this Act by paragraph (a), (c), (f) or (g) of section 2 (1) of this Act.'.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 19, lines 23 and 24, to delete "Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981" and substitute "Maternity Protection Act, 1994".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 29 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 20, line 25, to delete "Part" and substitute "Part,".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 34 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 59a:
In page 25, subsection (1) (b), line 43, to delete "date" and substitute "day".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendment No. 60 not moved.
Title agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Reluctantly I want to facilitate the Minister in every way — and I think I have done that today — but I would prefer a break before taking Report Stage so that he can consider some of the points I have made with a view to possibly taking on board some Report Stage amendments.
I am concerned in particular about the question of providing 14 rather than ten weeks adoptive leave for parents of children with special needs. The Minister will have to make a decision off the top of his head now not to include such a provision in the Bill. As it would not create a precedent the Minister should take some time to consider the matter.
During the debate I suggested a number of other worthwhile amendments that could be dealt with on Report Stage, but we will not have an opportunity to table them now. I asked the Minister to consider section 15(6) which provides that an adopting parent shall be deemed not to be an employed contributor for the purposes of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993. There should be some provision for such a person and I would prefer if it were included in this Bill. The Minister will have to depend on the Minister for Social Welfare to introduce credits to cover that position. I would prefer to have that matter teased out further on Report Stage. The Minister has stated that he will communicate with the Minister for Social Welfare to ensure that credits are awarded, but that is a separate measure about which a regulation must be implemented.
This section should be considered more fully before the Bill is passed. There are a number of other issues I would like to have teased out further, but as it has been agreed between the Whips that Report Stage should be taken now, I will not object.
