Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006

Vol. 618 No. 1

Parental Leave (Amendment) Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 3, 7 to 9, inclusive, 12 and 15 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 21, to delete "14" and substitute "18".

We are back to the same discussion we had on Second Stage and Committee Stage. All these amendments propose that the period of time stipulated be extended from 14 to 18 weeks. The period of 14 weeks is too short, although it is an improvement. Many groups might look for much more, perhaps even 26 weeks, and many other countries would do likewise. We are quite happy to propose an 18-week period for now and attempt to increase it as we go along. I accept what the Minister has stated with regard to partnership talks and the different groups involved, and that he cannot make a decision. I am unhappy that this House cannot make a decision to extend the period if we think it is correct. The Minister of State appears to agree with us that it is right.

Other than going back over the same debate, will the Minister of State say who will be pushing the case at the partnership talks? Will he make sure that our feelings are very clear on this and that we want the period to be increased? Will he give us the commitment that the matter will be high on the talks agenda? As I stated previously, children are not represented at those talks, and this Bill is about children.

Every one of us recognises the benefits of having parents with their children for as long as possible. In today's society, with the pressures of business and life, with groups involved in travelling and commuting, parents get little time with their children. I accept there is an onus on us to do all we can without penalising employers too much, but we must make it easier for parents to spend time with their children, especially at vital times. Parental leave is about letting parents pick vital times during the development of their children to spend time with them and be there as parents. Many reports prove that this is beneficial and we can take a step forward in increasing the stipulated leave from 14 to 18 weeks.

There is no point in going back over the entire debate, but it is a pity that the first two amendments were ruled out of order. On Committee Stage our amendments relating to paid leave were ruled out of order as well. This leaves people who cannot afford to take time off work at a major disadvantage. It is generally people on low wages, whose children could perhaps benefit most, who will miss out. Only those who can afford to take this parental leave will get it, and that is a shame and a pity. It is a shame that we have not at this stage tried to bring in paid leave. I realise the matter will be discussed again, but we in the House are supposed to set legislation by example.

If the Minister of State gives us a commitment that this issue will be pushed at the talks, I will probably accept it because the process has gone on for so long and we have debated the matter so much. Most other European countries and America have more benefits for parents, and these countries appear to have realised the benefit of having parents at home with children as often as possible. These people should be encouraged, they should be given the time they need and they should be helped, particularly with regard to the amount of money paid and the number of weeks for leave.

We are doing the bare minimum but we are behind other countries on this matter. That leaves our children at a disadvantage in the years to come when compared to other children in Europe. Our children will have to compete for many things, and it is a shame we cannot give children in this country similar opportunities with regard to parental leave. I emphasise that this Bill is about giving children a chance and helping them out. It is not necessarily about a parent's time off, but what is good for a child. We are hit and miss on that matter.

I wish to say to the Minister of State and those involved in this legislation that it is not the Labour Party's intention to delay this Bill in any way. It is too vital for that and too many people are waiting on it. That is the reason we have continuously asked questions about ensuring that it is delivered on time. We are talking about an issue that is controlled by time. Pregnancy lasts for nine months, all going well, and a child continues to grow. The matter is time controlled and we are anxious to have this legislation brought in as quickly as possible.

Everybody in the House, be they mothers, fathers or others involved in a child's life, is very conscious that the first few months and first year of life in particular is a very precious time. It passes far too quickly for most of us. Women and parents at work do not get to spend as much time with their children as they would like. I will not get into the economics of the matter, but the time set out in this legislation is a very short period. We are proposing that it be extended to what is still a relatively short period, but it is more time than is currently envisaged in the legislation. The issue is well worth considering.

The Minister may have researched other countries in the past few months, particularly countries which experienced a drop in population in the past 20 years. These countries have introduced parental leave of an extended nature. In some countries the leave is four years long, a two-year period is common and a three-year period is not that rare. We are still at the point of talking about a 14-week period. We must begin to be adventurous and consider the general well-being of children and their parents.

I will not hold up this legislation because it is awaited. Women who are pregnant and others who have already delivered their babies are very anxious that it is enacted. The Minister of State may have arguments regarding partnership talks and that this was what was sought, but this was sought five years ago and it is now being done. That does not fill me with great hope in looking for an extension and believing that such an extension will be delivered by the current talks. Will that mean that we will go from a 14-week period to 18 weeks or 24 weeks in ten years?

It can be tiresome and boring listening to people making the same argument, but it is nonetheless valid. The amendment is in my name as well, and it is worth considering. As one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, we should not be talking of a move from 14-week parental leave to 18 weeks or 24 weeks in ten years. That is only as a result of collective bargaining and we should not proceed in that way. As not enough women are elected, this is not an issue. However women are becoming more conscious of the issue and regardless of who is in Government in future, they will need to look at the issue seriously.

As both Deputies have said, the proposed amendment seeks to increase the duration of parental leave by a further four weeks to 18 weeks. In its review of the Parental Leave Act 1998, the review group considered proposals made by ICTU and the Equality Authority to increase the duration of parental leave. The proposals were considered bearing in mind the recent extension of maternity and adoptive leave, the Carers' Leave Act 2001, the comparative situation in EU member states and the implications for possible future paid parental leave. All these factors were addressed in detail in the review group's 2002 report, which has been published and is available in the Oireachtas Library.

I do not believe it would be appropriate for the Government or Oireachtas to decide unilaterally to increase significantly the duration of parental leave in the manner suggested by the Deputies. However, I am prepared to make their views known to the parties to the partnership talks process as requested by Deputy English. However, I cannot accept those amendments at the moment.

I accept that the Minister of State is prepared to make our views clear. I ask the Government to back our views also. Having listened to the Minister of State, I believe he agrees with us. I can understand why he does not want to accept our amendments. However, I would expect the Government at least to make this proposal in the partnership talks. These talks may reach agreement to extend parental leave. In the previous partnership talks, agreement could not be reached, which would lead me to believe that it was very close and they could have been extended. If it is agreed, can we have a guarantee that it will not take four years for the proposals to reach the House? The proposals agreed at the previous talks are now effectively out of date. Much has happened in the past four years and we have moved on with much more pressure on people. Given the developments in recent years I believe there would be greater support for extending the number of weeks of parental leave.

I still do not understand why the Legislature cannot do something of its own accord without referring to the group conducting centralised bargaining and perhaps the Minister of State could explain it. The Opposition Deputies will need to write to those negotiating on behalf of workers in these talks and insist that a timeframe is laid down in respect of advances on parental leave. When the matter was discussed five years ago I do not believe they ever envisaged it would take so long to introduce. If they now seek increased parental leave, they will not expect it to take another five years.

While I do not mean to be rude or disrespectful, any guarantee by any Minister at this stage would be a puff of smoke. We have no guarantee that any Minister would still hold the same brief in a few months. There is no guarantee that the same Government will be in place or that the same emphasis will be placed on this issue. If the Government is convinced that the only way to do business is through centralised bargaining and will do nothing outside that process, then the only way to ensure that this change is made quickly rather than as slowly as it has been up to now may be to have it written into the partnership agreement as opposed to waiting and leaving it open-ended to be introduced by the Government.

I agree with the Deputy. Nobody knows where we will all be in 12 months time and therefore it would be impossible to give any guarantee. I take the point made by both Deputies. The basic problem is that the drafting process and the legislative process in general are so slow that this legislation could have and probably should have been put through the House some considerable time ago. While it is nobody's fault that this has not happened, it is now going through. If improvements can be made, and I agree with everybody that there should be some, they should come back to the House more quickly next time and be passed by the House.

While I accept that delays can occur, the wonderful Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform seems to be able to introduce Bills overnight when he wants to do so, which indicates that it can be done and certainly with a Bill as small as this, on which we all more or less agree. I will accept that the Minister of State will try to push changes as quickly as possible next time around. I believe such changes will be recommended as we have moved on considerably in the past four or five years and people realise how important parental leave is for both parents and how essential it is for children to have their parents available at certain times.

Question: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 27, to delete "8 years" and substitute the following:

"12 years or completes his or her primary schooling, whichever is the sooner".

We debated this matter on Committee Stage and we seem to be like parrots repeating ourselves. I am asking that the age limit be increased from eight to 12 or 13, to match the years a child is in primary school. I cannot see any reason not to make this amendment. While I accept that some of these details need to be negotiated at partnership talks etc., and while I do not like that we cannot make decisions in this House, I can understand it. I can understand the feelings of the Minister of State on the previous set of amendments. However, on this one I cannot accept it as it will not affect anybody and would make life easier for the employers who might oppose it at partnership talks because it would allow for greater flexibility and would have less impact. If an employee has 12 years to take parental leave, the pinch will be smaller compared with somebody taking large blocks of parental leave over an eight-year period.

I do not see why this cannot be accepted. I cannot find any research indicating that this cannot be done. I agree that there was a battle to get the limit changed to eight years. However, I do not believe we would be seen to be taking negotiations for granted by allowing this amendment. If we are afraid it would affect the existing arrangements of parents whose children are now, for example, seven, it could be provided that it only affects children now under six. The Minister of State should not rule out this amendment just because it has not been discussed at partnership talks. This is different from the other amendments. It would not hurt anybody and would give parents greater flexibility.

The final years of primary school when children are preparing for secondary school are vital. It is estimated that 1,000 children each year leave primary school and do not progress to secondary school and the figure could be considerably higher. Children are under pressure and need their parents to be there for them as much as they can. While the early years up to the age of three or four are the most important, the years when a child is eight, nine, ten and 11 are also vital. Children are growing up very fast and have many questions to ask. While it would be great if parents could always be there for them when they come home from school, that is a dream world and is not possible. However, this House should do whatever it can to facilitate flexibility for parents to bring up their children and spend time with them when they believe it is best. Extending the period within which they can do so would not cause much trouble to anybody.

I agree with the Deputy on this matter. We will give employers greater flexibility if we extend the time, particularly if we continue to allow it at 14 weeks. I take it that the approach to this Bill on the part of the Government and those involved in centralised bargaining was more concerned with employment than with how we treat our children, which is very unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that we see the child as a commodity that should be given as little time, affection and consideration as possible. The Department is concerned with protecting employers and those involved in centralised bargaining are concerned with ascertaining the benefits they can get for workers. The child gets lost in that process.

The proposal to allow one to take parental leave until one's child is 12 years of age or until the end of the child's time in primary school — they can often happen at the same time — will offer greater flexibility from the employer's point of view. Not all children need the same type of attention in fourth, fifth and sixth classes. Some children sail through that period of their lives — they are probably the happiest years of their lives — but others need more parental support as they move on a little at the ages of nine, ten or 11. A great deal of bullying can take place during such years, which can mean that additional support is needed.

It is important that we provide for more flexibility in the system. We should avoid the rigidity we see in this legislation. Those of us with experience of children — I do not just refer to parents because there are other ways of encountering children, for example through one's extended family — know that children behave differently. Although they have certain fundamental needs, their overall level of need can differ significantly. If we extend the number of years within which one can take parental leave, we will give employers greater flexibility.

The provisions in amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are contrary to the agreement that was reached by the social partners during the negotiations on Sustaining Progress. Therefore, as I have said, I cannot consider the amendments, unfortunately. Amendment No. 6 proposes to add a new element to the Bill by extending to three years the period of time available to the adopting parents of a child who is the subject of an adoption order. As this proposal has not been discussed by the social partners, it is impossible for me to accept it. I do not wish to be repetitive in stating again that while I understand the rationale for the Deputy's amendments, I simply cannot go beyond the agreement that was reached in Sustaining Progress. Therefore, I have to reject the amendments.

It is a pity the Minister of State cannot consider these amendments. It would not hurt anybody too much to make the changes I have suggested. As I said, I do not think the voices of children are being heard at the partnership talks. If periods of leave like that under discussion are not increased and parents are not given an extra chance, it is a great shame. I accept that there are competing demands at the partnership talks, but we have to give children greater opportunities and give parents extra help. It is a shame that the Minister of State cannot take a step forward by accepting these amendments. I do not believe they would affect anybody or upset those involved in the partnership talks. Given that the Government has held the line on every other issue, the social partners will not beat it with a stick for backing down by accepting one small amendment that will not really affect anybody. It is a shame if that is the way it will be. The pressures of life mean that parents need greater flexibility when they are making their plans. Things can happen to children which mean that parents need to take leave. The opportunity to facilitate that will be lost if these amendments are not accepted.

I will be brief. I support the amendments before the House. I have not spoken so far in this debate because I am anxious to ensure that consideration of this legislation is completed this evening if at all possible. I support Deputy English's amendments.

I was worried about the Deputy.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 3, to delete "8" and substitute "13".

Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, line 5, to delete "2" and substitute "3".

Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, line 5, to delete "14" and substitute "18".

Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, line 10, to delete "14" and substitute "18".

Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, line 25, to delete "14" and substitute "18".

Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

3.—Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (7) by—

(a) inserting “and where they are both employed by the same employer” after “child” where it secondly occurs, and

(b) substituting “either parent” for “neither of the parents”.

I proposed this amendment to try to give parents some flexibility in planning their lives in the early years of the lives of their children. The wording of the amendment I proposed in this regard on Committee Stage was slightly wrong as it placed an undue burden on the employer of one of the parents. I have changed the wording to ensure that parents will be allowed to share the allotted leave if they "are both employed by the same employer" or in the same company.

The original Bill quite clearly provides for parental leave of 14 weeks per parent per child and that is probably it. I accept the logic of that provision. The Minister agreed on Committee Stage to review and consider my suggestion. If both parents work for the same company or the same employer, it might suit all involved if one parent is allowed to use the other parent's leave. We should give them that right, up to a maximum of 28 weeks leave. I would like to provide for more than 28 weeks leave, but that is an argument I lost earlier today.

I am proposing that one parent should be allowed to take 28 weeks leave, or that one parent should be allowed to take 20 weeks and the other parent eight weeks, for example, subject to the agreement of the employer or the company. We should allow them to divide their leave in that way if they want to do so. I understand that the law as it stands prevents them from sharing their leave, which denies them the flexibility to which they are entitled. It might not suit a parent to take 14 weeks' unpaid leave, or it might not suit the employer to allow that person to take that time off. It might be handy and useful to allow both parents to combine their leave so that it is taken by one of them. I cannot envisage how this proposal will affect anybody negatively. I accept that we need to make it clear, as with other amendments, that such an arrangement is to be made with the agreement of the employer. If the employer cannot agree to such alternative leave arrangements, that is fair enough, but we should allow all concerned to come to such an agreement if possible.

I would like to mention something else that is important in the context of the debate on the 28 weeks leave. It is quite often the case that both halves of a couple are employed by the same company. One person in such a family unit might be working at a higher grade or earning a higher wage than the other. Given that paternal leave is unpaid, it might be more financially viable for the two people in question to ensure that the person on the lower wage takes all the leave available, but that is not always possible. Many families might not be able to afford to allow both parents to take all the leave that is available to them. We should do all we can to provide for the flexibility that is needed by parents in managing their family affairs. We should not put brick walls in their way. We should provide for that flexibility as long as it does not affect anybody else. We should stand back and let parents make their own arrangements because they know best. It is not up to us to dictate to them. We should do all we can to help out.

I will be brief. Am I right in my understanding that this debate will continue until 7 o'clock?

Yes. The House will resume the Second Stage debate on the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 if this debate concludes before 7 p.m.

That is all right. I wanted to make sure of the arrangements. I support amendment No. 10, in the name of Deputy English. I know several instances where both partners work for the same company and there can be a lack of flexibility in the arrangements that such people can make. I accept that the Minister of State is very much constrained by the negotiations that took place four years ago. I do not believe he should be, by the way, but I accept that he is. I am not convinced that the people who negotiated this package looked at this in any detail. I may be doing them an injustice, however. If they did, perhaps they could not negotiate certain areas of it. If I am doing them an injustice, it is not intentional.

There are examples where couples work at the same employment and where both individuals would like to take time off to care for or just simply be with their children on particular occasions. I do not understand why this was not envisaged in this legislation. I believe I know who represented this area in those negotiations and it strikes me that they are capable and competent people and that they are well versed in this area. It amazes me that this issue was left out, as were others. As Deputy English said, in a previous contribution, life has moved on dramatically in Ireland since that time. It has moved on more dramatically for families and women than for any other group in society. I hope that the people who are now in negotiations on this particular issue are listening to this debate, that they are open to the type of representations in respect of it made to us, as politicians, and that these issues will be clarified sooner rather than later.

I said on Committee Stage that I would be willing to reconsider this amendment on Report Stage. I note the Deputy has made the textual amendments required and I can now accept this amendment.

I compliment the Minister of State and am delighted that the amendment has been accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 16 are related. Amendment No. 14 is an alternative to amendment No. 13. We will take amendments Nos. 11, 13, 14 and 16 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, to delete lines 11 to 15 and substitute the following:

""(aa) 2 separate periods or a continuous period on the basis of one or two days per week until the 14 weeks entitlement is exhausted,

(ab) employees (or their representatives) shall have the right to request more flexible Parental Leave arrangements than those provided under the Parental Leave Acts 1998 and 2006, whereby employers shall be obliged to give serious consideration to such requests and whereby refusal of such a request shall only be permitted where the employer has demonstrated a compelling business case why he or she cannot assent to the request,“,”.

The report of the maternity leave working group recommended that paternity leave be dealt with as part of the Paternal Leave (Amendment) Bill 2004. That was some considerable time ago and yet paternity leave has not been facilitated. That is most unfortunate because we will now have to wait some considerable time for that issue to be dealt with. It would have been dealt with adequately in amendment No. 1 had that been accepted, or could be dealt with under amendment No. 19.

As regards paternity leave, Spain has provided two days, France two weeks and Norway four weeks. Even in Northern Ireland, under the old imperialist warmonger, Mrs Thatcher, and her successors, they have two weeks. This State is the worst in Europe in this regard. It is most unfortunate that this opportunity was not taken to deal with this important and essential issue.

I make the case in amendment No. 11 that there is a need for increased flexibility. I go along with same arguments made by Deputies English and Lynch in respect of amendment No. 9, which referred to increased flexibility. This amendment offers significant flexibility to both employers and employees. If the entitlement to paid leave is to be of any value, especially to low-paid parents, then there must be flexibility. The majority of low-paid workers simply cannot afford to take big chunks of leave as provided for in the Bill.

The essence of what I propose will facilitate current practice among some good employers. I know people who are permitted by employers to take their leave on a one day per week basis. They work four days and take one day off per week because they simply cannot afford to take two weeks off work, with mortgages and all types of other costs to be met. At least they are getting some degree of benefit and this is already happening among progressive employers. I am asking the Minister of State to provide for that in this Bill by accepting this amendment. Incidentally, the position advanced in this amendment is strongly supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU.

Should we as politicians have representatives from all the social partners with us when we come to contest the next general election in the year ahead so that they can canvass or advocate their respective positions? I find it unacceptable that they are the people, outside the House, controlling the legislation.

I support the amendments that are being taken together. Amendment No. 11 is similar to the amendment being tabled by Deputy Lynch, or at least the concept is the same. I agree with Deputy Morgan that this is happening anyway among good employers. Many people cannot afford to take unpaid leave. All we can do as legislators is facilitate matters. I believe the Minister of State is likely to accept this amendment. It is not asking for a great deal, just for slightly more flexibility. Employers still have the right to say "No" as long as they can give a good enough reason. The majority of employers are excellent and do what they can for their employees. However, there will always be the few awkward individuals who will make life difficult, mainly because they like to bully. For no apparent good reasons they will tend to block arrangements such as this and make life difficult for employers, and that is a pity. Our job is try to prevent this and to encourage good employers to do what is right for their workers when they can.

We all accept that it might not always be possible to be flexible and to give employees what they need. However, when there is no justifiable business reason, such leave should not be blocked. We are merely trying to facilitate matters and encourage such initiatives.

When dealing with legislation that affects children of a very young age, the main concern should be flexibility. That is all the amendment asks. There will be times when a manufacturer in September, for example, is preparing to fulfil an order for the Christmas market. Everyone accepts that it might not be possible for someone to take the extended time-off entitlement at that time. The same goes for the catering trade, restaurants, hotels, etc. leading up to the Christmas period. Again, it is understandable if employers tell staff that they just cannot be spared at that particular time, and offer to review matters later.

However, it is a question of flexibility and Deputy Morgan is quite right. Many good employers in this country are already being flexible. We all know working women who take a half day, day or two days off every week. That type of flexibility exists. If we were all flawless, there would be no need for governance, legislation and social controls. However, that is not how the world works. There are inflexible people who believe there should be no parental leave or maternity leave and that if parents choose to have a child, that is their responsibility. We hear such people often enough on radio programmes. They believe there is no social obligation to ensure that the future population of this country is treated with any respect or dignity. We need to legislate to ensure that such people do not have a free run and are not allowed to take positions contrary to the law enacted in this House. We are not here to force good employers into doing things they do not want to do anyway. We are here to ensure that good employees remain in the workforce and are not forced out of it by unreasonable employers. It is all about the old buzzword — flexibility.

I am not at all sure a prescriptive amendment like this would do anything for flexibility. The spirit of the section containing this provision is one of co-operation between employer and employee so that where it suits both the employer and the employee, they may agree together that parental leave may be taken in whatever fashion they jointly decide.

This amendment ignores the day-to-day reality of running a business or providing a service which relies on the presence of the required number of employees at any given time. The Deputy's amendment effectively means that an employee would be guaranteed whatever flexibility is desired unless the employer could demonstrate in every case why a refusal was justified on business case grounds, thus placing an unnecessary administrative burden on employers.

The reality is that many employers and their employees already have flexible parental leave schemes negotiated and in place. I am not at all convinced that employers are likely to be more amenable to flexibility because they are obliged to respond in a prescribed way to requests for greater flexibility on how parental leave may be taken. I think this is a very bad amendment and I reject it.

I reject and refute what the Minister of State has just said. Amendment No. 11 provides specifically for the employer who can produce a compelling business case to be exempt from the terms of the flexibility on the basis of what we have already said in the course of this debate. By not accepting this amendment, in effect, the Minister of State is protecting wayward employers who deserve no protection in instances where there is no compelling business case and where flexibility should be allowed. We have built that into the amendment. That is part of it. It is worthless and pointless for the Minister to hide behind excuses in this case.

The aim of the amendment is to provide employees with an opportunity to request flexible time from their employers. If that can be provided everybody can live together happily ever after. If it cannot be provided then the employer only has to produce a compelling business case. That is not a big deal in terms of administration for any decent employer. I agree with previous speakers. We all recognise that the majority of employers in this State are reasonable people and we would expect them to get on and deal with an amendment such as this. The complete inflexibility on the part of the Minister of State seeks to protect wayward employers. It is most unfortunate that a more progressive view of this cannot be taken so that we can deal with this issue once and for all. It is what is already happening in a substantial number of places and the Minister of State should not seek to protect wayward and unscrupulous employers.

I have one brief and final point on this amendment. The ICTU approached me but I am not sure if it approached others about this amendment.

My party was approached.

The Minister of State has continually made the case that this legislation, including the constraints it contains, is coming from the trade union movement. If that is the case, then surely he must listen to the trade union movement when it says——

I have had no case from the trade union movement on this amendment.

It probably does not see the need when it has made the case to the Opposition spokespersons. That is an indictment of the Minister of State more than of us.

I assure the Deputy that I have listened carefully to any points made by the trade union movement, both in my present job and in my previous job as Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs. I implemented as much as I could of its requirements because I am, essentially, a trade unionist myself.

It is odd that the trade union movement did not approach the Minister of State then.

The third socialist.

I would not say that.

I do not know.

The Minister of State is out.

Did the Minister say a Unionist or a trade unionist?

That might be stretching the imagination a bit too much.

The record is there to show it.

The argument has been made very strongly to us by the ICTU. Perhaps if the Minister of State's officials were to contact the ICTU on this issue, it could then make its case to him and he could consider it.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, to delete lines 16 to 28.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, line 30, to delete "14" and substitute "18".

Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Did the Acting Chairman deal with amendment No. 14?

Yes. It cannot be moved.

Yes, because of amendmentNo. 11.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 7, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

4.—The Minister shall by regulations provide that—

(a) an employee shall have a right to request more flexible Parental Leave arrangements than those provided for under the Parental Leave Acts 1998 and 2006,

(b) the employer is obliged seriously to consider any such request, and

(c) refusal of the employee’s request should only be justified by the employer giving particulars of the business case for the refusal.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, to delete lines 43 to 46 and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute the following:

8.—Section 15(1) of the Principal Act is amended by substituting the following for paragraph (c):

"(c) under the contract of employment under which the employee was employed immediately before the commencement of the period or, where a change of ownership such as is referred to in paragraph (a) has occurred, under a contract of employment with the successor that is identical to the contract under which the employee was employed immediately before such commencement, and (in either case) under terms or conditions—

(i) not less favourable than those that would have been applicable to the employee, and

(ii) that incorporate any improvement to the terms or conditions of employment to which the employee would have been entitled,

if he or she had not been so absent from work.".

This is a technical amendment, the wording of which has been negotiated with the Minister of State.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

The Parental Leave (Amendment) Bill is the third of three key items of legislation promoting work-life balance which the Government committed to implement under the Sustaining Progress agreement. I am pleased that it has been possible to implement each of those legislative commitments in full, although I agree with the Opposition that it has taken much longer than it should have.

Significant improvements to maternity leave provisions were implemented by the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 which was commenced on 18 October 2004. The adoptive leave provisions for working parents were also greatly improved by the Adoptive Leave Act 2005 which was commenced on 28 November 2005. The duration of adoptive and maternity leave, both paid and unpaid, has increased significantly. The duration of paid adoptive and maternity leave was increased on 1 March 2006 to 20 and 22 weeks respectively, with additional unpaid adoptive and maternity leave increasing to 12 weeks. My Department has also put legislation in place to give effect to a further round of increases on 1 March 2007 which will bring adoptive leave to 24 weeks' duration and paid maternity leave to 26 weeks. The duration of additional unpaid adoptive and maternity leave will also be increased by a further four weeks to 16 weeks on 1 March 2007.

I thank the Members for their contributions to the debate on this Bill. As Deputies will be aware, the Parental Leave (Amendment) Bill implements the commitments which have been made in Sustaining Progress partnership agreement which limited the scope for amendments in this Bill given the requirements to adhere to the agreements reached between the social partners. I thank the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Members of the House and my departmental staff for their work on this Bill.

From time to time when Opposition Members must engage with the Government on legislation, it may seem to be very rancorous and confrontational. This is the nature of Parliament. As the Minister of State has said, this Bill is part of a substantial baseline body of legislation on the subject of maternity and the provision of child care relief when a new person comes into the house. I compliment the Minister of State on bringing forward those three pieces of legislation. We will all admit that this Bill was a bit longer in coming than the others. It should not take too much work to update those pieces of legislation to improve them and bring us somewhere nearer to what our European neighbours consider to be the norm.

I thank the Chair for the efficient manner in which it conducted the debate and the Minister of State for being forthright and frank with us regarding the things he could and could not do. I thank his departmental staff who clearly have done considerable work on these pieces of legislation. Families are waiting for this Bill and for the other two Bills which have been dealt with in the recent past. It is the case that we are all out working and are very busy and owing to financial commitments, we cannot afford to take the time off which we want to spend with our children. Government is about ensuring we have some degree of work-life balance. These pieces of legislation which have been updated, improved, expanded and increased will make life much easier of all of us and will make this a society rather than an economy.

I am delighted with this Bill but the Opposition will look for more. The opportunity was missed to introduce some form of paid benefit and I hope this will be introduced in any changes to the Bill. Many people cannot afford to take time off, especially considering the expenses associated with raising children and even the expense of living without children. I hope the Government will press this point during the talks, as will other groups. I hope the Bill will be updated soon. The last three Bills dealing with this subject have proposed significant improvements and there appears to be a recognition that they should be fast-tracked.

I compliment the Minister of State on the quick passage of this Bill. I am impressed that he accepted amendments where possible and I understand his reasons for not accepting others, even though I would not agree with him. It may well be the same for us when we are on that side of the House in 12 or 13 months' time.

An opportunity was missed when dealing with the Adoptive Leave Act to recognise the changing patterns in society. The rights and responsibilities of fathers and their role in child rearing has changed greatly. The Adoptive Leave Act did not recognise this fact. It is up to this House to prove to the country that we expect change and that we are willing to lead that change. We should make it clear that fathers must be just as responsible and as involved as mothers. The day is gone when the mother at home did all the child rearing. This House should show a lead in this matter. If this is equality then we should expect it from both parents. It may not always happen and in most cases the mother may still end up carrying the brunt of the work in the house and rearing the children. For various reasons the House missed its opportunity in the Adoptive Leave Act to facilitate both parents taking an equal amount of the workload.

This is a 21st century society and we must move with the times. We are still a good way off the standards of our European counterparts in many areas but we are getting there. I get annoyed because I want our young people to have the same opportunities as young people in other countries. Parents should be encouraged to spend as much time as possible with their children and even though this becomes more difficult to achieve every year, we are getting there.

I am pleased that this legislation has passed all Stages in this House. I noted a significant level of co-operation and constraint on this side of the House to ensure this happened. I was tempted to call a vote at one stage but we wanted to see it dealt with and I am pleased it has been. A phrase used in Louth and Meath would accurately describe the Bill as being middling enough legislation which could have been much better. Issues such as paternity leave should have been dealt with in this Bill. A number of Opposition amendments would have improved the Bill significantly. Like my colleagues, I hope we will be in a position, sooner rather than later, to move those amendments and ensure they are included to improve the legislation at a later date.

Question put and agreed to.

A message shall be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.

Barr
Roinn