Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. The Chairman has probably explained that the opportunity to hold this meeting came so late that many members cannot be present to engage with them. Other matters presented in respect of the tragic cases involving perinatal deaths at Portlaoise which created the need to reorder our business. I have no doubt that this impacted on the attendance of members at this meeting. Their absence should not be taken in any way as indicating a lack of interest in the subject under discussion.
In the context of Ms McLoughlin's presentation and for the Department's information, earlier in this meeting which began at 9.30 a.m. I welcomed the approval of the heads of the Bill on aftercare for children who have been in care. I accept that this is not particularly relevant to the matter under discussion. However, it is nice to be able to compliment a Minister and his Department on progressing matters in a very specific area. That said, the two matters may be related. In that context, we are discussing early years preparation. Far fewer people might be obliged to use care services if the level of investment in such preparation was greater. The framework is due to be submitted to the Government in the coming weeks with a view to publication sometime thereafter. What will be the position thereafter? Approval must issue and, as Ms McLoughlin pointed out, the early years strategy is a constituent strategy in the national policy framework and cannot be finalised until the framework has been agreed to by the Government. Will she indicate what the envisaged timeline is in this regard?
I thank Dr. Hennessy for her presentation and all the work done by the expert advisory group. I welcome Mr. Wolfe from Start Strong who made a presentation at the same meeting as the Donegal County Childcare Committee a couple of weeks ago. I recently made a contribution in the Dáil, in respect of which colleagues addressed several queries to me. For the purposes of clarification, will our guests from the expert advisory group comment on the issue of the second peak - the provision of a significantly longer period of paid leave for parents and the aim to achieve one year's paid parental leave following the birth of each child and the introduction of two weeks' paid paternity leave? Some of the smart Deputies who ticked both boxes, that is, those of paterand parent, were wondering if they would qualify for both.

Paid parental leave is an entitlement of one or other of the two parents, not both. I would like to get clarification on that. It may seem a silly point but it is not, and not everybody is on board across this argument, even in the singular, never mind in the dual. I was taken aback by some of the reaction to my making this very point.

The two weeks' paternity leave around the birth of a child can be timed in that it does not have to be contemporaneous with the birth date of the child and can be taken at a later stage. Could the delegates comment on that? It was stated that this would introduce the option for fathers to play a significant role in the care of infants during the important first weeks and months. Could Dr. Hennessy elaborate on that? We are talking about two weeks' paternity leave and the likelihood is that we are looking at one year's paid parental leave, which is most likely to be, but is not always, the mother's choice. Can it be shared? Dr. Hennessy might elaborate on that. Am I almost addressing the fifth peak outlined in the submission?