Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

I welcome the Bill, which aims to improve maternity protection for employees. A large number of women contribute to our economy and it is only fair that their employment should be protected while taking time off to have children. Many women feel under pressure in this respect and, as the Minister of State said, it is difficult for parents to balance family life with a job. It is becoming increasingly stressful to do so in modern Ireland because work no longer entails 40 or 50 hours per week and, in addition, people have to commute for 20 to 25 hours per week. As the working day has become longer, it is becoming more difficult to take time out to start a family. When the cost of living is added to the equation we can understand that it is getting harder to balance work with family life. In this regard, while the Bill deals with certain aspects of maternity protection, it does not go far enough.

The Bill implements the recommendations made by the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation, which was established in accordance with the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The group consisted of the social partners and various Departments, including the Department of Finance, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the Department of Health and Children. The Health and Safety Authority and the Equality Authority were also represented on the group. However social these partnerships may be, their interests do not always coincide precisely, so it is perhaps almost inevitable that any legislation devised in such a way would be somewhat timid, as evidenced in the Bill, which does not go far enough.

Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill as it marks a step forward in terms of protection and is more progressive than the 1994 Act, which has already been extended to afford protection by means of a statutory instrument. The other recommendations, however, required primary legislation.

I welcome the reduction of the pre-confinement period to two weeks, which some members of the review group felt would serve the needs of pregnant women. It is well known that many women applying for maternity benefit put false dates on their application forms because they want more time off after the baby is born. This amendment, which was made in the Seanad, will now allow new mothers greater flexibility in managing their leave entitlements in a way which best suits their personal circumstances. In this regard, when the Bill is enacted, it is likely that the Government will be regarded in awe by the World Health Organisation for its ability to stop the vast majority of premature births by a new medication called the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill. We are gaining something from this legislation.

I also welcome section 4, which safeguards an employee's entitlement to the extended minimum period of 18 weeks' maternity leave in instances of premature birth. While the reduction of the pre-confinement period to two weeks is a welcome measure, it will also be good for the planning and organisation of businesses. It can be awkward if when unexpected news arrives, an employer has made plans assuming that he or she will lose certain staff on a certain date. It is good for everyone and I am pleased to see it provided for. Although it was highlighted a number of years ago in the Seanad, it is a pity it took so long. Like everything else, it takes time but is good when it happens.

While section 5 is also welcome, it simply amends the principal Act of 1994 by incorporating the provisions in the extension of period of leave order of 2001, which increased additional maternity leave entitlement to a maximum of eight weeks. I understand that is a sufficient period of time as the child is usually progressing well and the parents wish to get back to work. However, this should be monitored and, if there is a demand, we should be open to considering the provision of more time, especially where difficulties arise.

Sections 6 and 11 provide that additional leave ceases if the mother falls ill, and that the absence from work due to sickness shall be treated in the same manner as any absence from work of the employee due to sickness. It is welcome that the employee can choose to transfer from unpaid additional maternity leave to sick leave. This is a good provision for all involved — children, parents and employers. I am open to suggestions on the issue of allowing maternity leave to resume after sick leave and I look forward to the Minister of State's views on this.

Sections 7 to 12, inclusive, allow maternity leave to be postponed if a child is hospitalised, which is fair and welcome. If a child is hospitalised and the mother is able to go to work, the mother may prefer to do this and take the postponed leave with the child when he or she leaves hospital. While I welcome this, I am also concerned that the time left must be taken in one block. If a child of that age is sick, he or she would generally leave hospital but might soon return. I understand that parents have seven days before they must return to work. However, a child might often have to return to hospital within two weeks even though it might suit a parent to go back to work. It is perhaps too harsh to stipulate that the leave must be taken in one block. I would appreciate the Minister of State's comments on this.

Section 8 provides paid time off work for expectant mothers to attend one set of ante-natal classes. This is misleading as the mother must attend the last three classes at her own expense unless the employer agrees otherwise. This arises because of an anomaly in regard to the change of pre-confinement time from four weeks to two. Parents should attend the last three ante-natal classes unpaid, with these classes spread over three weeks. It was assumed that the mother would be on maternity leave at that stage of a pregnancy and that, therefore, the classes were not an issue. However, a mother might still be at work for one of the three classes. I ask that this be addressed to ensure that mothers need take unpaid leave only for the last two classes. This would make the provision fairer and as family friendly as possible.

I am glad to see that there is provision for fathers to attend ante-natal classes before the birth of the child. However, why does it allow for only two classes? Why is the father not entitled to attend the same number of classes as the mother? Both parents are encouraged to attend and this should be allowed for in the Bill. While the Bill goes far by allowing fathers to be paid for attending two classes, I am told that the two classes before the last class are the most important, as the last class is generally concerned with what happens after a birth, and goes as far as teaching how to put a baby in a car seat and so on. In view of this, mothers would prefer to have their partners attend for four of the five classes. Ideally, they would like their partners to attend all classes and perhaps the Bill should make provision to encourage this. I understand many of the classes are held in the evening so it would not cost much. It would set a good example and make a statement that we expect fathers to try to attend more than two classes.

If classes are available both day and evening, could an option be provided whereby an employer could compensate a mother in order that she could work as well as attending the class at a more convenient time? While it is not a major issue, there should be scope to enable employers and employees work out arrangements which suit them best, rather than forcing employees to take time off. It would be good if an employee was allowed to take time off but she might not necessarily want that. Members will understand that some businesses find it hard to manage without certain staff, especially key staff. I would find it hard to survive if my assistant — my boss, as I call her — had to take time off. It would be good if other arrangements could be made and I would be grateful if the Minister of State could clarify this point.

Section 9 refers to breastfeeding breaks and allows time off from work or a reduction of working hours for women who are breastfeeding. While this is welcome, there are no indications in the Bill as to the length of the period that the mother is entitled to breast-feed at work or an indication of the number of hours that she is allowed to have off in order to breastfeed. I understand this will be clarified by regulations and that the issue of time periods and the number of hours will be dealt with later, but I would like to hear more from the Minister of State on this. He mentioned a period of six months in this regard, which is the recommended level. The period was changed in the Seanad from four months. I am not convinced this change is any great achievement because maternity leave is currently 18 weeks plus eight weeks extra unpaid leave, if that is wanted, which is a total of six months. The change is not significant because the majority of mothers would take as much maternity leave as they could. Perhaps the period should be increased to 12 months. I understand that a high proportion of mothers are not breast-feeding, which is why it is being encouraged. To increase the period of leave even to nine months would be an improvement, but given that it is common for mothers to breast-feed for longer, a 12 month period would be preferable.

Employers are not obliged to provide breastfeeding facilities if the provision of such facilities would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost. While this is fair, why has it been included in the Bill because it will make it easy for employers not to bother providing facilities? While I am perhaps underestimating this, it is not question of providing new rooms or having new wings built onto buildings; it is concerned with providing a suitable setting, such as a room with basic facilities. It would not cost much but, by including this provision, we may be giving employers too easy a way out if they do not provide such facilities. I will revisit this issue on Committee Stage.

I am concerned that the Bill may discriminate against mothers who are bottle-feeding. While I understand that we are trying to encourage breastfeeding because it is good for the child, there are also mothers struggling with jobs and responsibilities who bottle-feed rather than breast-feed. Should they not be entitled to feeding breaks? What is the intent of the Bill in this regard? If a mother works near her home, is it intended that a child minder would bring the child to the workplace during breaks so that it could be breast-fed? If so, such mothers would have the luck to spend more time with their children but this would lead to jealousy among other mothers who, by choice or not, do not breast-feed. Should they not be allowed to bring their children into the workplace to bottle-feed and spend time with them? I raise this matter because I have heard such questions asked when speaking to people about it.

I am happy that the Bill protects women's entitlements and rights while on maternity leave and additional maternity leave, as laid out in sections 14, 18 and 19, the provisions of which are necessary and welcome. Women are the only sex which can bear children at present, unless science changes that, and it is only fair that they are not placed at a disadvantage in their place of work when taking time off to give birth and have time with their new-born babies. A significant number of queries that the Equality Authority receive are related to pregnancy, time off etc., and I hope the Bill will give some comfort and clarity to women who fear that their positions in work will be in some way jeopardised due to pregnancy.

While the Bill is welcome and family friendly, it is a missed opportunity to go a step further at a time when most parents are in employment and seeking improvements in the position and flexibility of working arrangements, because modern life demands flexibility. The Bill is a start in the right direction but more should be done to help working families. It is difficult to provide child care in most areas and, while it is fine to give people time off, we must go further. Child care must be provided close to where people work and at an affordable price. The Minister of State has heard that child care can cost up to €900 in some Dublin areas, whereas in Navan it can be €150 a week. Even with child benefit allowances, this is a large amount of money, especially after tax is deducted. Is enough being done to facilitate child care? There needs to be more investment in non-profit child care facilities and more incentives to encourage employers to provide crèches. If there is a restriction in the provision of such facilities, employers should allow employees to work from home. There has to be more of an effort because the cost of access to good quality child care is very high.

In the Dáil, we do not set much of an example to employers, as there are no crèche facilities. Some Deputies, God love them, have to bring their children to their offices and let them play on the computer. It is not always a female issue, as this morning I noticed two male Deputies with their children. One Minister who wanted to have some time with his son had to bring him into the restaurant which was full of us lugs talking politics. The Minister, who probably works a 140-hour week, simply wanted an hour with his child, but there is nowhere else to go but the restaurant.

See this speech in context