Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I thank everyone who contributed to this debate. I thank them for their generally positive remarks and support for the Bill. In the course of the debate, people lost sight of the fact that this legislation is the product of social partnership. It represents a deal worked out between employers, who are naturally concerned to protect their interests and minimise their costs, and the representatives of working mothers, namely the trade unions. While the Government was a party to the agreement, the legislation is the product to the agreement between the employers and the trade unions. When two sides sit down to hammer out a deal, each will try to get as much as they can and minimise their obligations to the greatest extent possible.

I appreciate the many constructive proposals I have heard. I have received representations from all sorts of people suggesting that the period should be increased or not taken en bloc and that we should have more benefits. While I take on board and appreciate the many constructive proposals I have heard, I am frankly not able unilaterally to unravel that package to give a better degree of accommodation to one party and less to another. I am not entitled to do so. Deputy Gormley brought up the old chestnut of the Scandinavian countries. Whenever there is a debate on such social issues, we are bound to be beaten over the head at some stage by someone talking about Scandinavian countries. I know of no one in this country who would not like to have the social benefits and system enjoyed by people in the Scandinavian countries. However, having said that, I know very few who would want the rates of tax that people must pay in Scandinavia either. At the present time in our economic development, successful though we may have been in recent years, one cannot have both.

Deputy English raised the question of retrospection. I would like to clarify something that I indicated to him. The increased periods of leave — the 14 to 18 and the four to eight — were brought into effect in 2001. That was done by way of secondary legislation. This Bill brings the statutory instrument into the form of primary legislation. The other provisions will not have retrospective effect. Retrospection is not an issue in that regard. The other regulations will kick into effect only when the Bill commences.

Deputy English also raised section 5 and whether additional maternity leave should be extended. I remind the House that we also have parental leave. Someone who takes paid maternity leave and additional maternity leave is also immediately entitled, additionally, if she so wishes, to take an additional 14 weeks' parental leave, albeit unpaid, as Deputy Moynihan-Cronin has said. However, in this case we are talking about extending the additional maternity leave, which is in any case unpaid.

Deputy English also raised the question of whether leave might be postponed to be taken in the event of the illness of a child. He is unhappy about the fact that it must be taken in one block. I can look at that, but, as I said, I must be very careful to stay within the terms of the agreement on which this legislation is based. I can answer some of his other points in the same way. He asked about the number of antenatal classes and why fathers could not have extra classes. He also made an interesting observation regarding breast-feeding. If someone is entitled to take a breast-feeding break where no breast-feeding facilities are provided on the job and agrees to go at night to facilitate her employer, she can look for compensation. There is total flexibility, and the employer and employee can work out any deal that they wish. Deputy English also asked where the six-month period was in the Bill. Essentially, a breast-feeding employee is defined in the 1994 Act as an employee up to 26 weeks after her confinement. The 1994 Act and this Bill must be read together. The definition is clear in their conjunction.

See this speech in context