Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

My view that this Bill came before the House as a crumb from the IBEC table to the unions was strengthened by the casual approach of the Ministers involved. Earlier today the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was ten minutes late for a committee meeting. I fully understand why he was late, given affairs in Roscommon and the issues of an urgent nature he has to deal with. At least when he came before the committee he gave a good account of himself, even if he admitted that the terms of the Bill could not be changed much because it was a done deal between parties outside this House, the social partners. He could not, therefore, make changes even if we had pressed him hard. That emphasises my view that this House acts as a rubber stamp on deals that have been done elsewhere. There are limited opportunities to make changes. I do not know if the Minister of State had the same difficulties in Roscommon as the Minister and I hope that the earlier suspension was not as a result of difficulties elsewhere.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill, which brings existing adoptive leave provisions into line with the provisions contained in the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act that was passed earlier this year, applying the recommendations of the report of the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation. That is some title. There will be no time delay in implementing this Bill despite the time lapse between the adoption of the earlier Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act and this Bill. The Minister clarified that this afternoon and I was delighted to hear that is the case.

This legislation is similar in nature so I feel obliged to repeat a number of points I made during the previous debate, particularly on the barriers to women who would like to combine motherhood with work. It goes without saying that adoptive mothers should receive the same level of pay entitlements as natural mothers. Adoptive leave, like parental leave and maternity protection, is at the forefront of the battle to bring about a better work-life balance for workers. I take this opportunity to question why the Bill to amend the Parental Leave Act is not due for publication until next year. That is unfortunate.

In terms of length of leave and statutory maternity benefit, we fall behind in comparison to other EU states. Sinn Féin believes we can learn much about maternity, adoptive and parental leave from the Nordic countries, where leave entitlements allow for babies to be looked after by their parents or a parent for the first full year of life. I reiterate the call I made during the debate on the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill for entitlements in this State to be increased to 26 paid weeks and 26 unpaid weeks leave to enable the new mother, adoptive or natural, to care for her baby during that crucial first year.

Sinn Féin does not believe the maternity leave provided in this legislation is adequate, welcome though it is. We call for the total period of leave to be increased to 26 weeks to allow for a greater period of leave after adoption. This is absolutely necessary given the difficulties with child minding faced by working mothers. If we do not facilitate such an increase in adoptive and maternity leave we will end up forcing working mothers to leave employment altogether. Ireland ranks bottom of the list alongside Greece and Luxembourg in terms of statutory maternity paid leave and maternity leave in an international global analysis of employment conditions and benefits in 60 countries published in 2003.

It is important to highlight the downright scandalous position of this State on paternity leave. It is incredible in this day and age that there is no legal entitlement to paternity leave, paid or unpaid. It is no surprise then that Ireland ranks bottom of the list in paternity leave. Most countries in the EU offer paid paternity leave, from two days in Spain to two weeks in France, while new fathers are entitled to a full four weeks in Norway. Fathers north of the Border, on the same island, just up the road, are entitled to two weeks paternity leave, yet there is no entitlement in this State. I ask the Minister of State in summing up to outline when legislation on paternity leave will be introduced. It is a linked issue and is particularly important. It should be introduced as a matter of urgency if the Government is to make progress towards the goal of achieving work-life balance. Is it the case that paternity leave is not being introduced because IBEC is opposed to it? Does it hold a veto in this area? That appears to be the case.

The quality of life for working parents with small children is severely affected by the lack of affordable child care. Parents are faced with the stark choice of losing one income if one parent stays at home with the child or struggling to find a place for the child in an expensive crèche. The OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Ireland — these bodies insist on long titles — published in July, found that access to accredited development programmes for children from birth to three years old in this State is very weak despite the fact that the development of quality child care is self-financing through increased tax returns from women's work and less dependency on social security. It recommended the extension of funded parental leave to one year following the birth of a child and suggested that in many countries individualised care of infants and the planned return of women to the labour force can be achieved most effectively through this policy.

Much needs to be done to remove the barriers to low and middle income families accessing child care, which remains scarce and overpriced. The OECD further criticised this State for the standard of access to early education for children aged three to six years and called for publicly-funded education for all three year olds. Until recommendations such as those made by the OECD are implemented, it will remain a constant struggle for mothers and fathers to combine work and parenthood. In particular, the principle that the best interests of infants under 12 months old are served where they remain in the direct care of their parents did not guide the Government in the drafting of this legislation or the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act. This was an opportunity to facilitate mothers and fathers to care for their children in the first year of a child's life.

As I stated in my contribution on the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act, this Bill offers very little. Without significant advances in the provision of affordable child care, more women will leave the workforce either because no child care places are available or because what is available is simply too expensive. Good quality child care must be made available to all, especially to those on low incomes. A universal entitlement to free pre-school must be introduced. The progress on child care to date from this Government has been miserable and is blatantly not a priority.

It is disappointing that this Bill delivers little for women seeking to combine motherhood with work. Its provisions are minimal and do not seek to make any real difference to the lives of working women. If this State and this Government is to develop real opportunities for the many thousands of women who earnestly wish to return to the workplace, those opportunities need to be facilitated through many of the measures I have commended to the House.

See this speech in context