Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputies for their contributions to the Bill and for the positive response to it. I will attempt to deal with the questions raised.

Having been Minister of State with responsibility for children for a period of almost three years, I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the Deputies on the issues which are wider than what is covered by this legislation today. The current Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is bringing proposals before Government in the autumn to deal with many of the issues raised, including the last issue raised by Deputy Neville. I concur with the sentiments expressed. It is an area where one experiences much emotion by people. The support given in times gone by was perhaps not as good as it should have been, but it has improved considerably and I acknowledge that there is a need for further improvement. When I became Minister of State with responsibility for children, it was not possible to adopt from China or Romania or several other countries. It is good to see that there has been significant improvement since then.

In answer to Deputy Moynihan-Cronin's question on the number of adoptions, the total number has increased. In 2002, there were 602 adoptions, of which 336 were foreign adoptions. In 2003 there were 621, of which 385 were foreign adoptions. It is good to see an improvement. One of the saddest things is to see parents who are desperate to adopt and who, for a variety of reasons, cannot adopt or are delayed by the investigations that must take place. Any improvement is good.

I appreciate the point made by Deputy English and Deputy Moynihan-Cronin on the delay in bringing in the Bill. In fairness to the Government and to my Department, this owes more to the delays in drafting legislation because of the workload of the Parliamentary Counsel. There is also a difficulty of getting time to introduce legislation to the Oireachtas. While it has taken some time, it is good to see that the Bill is before the House.

The Government has a good record in implementing its legislative commitments in the equality area. In 2004, we have had two important pieces of legislation, namely, the Equality Act 2004, which transposed three EU directives, and the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004. The Equality Act had an immediate effect and three sets of regulations have been finalised to allow for the commencement of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act next Monday, 18 October.

Deputy English suggested increasing the duration of adoptive leave to equal maternity leave. Section 3 of the Adoptive Leave Bill 2004 provides for a further increase of two weeks in adoptive leave to 16 weeks, as approved by the Government last October. The increase in adoptive leave linked the proposed reduction of the compulsory pre-confinement period of maternity leave. It effectively means that once the legislation is enacted, both natural and adopting mothers will be able to avail of 16 weeks' leave with payment of benefit from the Department of Social and Family Affairs from the time a child is born or placed into their care. Deputy Twomey referred to the issue of 16 versus 18 weeks, but there are a further eight weeks of unpaid leave and a further 14 weeks' unpaid parental leave. Further leave can be arranged with the employer. I think it is important to remember that the basis of this legislation was agreed under the social partnership process. It is important that we take the partnership approach to these issues, that the social partners are involved in these negotiations and that the proposals they devise are considered by the House and the Government.

We must try to agree to the recommendation of the maternity review group. These recommendations were arrived at following negotiations and compromise with the social partners. They should also be agreed in respect of adoptive leave. For us to depart in any significant way by giving additional rights to employees at employers' expense would be considered to be a breach of the partnership process. I am cognisant of that. Consequently, I am slow to accept some of the suggestions that have been made here today which would break the principle of partnership negotiation.

Deputy English and others raised the question of sharing the leave entitlement between adoptive parents. I understand that in the context of the consultation with the former members of the maternity working group on the amendment of the Adoptive Leave Act 1995, consideration was given to a proposal to allow adopting mothers to share their adoptive leave entitlement with their partners. However, the proposal was rejected as it would have constituted a significant departure from the Adoptive Leave Act 1995, the stated purpose of which is to redress the perceived anomaly that women who adopt children were excluded from existing maternity arrangements and to replicate all the relevant benefits of maternity for women whose motherhood arises from adoption.

Deputy English also raised the question of provisions in the event of an adoption falling through. If that were to happen, section 12 of the 1995 Act deals with that. The same applies in this regard as applies under the 1995 Act.

In terms of the rights of a person adopting or the rights of person who has adopted a number of times, the rights in the legislation are available for each adoption. They are not forfeited by circumstances such as those raised by Deputy English.

The lack of information on adoption and maternity entitlements was raised by Deputy English and referred to by Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. The Equality Authority is tasked with providing members of the public with information on their entitlements. This is supported by information provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and organisations such as IBEC and ICTU have provided considerable information and material on work-life balance measures. This information is also provided to employers and employees. I am satisfied that there exists a considerable volume of information on entitlements available. If there are any areas Deputies want to bring to our attention, we will certainly consider them.

On the question of dispute resolution, sections 30 to 40 of the Adoptive Leave Act 1995 establish redress procedures in the event of a dispute relating to entitlements under the Act. A dispute referred to a rights commissioner must be submitted in writing and made within six months of the issues arising. In 2002, there were 20 such maternity cases referred to a rights commissioner and already this year seven maternity cases have been referred. Either party to a dispute may appeal the rights commissioner's decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal once the appeal is lodged with the tribunal within four weeks of the decision being issued. Thereafter, either party may appeal from the tribunal to the High Court on a point of law.

The shortage of social workers and the issue of age limits was raised by Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. These issues were strongly articulated during the consultation process on the adoption legislation earlier this year which was conducted by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. The outcome of the consultation process is under active consideration in the Department of Health and Children. I expect the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will bring new legislative proposals to Government in the coming months. I will bring the concerns expressed by a number of Deputies in this regard to the attention of the Minister of State. Points raised by a number of speakers fall within the remit of that legislation rather than the adoption legislation being put through the House.

On the issues raised by Deputy Cuffe and the comparison he made between the situation here and that in the United Kingdom, in the Irish case there are a number of forces pushing the limits on statutory employment rights. There is EU legislation which imposes certain duties on the State to enhance employment rights. We have a good record on implementing EU requirements and often the scope of our legislation goes beyond the minimum EU requirements.

We have a model of social partnership that I believe the British would love to have. It has served us well in terms of creating all the conditions for employment growth in the economy. It has facilitated major increases in the number of people at work. The review of all the maternity legislation was carried out in a partnership process involving all the social partners. All the improvements agreed in this regard during the review were implemented in the Maternity (Amendment) Act 2004. This legislation brings those improvements into effect for employed adopting parents.

It is important for me, as Minister of State, and the Department to be cognisant of the negotiations that took place between the social partners and the agreements reached. I do not agree with the sentiment expressed by one Deputy that we should ignore the social partners and do what we want in this House. We have been well served by social partnership. This legislation reflects the agreement made in that social partnership process.

See this speech in context