Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, lines 27 and 28, to delete "employed adopting mother or sole male adopter" and substitute "one employed adopting parent".

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points on these amendments which arise from Committee Stage. I would like to seek clarification, as some stage, as to why amendment No. 1 was not taken since it is very similar to amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

My amendments are based on one point and are designed to establish a single change to the Bill to grant equal status to both adoptive parents as it applies to their rights with regard to adoptive leave. This is most obvious in amendment No. 9 but since that may not be taken either, I will concentrate on the two amendments before the House. Amendment No. 9 specifically enshrines this principle by adding it as a subsection to section 5.

Fine Gael is trying to remove a provision from the Bill that is entirely discriminatory against adoptive fathers. There appears to be no reason why adoptive leave should not be available as an option to both parents, rather than just to the mother. In the Minister's opinion it is more important for the mother to be with the child for the first 16 weeks. The Minister of State said that in his experience as Minister with responsibility for children it would not be in the best interest of the family for the father rather than the mother to get adoptive leave. While I do not believe this is acceptable, if the Minister of State can back this up I will accept it. I do not believe it has been proved. Most other countries I have researched give adoptive leave to either parent, including the UK, Canada, America and Australia. While I have not examined all countries, I will do so if necessary. Most of them give the choice to either parent. I do not know why we cannot do so and I feel it is unlawful not to give the option to both.

If a couple both of whom are working are to adopt a child, the Bill as it stands would effectively force the adopting mother to take adoptive leave since the option is not available to the adopting father unless she dies. It specifically prevents them from making a decision as to which of them stays at home with the adopted child. My amendment would allow them to decide that the adopting father rather than the adopting mother could take the leave and remain at home with the adopted child. The State should not dictate who should stay at home. Neither the Minister of State nor I know which parent would be better at staying at home with the adopted child.

Only one parent would be allowed to take the leave — either the adopting mother or the adopting father. I do not propose that both parents should be allowed take the full leave, which means my amendment has no financial implication. I want a choice for parents to decide what suits best for their family. At least in the case of non-adoptive parents there is a clear rationale for maternity leave as opposed to paternity leave, as the mother has undergone a very draining and physical event and needs time to recover. As this is not the case for adopting parents, the same discrimination should not apply to an adopting father.

In the Seanad debate, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, said the Bill would enhance existing legislation for employed parents and would offer them greater employment protection and more flexibility in managing their work and family affairs. He spoke about parents and did not differentiate between mothers and fathers. I do not know why the Bill does not reflect what the Minister said. I hope the Minister of State will accept my argument that parents should have a choice. It will not cost us money, nor is it the wrong thing to do. It merely follows what other countries do. In many cases it would be preferable for a father to take adoptive leave. For example, if the adopting mother were self-employed it may be impossible for her to take adoptive leave. However, her husband or partner could be in a position to do so.

As all the amendments are related, it will save time later if I complete making my case now. This provision indicates the lack of joined-up thinking that is the signature of the Government. On the one hand the Minister and his colleagues claim to be in favour of having cohesive families and supporting positive parenting. On the other the Government turns on parents and flies in the face of recommendations of bodies like the NESC and the OECD.

Essentially I welcome the Bill which is progressive and inclusive in many ways. I urge the House to consider these amendments which add to the progressiveness and inclusiveness of the Bill to the detriment of no one. So much is to be gained from accepting these amendments and so much would be lost by further enshrining in law effective discrimination against fathers in the home. This provision will be challenged under European law unless we change it now. It is not right to force the mother to take the leave. I cannot see any argument in favour of the provision.

Even the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would agree, as he spoke in the Seanad about enhancing parents' choices and making life better for them. I hope amendments Nos. 5 and 6 will be accepted along with the others. It will not cost money. It is simply about choice in a modern Ireland. None of us can decide whether the mother or father would be the better parent. It is quite common to have stay-at-home fathers. We have moved on considerably.

See this speech in context