Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

I do not think I will need all that time. Sadly, there is not enough in the Bill to keep going that long.

The Bill updates its 1998 namesake to implement some of the recommendations of the working group on the review and improvement of the Parental Leave Act 1998. Sustaining Progress, the Government's social partnership agreement for the period 2003-05, made a commitment to strengthen parental leave in line with the agreed recommendations of the social partners. A commitment was made subsequently to enact the legislation by the end of the last Dáil session, but we must ask why the Government has failed to act within its own time limits.

I realise that the delay is not dramatic but, if the Adoptive Leave Bill is anything to go by, the measure before us will take a year to enact. Legislation which could make a big difference to some people's lives can take a long time to pass through the House because we sit on it. That is a shame. It is a pity that the Government cannot meet its own schedule for passing this measure. These delays put people off politics because legislation moves at such a slow pace. Dáil reform is needed to speed things up and this is another example of that problem. I realise that this matter is not solely the responsibility of the Ceann Comhairle because we all have a role to play, but the Government parties have a greater role than the Opposition.

Fine Gael is in favour of new legislation to update the provisions for parental leave. I am glad to see that the Government is finally doing something about it. However, the Bill is still inadequate. It does not provide for paid leave, which means only those who can afford to take time off can avail of it. Once again we have proof that the Government favours those who are already favoured. The Minister has not made any attempt to extend the effect of the legislation. It remains a law that will apply only to the middle classes. By not giving paid parental leave, we are putting at a disadvantage the most vulnerable working people in society — those on low wages.

This failure on the part of the Government to examine the issue of paid parental leave is particularly galling in light of the fact that it was one of the recommendations of the working group that led to the genesis of the Bill. Much rhetoric was expounded on the Adoptive Leave Act to the effect that the Minister of State could not make decisions without checking back with the working group and the review group. In spite of that, he is unwilling to take on board the recommendation from the review group in this regard. The Minister of State appears to have had a change of heart.

While we welcome the Bill and what it will achieve, I remind the Government not to become too smug. We still have a long way to go. A cursory examination of the European context shows us, for example, that Austria has legislated for paid parental leave for up to two years, that can also be taken on a part-time basis. In theNetherlands and Belgium collective agreements provide for additional payments while employees are on parental leave. In Italy, the employer pays 30% of the parent's salary for up to six months. Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden, to name but a few of our other neighbours, all make payments to parents. Even in the United Kingdom, a country that hardly leads the way in this area, parents are entitled to some paid leave.

Are our children less important than the children of these countries? Why do we not strive to come anywhere near what is provided in other countries? It has been said that we have come a long way. Such legislation only dates back to 1998. We are part of the European Union and we should be up to speed with the other member states, regardless of the point from where we started. One cannot say on the one hand that we are a great country that is leading the way in Europe while on the other hand say that when it comes to parental leave, we have only recently got our act together and we need more time. That is not good enough. We should aim high. We can do it. It is affordable. We are investing in our children's future.

Given the week that is in it, we should realise how important our children are and how much they have been neglected over the years by successive Governments. We now have a chance to go a step further and it would be a shame if we missed this opportunity. We will be competing with other countries who have better provisions in this area. In future our children will be competing with their European counterparts for education and jobs and ours may be at a disadvantage.

We will consider amendments on Committee Stage to provide for parental leave benefit, which will be equivalent to an adoptive leave or maternity leave benefit and will have a social welfare credit equivalent. Income levels must be factored into the equation when we consider who can and will avail of these provisions. In the debate on the Adoptive Leave Bill, one argument centred on which parent could take it. Sadly, the Opposition lost that argument. We are sticking to the traditional Irish way of the mother getting it rather than the father.

My reading of the Bill under discussion is that either parent can take the leave and they are both entitled to a 14-week period. I accept they are not entitled to share it and that one parent is not entitled to take both periods of 14 weeks as this could create difficulties for employers. I hope to table an amendment to this Bill to make it clear that both parents are entitled to a 14-week period. It is not stated in the Bill or the 1998 Act that they are not entitled to it nor does it state that they are entitled to it. The Bill should not be open to opposite interpretations. I have not heard that this has happened but we should take the opportunity to make it clear that both parents are entitled to parental leave for a period of 14 weeks each.

This Bill also represents a lost opportunity for us to re-examine the period of parental leave which stands at 14 weeks. Perhaps it would have been worth the Department's time to examine the issue more closely and suggest an expanded period of leave or even one that could be taken over a longer period but in smaller increments, such as one or two days a week. Parental leave can be taken for a half day or one day a week if employers agree with employees. It is very much down to employers.

The Bill presents us with a chance to include a guarantee of greater flexibility. It states that there should be consultation and everyone should do their best, but I am not sure if that is strong enough to get the point across that we expect employers, where at all possible, to be more flexible. Unless a person wants to take six weeks at one time, it might be easier for employers if the leave were taken incrementally. I am aware of examples of where leave was taken in this way and it appears to have been of benefit to both the employer and the employee. It was less disruptive on the workplace. I accept it is up to employers and employees to work this out but we could be more prescriptive in the Bill.

The National Women's Council is calling for the introduction of 18 weeks' paid parental leave benefit for parents of children under the age of five to be paid at the same rate as maternity benefit. This is the view of experts in that area. We should take on board such views and the views of those directly affected. It is their job to call for the optimal arrangement and we should go some way to achieving what they seek. The Bill does not go far enough in terms of meeting this goal.

It would be interesting if research were to be conducted, either by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or one of its agencies, to establish how many people are aware of their rights under the Parental Leave Act 1998 and how many of them have availed of them to date and to what extent. Given that parental leave is a relatively new feature of law, people who have taken such leave would be very valuable in terms of the feedback they could offer to the Department.

It is difficult to get information on this area. Does a review group exist which compiles research and information? If so, I would be pleased to read its conclusions. If such a group does not exist, perhaps one should be set up. Undoubtedly, there are people who were not able to avail of their rights under this legislation, for economic reasons, either because they could not afford to take unpaid leave or because there may have been pressure from their employers not to take it. We have no data on this, however, and to my knowledge, no effort has been made to gather any.

Some employers may put pressure on employees not to take parental leave which is their due or, worse, may seek to penalise employees who do. For this reason I welcome the provision in section 9 to amend the 1998 Act with a view to strengthening the rights of employees in this regard. It is important that employees are clear on their entitlements and that they do not suffer any consequence in terms of their job security or prospects, although they will suffer financially during that period. I am not convinced that enough people know about their entitlements, especially first-time parents. I accept there is an onus on people to inform themselves about their rights but it is evident from talking to people that they are not always up to date with such information. There is an onus on us to advertise these facts more widely and to make the issue clearer to people. Employers are unlikely to rush to tell people they are entitled to take time off. If it does not suit them, they may well keep quiet about it, which is understandable. Why would they advertise something that could impact negatively on them?

I also welcome section 5, in which there is provision for parents who become ill when they are due to take parental leave. It is only common sense that such people should not be forced to take parental and sick leave concurrently and this amendment of section 10 of the 1998 Act will serve parents. It is a pity that a similar provision could not have been incorporated in the Adoptive Leave Bill. My Labour Party colleague will no doubt point that out again.

The Bill proposes to increase the age limit under section 2 from five to eight. Many people to whom I have spoken already thought it had been increased to six as there had been some discussion on it back in 2002 and it was among the recommendations of a review group. It appears that some employers had allowed for parental leave for children up to the age of six years. It is great that this was so, although it was not official. Increasing the age from five to eight is not a big jump. Is there any reason we cannot increase the age even further, up to the age of 12 or while the child is in primary school? Perhaps there is some research about which the Minister of State has not informed the House as to why the age should not be increased past eight years.

Primary school would be a good cut-off point to give parents more flexibility to be with their children at vital times in their lives. The first five years of a child's life are the most vulnerable. The primary school years are very important. A recent report shows that a child's life is greatly influenced in its first three years, during which time it should receive all the love, tenderness and care he or she needs from his or her parents and as many people in the community as possible. It is not for the sake of it that this House is making it possible for parents to take leave because the results of many studies show that children benefit from spending as much time as possible with their parents and families. We are enacting this legislation for them. The provisions are slightly awkward for employers but we must have a proper balance in life. As I stated last week during the first part of my speech, the balance is often tipped in favour of the employer rather than the family, including the child.

I am glad to have been able to say a few words on this Bill. Fine Gael will be tabling amendments on Committee Stage as there is still much to discuss. I ask that the Bill not be shelved for eight months to a year, as was the case with the Adoptive Leave Bill, and that it be passed quickly. We can discuss it properly on Committee Stage and deal with the amendments in a fair manner if leeway is granted on both sides.

See this speech in context