Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, Healy and Costello.

Why has it taken so long for this legislation, which seeks to implement a commitment made under Sustaining Progress, to come before the Dáil? The term of that agreement is now over. Negotiations on a new agreement were due to start soon. What is the point of commitments and partnership agreements if these commitments are not met within their timeframes? It is no wonder unions are more reluctant than ever to enter partnership when they must wait this long for the implementation of such meagre commitments.

This Government lacks an overall vision as to how children should be cared for. Instead, this issue is considered from an impersonal business and economic perspective, namely, what to do with the children while their parents perform their duties as cogs in the economic machine. Progress on the work-life balance occurs at a pace dictated by shadowy figures within IBEC.

The problem is that leave entitlements and child care policies are not driven by a vision of the kind of society we want to create. Parental care must be a key element of a child care strategy. We must work to enable parents, where it is their preference, to care for their children in the early years of their lives. This is in the interests of children and parents. Proper parental leave legislation is important to help workers achieve a balance between work and family life. It also plays an important role in an overall child care strategy. This Government has not grasped the extent to which parental leave can be used to alleviate the child care crisis.

According to the MORI-MRC survey carried out as part of the review carried out by the maternity leave working group established in 2001, almost 7% of the labour force were eligible for parental leave in 2001 but only 20% of eligible employees were estimated to have taken up the parental leave. This very low take-up rate should be of concern to the Government. If the Government was genuinely committed to parental leave and believed in its benefit for both children and parents it would promote it and seek to encourage maximum take-up.

According to the MORI-MRC survey, employees rated spending more quality time with their children as the biggest advantage in taking parental leave, while the biggest disadvantage was the lack of payment. Clearly, the absence of a payment in respect of parental leave is the primary factor in the lack of take-up. Why then is the Government not amending the legislation to introduce payment in respect of parental leave? This is the biggest barrier to take-up of the leave. It is also the case that the current situation favours the better off who can afford to take the leave. I agree with the contributions by the two previous speakers in this regard. It is of no value to low income families for whom it would be unimaginable to forego income for the duration of the leave.

The failure to introduce payment in respect of parental leave in this State contrasts with the situation in many other EU member states such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg and Sweden. Why is this State so backward? Is it because of the excessive influence of business on Government policy?

The research I referred to also found that employers considered that the biggest advantage of parental leave to them came from happier, more contented employees. The inability of workers to achieve work-life balance and the failure of the State to enable them to achieve this is a growing cause of workplace stress. This is ultimately bad for business, employers and workers.

The review group report stated that paternity leave should be dealt with as part of the Parental Leave (Amendment) Act but this Bill does not deal with it. It is quite incredible that in this day and age there is no legal entitlement to paternity leave, paid or unpaid, in this State. A new father cannot take as much as one day off when his child is born. This is truly scandalous and I find it hard to understand how the Government can stand over this situation, though I should not be surprised since it is the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, who has responsibility for the equality portfolio. Never was a person more unsuited to an equality portfolio.

I am not interested in hearing waffle from the Minister of State regarding why we cannot do this because of social partnership. Ireland ranks bottom of the list in terms of paternity leave. Most countries in the EU offer paid paternity leave, from two days in Spain to two weeks in France, while in Norway new fathers are entitled to a full four weeks. Fathers north of the Border are entitled to two weeks' paternity leave yet in this State adjoining the North there is no entitlement.

This situation simply cannot be allowed to continue. My party is demanding the immediate introduction of two weeks' paternity leave. This is the minimum to which fathers should be entitled. We are talking about very little time. Given that most families nowadays only have two children, we are talking about ten days twice in a lifetime. These days are nevertheless vital to allow fathers to offer necessary support to mothers in the first days of their children's lives and in giving fathers the time to bond with their children. We should be facilitating fathers playing an active role in their children's lives. Are we to persist in being backward in regard to this because IBEC does not like the idea of paternity leave? This is a scandal.

The element of greater flexibility in how parental leave can be taken is to be welcomed, though it does not go far enough. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is proposing that the legislation be amended to provide employees with a right to request more flexible parental leave arrangements and to oblige employers to seriously consider the request and further provide that refusal of the employee's request should only be permitted where the employer can provide evidence of a compelling business case for refusals. This is an eminently reasonable proposal to which I would expect the Government to accede. Ordinarily I would expect that, but unfortunately, given the two previous Bills handled by the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, I doubt if the proposal will be accepted.

With regard to force majeure leave, workers who are in same sex relationships should be entitled to that leave from their employers in the event of serious illness to their partners the same as other couples. Sustaining Progress has committed that "steps necessary to give effect to the issue of force majeure leave for same sex partners will be addressed." It is unacceptable that this Bill fails to fulfil that commitment. Force majeure also needs to be extended to deal with other situations where parents must leave work where issues arise regarding children and child care. Given the time constraint I will deal with this issue in greater detail on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context