Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 21, to delete "14" and substitute "18".

We are back to the same discussion we had on Second Stage and Committee Stage. All these amendments propose that the period of time stipulated be extended from 14 to 18 weeks. The period of 14 weeks is too short, although it is an improvement. Many groups might look for much more, perhaps even 26 weeks, and many other countries would do likewise. We are quite happy to propose an 18-week period for now and attempt to increase it as we go along. I accept what the Minister has stated with regard to partnership talks and the different groups involved, and that he cannot make a decision. I am unhappy that this House cannot make a decision to extend the period if we think it is correct. The Minister of State appears to agree with us that it is right.

Other than going back over the same debate, will the Minister of State say who will be pushing the case at the partnership talks? Will he make sure that our feelings are very clear on this and that we want the period to be increased? Will he give us the commitment that the matter will be high on the talks agenda? As I stated previously, children are not represented at those talks, and this Bill is about children.

Every one of us recognises the benefits of having parents with their children for as long as possible. In today's society, with the pressures of business and life, with groups involved in travelling and commuting, parents get little time with their children. I accept there is an onus on us to do all we can without penalising employers too much, but we must make it easier for parents to spend time with their children, especially at vital times. Parental leave is about letting parents pick vital times during the development of their children to spend time with them and be there as parents. Many reports prove that this is beneficial and we can take a step forward in increasing the stipulated leave from 14 to 18 weeks.

There is no point in going back over the entire debate, but it is a pity that the first two amendments were ruled out of order. On Committee Stage our amendments relating to paid leave were ruled out of order as well. This leaves people who cannot afford to take time off work at a major disadvantage. It is generally people on low wages, whose children could perhaps benefit most, who will miss out. Only those who can afford to take this parental leave will get it, and that is a shame and a pity. It is a shame that we have not at this stage tried to bring in paid leave. I realise the matter will be discussed again, but we in the House are supposed to set legislation by example.

If the Minister of State gives us a commitment that this issue will be pushed at the talks, I will probably accept it because the process has gone on for so long and we have debated the matter so much. Most other European countries and America have more benefits for parents, and these countries appear to have realised the benefit of having parents at home with children as often as possible. These people should be encouraged, they should be given the time they need and they should be helped, particularly with regard to the amount of money paid and the number of weeks for leave.

We are doing the bare minimum but we are behind other countries on this matter. That leaves our children at a disadvantage in the years to come when compared to other children in Europe. Our children will have to compete for many things, and it is a shame we cannot give children in this country similar opportunities with regard to parental leave. I emphasise that this Bill is about giving children a chance and helping them out. It is not necessarily about a parent's time off, but what is good for a child. We are hit and miss on that matter.

See this speech in context