Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

3.—Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (7) by—

(a) inserting "and where they are both employed by the same employer" after "child" where it secondly occurs, and

(b) substituting "either parent" for "neither of the parents".

I proposed this amendment to try to give parents some flexibility in planning their lives in the early years of the lives of their children. The wording of the amendment I proposed in this regard on Committee Stage was slightly wrong as it placed an undue burden on the employer of one of the parents. I have changed the wording to ensure that parents will be allowed to share the allotted leave if they "are both employed by the same employer" or in the same company.

The original Bill quite clearly provides for parental leave of 14 weeks per parent per child and that is probably it. I accept the logic of that provision. The Minister agreed on Committee Stage to review and consider my suggestion. If both parents work for the same company or the same employer, it might suit all involved if one parent is allowed to use the other parent's leave. We should give them that right, up to a maximum of 28 weeks leave. I would like to provide for more than 28 weeks leave, but that is an argument I lost earlier today.

I am proposing that one parent should be allowed to take 28 weeks leave, or that one parent should be allowed to take 20 weeks and the other parent eight weeks, for example, subject to the agreement of the employer or the company. We should allow them to divide their leave in that way if they want to do so. I understand that the law as it stands prevents them from sharing their leave, which denies them the flexibility to which they are entitled. It might not suit a parent to take 14 weeks' unpaid leave, or it might not suit the employer to allow that person to take that time off. It might be handy and useful to allow both parents to combine their leave so that it is taken by one of them. I cannot envisage how this proposal will affect anybody negatively. I accept that we need to make it clear, as with other amendments, that such an arrangement is to be made with the agreement of the employer. If the employer cannot agree to such alternative leave arrangements, that is fair enough, but we should allow all concerned to come to such an agreement if possible.

I would like to mention something else that is important in the context of the debate on the 28 weeks leave. It is quite often the case that both halves of a couple are employed by the same company. One person in such a family unit might be working at a higher grade or earning a higher wage than the other. Given that paternal leave is unpaid, it might be more financially viable for the two people in question to ensure that the person on the lower wage takes all the leave available, but that is not always possible. Many families might not be able to afford to allow both parents to take all the leave that is available to them. We should do all we can to provide for the flexibility that is needed by parents in managing their family affairs. We should not put brick walls in their way. We should provide for that flexibility as long as it does not affect anybody else. We should stand back and let parents make their own arrangements because they know best. It is not up to us to dictate to them. We should do all we can to help out.

See this speech in context