Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

When dealing with legislation that affects children of a very young age, the main concern should be flexibility. That is all the amendment asks. There will be times when a manufacturer in September, for example, is preparing to fulfil an order for the Christmas market. Everyone accepts that it might not be possible for someone to take the extended time-off entitlement at that time. The same goes for the catering trade, restaurants, hotels, etc. leading up to the Christmas period. Again, it is understandable if employers tell staff that they just cannot be spared at that particular time, and offer to review matters later.

However, it is a question of flexibility and Deputy Morgan is quite right. Many good employers in this country are already being flexible. We all know working women who take a half day, day or two days off every week. That type of flexibility exists. If we were all flawless, there would be no need for governance, legislation and social controls. However, that is not how the world works. There are inflexible people who believe there should be no parental leave or maternity leave and that if parents choose to have a child, that is their responsibility. We hear such people often enough on radio programmes. They believe there is no social obligation to ensure that the future population of this country is treated with any respect or dignity. We need to legislate to ensure that such people do not have a free run and are not allowed to take positions contrary to the law enacted in this House. We are not here to force good employers into doing things they do not want to do anyway. We are here to ensure that good employees remain in the workforce and are not forced out of it by unreasonable employers. It is all about the old buzzword — flexibility.

See this speech in context