Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I wish to compliment and commend Deputy Róisín Shortall and Deputy Catherine Murphy on introducing this Bill. It will be no surprise that the Labour Party will wholeheartedly support it and the principles set out in it. While we welcome it, we see it only as a first step or a start. I am sure the proponents of the Bill will agree with this sentiment. It is a strong overview to having gender-equal paid parental leave being introduced over a period of time.

The Bill is laudable and we are very supportive of it. However, I have a small concern. The Bill could have a unforeseen and unanticipated consequence. Parents in the higher income groups and with adequate resources could be in a position to avail of this unpaid leave. It would be people who would be better off, notwithstanding the laudable objective. I am sure that can be circumscribed in the scrutiny the Bill will undergo at Joint Committee on Justice and Equality.

A growing body of research outlines the benefits of paid parental leave to the health and well-being of a child. It also facilitates greater involvement of the father in the long-term care of the child. It would also facilitate and acknowledge the father's rights to parenthood as well as its benefits. Indeed, it was the Labour Party that pioneered and successfully introduced in the budget of 2015 two weeks paid paternity leave which came into effect in September 2016. It was the former Minister for Social Protection, and then leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Joan Burton, who was the driving force behind that significant change.

It was a clear recognition that fathers should have the opportunity to bond with their new born children and a further acknowledgment of the clear evidence that children perform best when they remain within the home of their parents for the first 12 months or so of their life. I recall the Labour Party election manifesto which was launched in February 2016 for the 2016 general election. We committed to protect firmly the six months paid maternity leave which had been in existence and the two weeks paternity leave which had been introduced in the 2015 budget.

In addition, there was a commitment to provide a further two weeks paid paternity leave and three months paid parental leave, with at least one month reserved for each parent, ensuring that every child could be cared for by their parents for the first nine months of life. That is essential and we must move towards it. We further committed to increasing this to 12 months over a five-year period. That commitment recognised the prevailing resources situation, which was meagre and challenging. Clearly, it could be accelerated in the current resource context and accommodated in an incremental way. It is probably not feasible to get all of this paid parental leave in one fell swoop, notwithstanding it would be desirable given the huge pressure parents are under and the wider pressures. However, it is important to get the acorn planted and the first seeds going with regard to paid parental leave. I have no doubt that is what the authors of the Bill are seeking and they see the Bill as the first step on the ladder, which is also laudable.

The Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, indicated in November that she wished to see shared parental leave introduced during the lifetime of this Government. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, referred to it as part of the programme for Government and I spoke about achieving this in a debate in the House three or four months ago, with combined leave of 52 weeks being divided between parents. This is in line with the European pillar objectives and the EU Commission proposals on extending parental leave, which would be shared leave between the parents. That would bring us into line with European norms, although it will take some time to achieve because we are somewhat slower than others.

As Deputy Shortall mentioned, the take-up of paternity leave is hovering at approximately 55%. It reminds me of the family income supplement, because many people are often not aware of the existence of schemes. I do not condemn the Department as it is good at advertising schemes, but sometimes things do not get across. Sometimes when people call to our clinics we are shocked that they do not know about some schemes. That is where the interface with the politician can be helpful, notwithstanding the abuse that can be hurled at us at times about clientelism and building up clients. The take-up of the paternity leave scheme is disappointing, but understandable. In many cases men are the principal earners and they often earn more than the mother of the child. The paternity leave payment is clearly not as attractive or adequate to enable them to take the leave. That might be a reason too. New fathers tend to take the two weeks in a continuous block but it can be taken anytime in the 26 weeks following the baby's birth or adoption. I recall explaining that to a father when he asked how one should take it. I told him he could even take it a day at a time if that suited him. The payment is approximately €235 per week. Employers need to top it up to make it more attractive.

I support the Minister's ambition to have one year's paid parental and maternity leave. It would be a significant game changer and move us in line with the system that prevails in the Nordic countries. I read with interest an article in The Timesnewspaper last December by Charles Bremner. He focused on the cultural phenomenon in Finland where the level of paid leave offered to parents has enabled that country to become the first in the developed world where fathers do most of the child care. Apparently, fathers spend more time with school age children than mothers do. There are 5.5 million people in Finland so it is not dissimilar to Ireland in terms of population. Mr. Bremner pointed out that an OECD study had concluded that Finnish fathers spend an average of eight minutes more a day with their school age children than mothers do. Fathers in Finland can avail of nine weeks paid leave after a child's birth. That probably accounts for it. Mothers only get four months, which is not as attractive as our system when one considers it overall. After that period, however, one parent can receive €450 per month and stay at home with the child. That provides the choice. Perhaps in Finland some of the mothers are higher earners so the fathers mind the baby. It is all about household income. That informs the choice. The advertisement promoting parental leave in Finland states:

This time creates the foundation for a lifelong bond. Working careers are long [one could say in excess of 40 years] ... Family leaves are quite short. Being a parent is your most important job.

US multinationals are in the news for many reasons but Google and Facebook offer fathers up to four months paid paternity leave. Obviously, they are very rich companies. This is clearly dependent on the private sector and it can be hit and miss depending on the size and the wealth of the company. The best solution is state-sponsored supports and regulation. Most countries with paid parental leave draw on public funds to support the policy. I support that, but it means we will have to pay more in taxation. I cannot speak about the Nordic services without pointing out that those countries have a higher level of taxation for them. We cannot speak with forked tongues. Most Nordic countries offer gender equal parental leave. They reserve a quota of non-transferable leave for the fathers. Professor Ingólfur Gíslason of the University of Iceland recently noted that a crucial element of increasing fathers' take-up of leave is economic compensation, which should not fall below 75% to 80% of their regular salary. He said, "Most young couples walk an economic tightrope and cannot really afford a major reduction in family income". As already stated, on average, men earn more than women so the family is very much dependent on the father's share of the family income.

All of that must be taken into the equation. The Minister of State is advising that we examine this in the overall context of how it would work in practice. This turns us to the argument now taking place across the globe, including in this country, on the necessity of closing the gender pay gap with regard to some of the major corporations and bodies, some of them in the public service. That would make it economically viable for men who are usually the higher earners, although clearly not in every case, to take time off to look after children. This dialogue has been focused on and advanced significantly in the Nordic countries, and it underlies their success in this area.

I support Deputies Shortall and Catherine Murphy on this Bill. Last November, the Government was a little slow in response to the EU directive. The Minister of State spoke about implementing it on a phased basis and the cost implications. Parents did not get much in budget. The Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, economic analysis showed they got very little, despite the cost of child care and everything else weighing down on them. There are only six countries where workers are not entitled to paid parental leave and this is one of them. There has been much talk about it and it is time we set about delivering it. It might well be on a phased basis but if we get on the first rung of the ladder we can achieve a great deal. This is an important debate and I again compliment Deputies Shortall and Catherine Murphy for bringing the Bill forward. It is an important contribution on this important issue.

See this speech in context