Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

As I cannot agree with the points made by the Minister of State on the amendment, I cannot support it for several reasons. The Minister of State cited the possibility of constitutional difficulties. This is the first time that he has raised that issue. We have been through Second and Committee Stages and it never arose. I am not sure what he is talking about when he refers to a cumulative burden on employers. People will not rush out and take all of next week off or whenever the legislation becomes law. In all likelihood, it is something that will be spread over several years. We are talking about an extension of eight weeks during a child's life, potentially a 12 year period, and about a parent having an additional entitlement to eight weeks leave. I do not think that is particularly onerous on anybody. It can be a win-win for employers because very often parents, especially women, find juggling children and work too much. Because of the lack of flexibility in they system, women often step out of the workforce, might resign from their job and stay out of the workforce for some time. Employers often invest considerable money in training their staff. They have loyal and responsible staff who do a good job whom they do not want to lose. That is why there are benefits for employers if they are in a position to show that flexibility to workers, recognise the realities of life where their staff are parents and that in the real world parents have children who need care and attention and time. There is no reason it cannot be combined with an active work life. As I said, it happens across Europe where there are far more generous entitlements to leave which mostly is paid.

I just do not buy the argument about undue hardship. I cannot imagine employers heading off to the High Court because a staff member wants to take an occasional few weeks off when their children are on school holidays or when there are other reasons a parent wants a little flexibility. I wonder from where these arguments are coming. The Minister of State is making this overly complex and I think he is bending over backwards to facilitate employers at the expense of employees. He says the ultimate goal is to provide for paid parental leave. Nobody disagrees with that goal and the sooner the Government legislates in that area the better. We will very much welcome it and the Minister of State will receive the full support of the rest of the House.

However, as I pointed out earlier, this is something different. It is about that flexibility during a child's first 12 years. The other point I would make is that what the Minister of State is proposing in the amendment is entirely unreasonable. This Bill is proposing an additional eight weeks that can be spread over a 12-year period. As I have said earlier, and as others have said, this is a very modest proposal. It is not a new proposal. We did not have questions being raised about constitutional issues, employers taking us to court or whatever when the original 14 weeks entitlement was introduced nor when that entitlement to 14 weeks was increased to 18 weeks. None of these questions was raised at the time. It is accepted practice that when a new entitlement is introduced it will incrementally improve and increase over the years as we become, as a society, more progressive and, it is to be hoped, more family-friendly.

As I have said, this is not new. I cannot see a difficulty with it. We are talking about a substantial period over which the leave can be taken. What the Minister of State is proposing is that we move in baby steps in extending this entitlement. He is talking about phasing that modest eight weeks over the next four and a half years. For goodness sake, let us be reasonable about this. Let us recognise the difficulties and the important role parents have in looking after their children. Let us be fair and balanced about it. What the Minister of State is proposing is not acceptable by any standards. Certainly when it has been mooted in recent weeks the reaction to it from parents has been very negative. There has been a lot of activity on social media and I think we have all received representations from parents. It is just not on to talk about this modest development being stretched out over such a long period of time.

I hope that in the spirit of new politics and co-operation within the House, the Minister of State will recognise the strong views expressed by all other parties here. We want to facilitate parents and to do it in a reasonable and responsible way. That is what is being proposed. I cannot see there being too much support for what the Minister of State is proposing to do here because it is unreasonable.

See this speech in context