Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am very disappointed with the tone of the Government response in rejecting this Bill. For the Minister to deliver such a scathing response to a very well-intentioned Bill, which is supported by Opposition parties in this House, and then walk out of the Chamber without listening to a single response is very insulting to those of us who are passionate about this Bill and the positive implications we believe it will have for women in this country.

I will go through the Minister's response and deal with some of the points she raised. First and foremost, we are not seeking to reduce maternity entitlements. We seek to add flexibility to current entitlements to allow parents to share what is already there. It is already there and there is no cost to the Exchequer. Why not give parents the choice and let them decide what is best for them?

The Minister said she does not want to take away a "mammy's special time with her baby". That language is sensationalist and populist. Nobody is seeking to do that. I do not know if she was referring to mothers, their partners or their employers, because that is certainly not what we are seeking to do. If anyone seeks to force a woman against her will to return to work before she is ready, that should be a criminal offence that should be dealt with properly, but that is not something that anyone on this side of the House is suggesting. Were she here, I would say so to the Minister directly.

The Minister suggested that maternity leave would somehow become a commodity subject to negotiations.

I agree with Deputy Jan O'Sullivan who eloquently made the point regarding the idea that women need to wrapped in cotton wool and protected from their partners and employers. We are well able to protect ourselves. However, what we want is flexibility and a choice in existing legislation to allow us to direct our own future and family life and to make the decisions that are right for us. Currently, we do not have that choice. If a woman has given birth and is entitled to maternity leave, she either takes the full six months or whatever such leave she does not take is lost to the family. If she chooses to go back to work sooner, she must pay for childcare sooner because the dad or the other partner cannot take that leave.

The Minister did nothing to address the circumstances for a woman who is self-employed, owns her own business or is in political life. What do women in those situations do? Deputy Troy made a good point when he stated that women can often feel under pressure when they seek to advance in their career and want to get to work. That is their choice. They are under extra pressure, however, when they have to think about the fact that they have to pay for childcare because they want to go back to work sooner and they cannot even ask their partner to take the remainder of their maternity leave because that flexibility and choice is not available.

To deal with the EU directive, first and foremost, the requirement is that 14 weeks be made available but only two weeks must be taken. We are open to the tabling of an amendment to give effect to that. Any of the issues around the legislation and its implications for domestic legislation can be dealt with adequately by way of amendments, as is the case for any other Bill that has come through this House.

I thank the Sinn Féin Party and the Labour Party, and Deputies O'Reilly and Jan O'Sullivan, who spoke in favour of this Bill, clearly gave it some thought, recognise its intent and want to see it progressed and brought through the House. Both Deputies expressed dismay at tone and level of rejection from the Minister before she exited the Chamber, without giving due regard and consideration to what is being proposed.

As for the idea that there has been a lack of consultation, is every Bill that comes before this House subject to a public consultation process? It is not and why should it be? This is the House for consultation. We can discuss this together. The Minister even questioned whether there was a demand for this proposal or whether it was an issue. The fact that the woman either has to take the full leave or does not get it all and that the father or the other partner is entitled to only two weeks clearly shows there is an imbalance, which does not adequately reflect a modern progressive society.

In terms of levelling the playing field, and Deputy O'Reilly made this point also, there is no doubt in my mind that when a woman goes into an interview, she is treated differently from a male attendee at that interview if it is perceived that she is more likely to take maternity leave than her male colleague. That is the reality and a fact of life. We have legislation to protect against that, but we cannot prove that happens, even though we know it does. Any woman of childbearing age going for an interview will tell us that she is mindful and concerned about this. Women take off their engagement rings before going for interviews. They are afraid they will be treated differently and discriminated against because they might take the time off. This is the white elephant in the room.

The Minister spoke about the issues involved for employers and that it might be more difficult for them to get three months’ cover as opposed to six months’ cover. What utter nonsense. Is the difficulty not the fact that if a company has a policy of topping up maternity leave, it is far more expensive to top up a salary that is higher? We know about the gender pay gap. It will cost businesses a little bit more to top up the salaries of men who might take time out, and it may make it a little more uncomfortable for them to facilitate their male employees taking time out, but so be it. That is not the concern in this House, rather it is that we should be moving towards an equal situation where women have the choice to direct their futures and do not need to wrapped in cotton wool.

I sincerely hope that the Minister of State will bring back the comments from this House to the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, because until the vote on this measure next Thursday, there is time to facilitate this Bill moving forward and allowing for consultation with other Deputies and parties in this House. We are open to the bringing forward of amendments to make this Bill work.

See this speech in context