Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I thank him for introducing this important Bill. As he said, the Bill proposes to amend the Parental Leave Act 1998. It is also implementing part of an EU directive. It results from ongoing agreements between the social partners and the Government. The Bill is one of many necessary elements of the renewal and review of certain aspects of employment legislation. It further endorses the ongoing relationship between the social partners and the Government in respect of good governance.

There is no doubt that this legislation will give greater flexibility to young mothers and fathers who are thinking of starting a family. It will allow them to strike a balance between the competing demands of home life and work life. Not only will it facilitate the increasing number of mothers who are coming into the workforce, but it will also be extremely beneficial for fathers who would like to participate in the care and development of their children in a more meaningful way. I wish some of the Bill's provisions had been in place when people of my generation were starting their families. If a woman was working in the Civil Service in those days, as my wife was, she would be sent out on her ear if she decided to get married or to have a child. We have moved a long way in that respect.

I take on board the point made by Senator Terry about payment for this type of leave, which can be examined at some stage along the way. It may be something for another day, however, because there is disagreement at the level at which it is being discussed, as the Minister of State said. I do not think 25 weeks' paid leave would be appropriate. The countries that are operating this scheme are doing so at different levels — some of the schemes relate to five days and others relate to the full week, etc. If we are serious about giving leave — and we are — the suggestion that one should have to take leave at one's own expense may be prohibitive in many instances. It may render the legislation unworkable to a certain degree for some people. I do not doubt that many talented people were lost to the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the 1970s, when people had to leave work.

The Bill before the House and the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 complement each other. Other legislation that has been passed, as well as Bills currently before the Oireachtas, such as the Adoptive Leave Bill 2004, will also complement the legislation under discussion. The legislation will make life easier for those who want to live and work.

One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it will protect those who decide to take parental leave. They will be entitled to return to the same job they left and to receive any advances or benefits that accrued to the job in their absence. I welcome the new age provisions in respect of a person with a disabled child. Anyone who has had the additional burden of having to raise a disabled child will agree that they endure greater difficulties as a result. The provisions in question will be of great benefit. While the age limit of 16 years is good, it should be borne in mind that the period between the ages of 16 and 18 can be quite troublesome for the parents of disabled children.

Work-life balance initiatives are important, not only to help employees to combine employment with personal responsibility, but also to underpin the Government's social equality objectives. We need to develop measures which reflect the reality of modern life, for example in the workplace. The personal and social responsibilities of employees should be taken into account.

The increased number of women in the workplace has made a tremendous contribution to the economic growth we have enjoyed in recent years. When the then Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, discussed the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill 2003 in the House, he mentioned that 266,000 women were employed in the workforce in 1976, compared with almost 546,000 women in 2004. That is a tremendous improvement in itself. Approximately 39% of women were in the workforce in 1994, but a commitment was made in the EU Presidency's conclusions on equal opportunities for social inclusion that the figure would increase to 60% by 2010. The Presidency was so sure of that at the time that it thought the figure would reach 57% by 2005.

Before social partnership and the economic boom of the 1990s, many people would have liked to have had to balance their work and social lives. Many people did not have any work lives in those days, unfortunately. We have come a long way and it is an achievement in itself that we are discussing such a balance today. It is a demonstration of the tremendous success of the Governments of the past ten years, in particular, in generating employment for people.

The value to us as individuals in achieving a good work-life balance does not simply lie in achieving a better working environment. Each of us possesses a finite amount of energy and the secret is to try to use it in all the facets of our daily lives. It is clear that achieving a work-life balance does not simply involve limiting the number of hours one works. It involves giving people the autonomy to determine their own working lives and to manage them in a way that is more flexible and more suitable to their needs. That requires the Government, trade unions and everyone else concerned to examine a long-term approach to the matter. We are doing that to some degree as we move the agenda forward.

We should take account of individual priorities as our careers progress and our circumstances change from time to time. The demand of citizens and consumers for 24-hour, seven-day services is fuelling a need for a new approach. Technology allows us to extend the boundaries of our working life to such an extent that it can be difficult to determine whether one is at work or at home. I refer to workers involved in the technology sector, for example. Technology is a great enabler. It has the potential to deliver the flexibility we require in our working lives. People who work from home have to be careful to ensure that they do not become slaves to their computers. One should continue to enjoy one's work-life balance.

We might encounter difficulties if we do not continue to pursue this agenda as we are doing, for example, by developing new ways of thinking and ensuring that we do not have a shortage of workers or skills. If we continue to pursue the agenda as we are, we can retain a competitive edge at the coalface of business. I do not doubt that some changes in the legislation will lead to a certain amount of pain, particularly among small industries as they reorganise their businesses. On balance, I believe that nothing but positive progress can emerge from this process. It would allow skilled and loyal staff to be retained. It would certainly reduce absenteeism, increase productivity and result in more highly motivated staff. In those terms, it is a win-win situation for all concerned. I hope that as we move the agenda forward we can continue to improve working facilities for employees, particularly the good ones who want to do well and work in conjunction with their employers. I wish the Minister of State well as he moves the agenda forward and I commend him on this Bill.