Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I appreciate that he, in his role prior to the Cabinet reshuffle, was very open to recommendations and proposals from the trade union side. I welcomed that openness. This must be borne in mind because it is with a sense of déjÀ vu that I will make the rest of my remarks. I would welcome a sense of openness to change on the part of the Minister of State. I warn him that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to which he has moved, has a very solid reputation for being less than flexible. I hope he and his advisers will go against the natural tendency of the Department to stick with proposals as made.

This Bill is important and I welcome the points the Minister of State made thereon. The progress it reflects, which I acknowledge, has been well recorded by him. However, it is with some disappointment that I make my contribution because I am making a speech I made in the House previously drawing attention to the measures that are not in the Bill. I fully expected certain provisions on same-sex couples to be included in the Bill on the basis of agreements and commitments made. I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on their absence.

The main problem with the legislation is that the leave is not paid leave. When a parent or couple have just had or adopted a new child, they should be entitled to paid leave considering the associated expense and difficulties. I spoke recently to a couple with a new child to obtain a general view on the cost of prams, cots, child minders and other expenses. Having a child can be very expensive and the couple in question need to be conscious of the kind of car they buy and the nature of the holiday they will take. The child affects every aspect of their lives, albeit in a very pleasurable way, and they were not in any sense complaining. We should recognise the expense involved in having a child and the forces of the establishment should ensure that we relieve the pain involved rather than add to it.

The introduction of parental leave in the first Bill, introduced some years ago, was very important. However, at that time it was argued that we could not really afford paid parental leave. We now have the fastest growing economy in Europe and of all the OECD countries and we have the spare shillings to provide paid parental leave. I do not seek too much and the Minister of State should take on board an amendment I intend to table to ensure we at least give consideration to and vote on the issue of paid parental leave.

Senator Terry has put this issue on record and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made the most serious representations to the Department thereon. Countries such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Italy all make some payment to people on parental leave. I fully acknowledge that the position is not the same in every country and that the Government might not be of a mind to give fully paid parental leave in all cases. However, I cannot accept that no move whatsoever has been made in this direction by the Government. Will the Minister of State consider the proposal by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to introduce a new benefit for those on parental leave? It is too much to ask people to take a complete drop in income when they have just become parents, taking on new responsibilities and facing all the associated costs. This is wrong and I ask the Minister of State to address it.

The Minister of State should consider the question of paternity. Paternity leave is very much hit or miss in Ireland. It is widely available within the public service but limited in terms of the number of days for which it can be taken, usually three days. It is good that it exists but there should be paid paternity leave for all workers. Surely we can afford it and it would be in the spirit of our Constitution. The Minister of State should give to his officials the two articles of the Constitution on the family and ask them what they mean and whether they should be reflected in this legislation. I discussed this with the Minister of State years ago and know that he would be open to paid paternity leave if those who handled the purse strings were prepared to loosen them. I ask him once again to make the case for paid paternity leave on our behalf and on behalf of those who require it.

If the United Kingdom, which has consistently opposed almost every social measure of the European project, including absolving itself of the commitments regarding the support for workers in every European country, has introduced two weeks paid paternity leave, surely Ireland can at least follow suit. If it is available in the North, the Minister of State should ask his officials to read the Good Friday Agreement and take on board what is meant by the proposal to have parallel legislation on both sides of the Border. The word "parallel" was not used in the Agreement — I cannot remember the exact term — but the proposal was such that there should be shadow legislation on both sides of the Border. This is a way forward and provides the Minister of State with strong grounds for argument.

We are seriously out of step with the rest of Europe on this issue and need to recognise the role played by fathers. A minimum of five days paid paternity leave is not too much to ask at a crucial time in a father's life and it should be provided for. It would be welcomed by all political parties. I know IBEC would whinge a bit about it but we listen to it whinging regularly. Let it say what it must. It will agree with the proposal in time. No doubt at the next round of pay negotiations, it will find some reason to use paid paternity leave as an argument for not giving as significant a pay increase to workers as the workers feel entitled to. However, a balance would be achieved at some stage. Let us face up to the matter. The Minister should step up to the plate and implement my proposal.

I welcome the increased flexibility in the Bill. The issue that concerns me most is the absence of any reference to the need for force majeure leave to be available to same-sex couples. I do not know why it is not provided for. While the Bill was in its final stages of drafting, a major debate was taking place in Ireland and the United States, during its presidential election, on the question of gay marriage and related issues. People were outlining arguments for and against it. Clearly, the need for force majeure leave to be available to same-sex couples is an issue of justice. This is why we fall into the trap of putting ourselves behind the eight ball time and again. There is no just reason a same-sex couple, committed to each other in a clearly established long-term relationship, should not be able to avail of force majeure leave. It is fundamentally wrong that they cannot do so. I plead with the Minister of State to make progress in this area and to articulate and manifest the socialism of which the Taoiseach spoke. No reasonable person on this island would object to the fact of two people living together, supporting each other, working for each other, and will not oppose a situation where such people are helped in their relationship. It is good for society and reflects well on us. It is needed and should be made available.

There are instances that should be considered in allowing people qualify for force majeure leave. One given was an emergency in school, such as a child having an accident, when a parent must take time off to rush to attend to the safety of his or her child.

Significant issues arise from this Bill and my colleague will raise that of same-sex couples in particular. I would not like that to be regarded as the view only of the gay community. It is widely believed in civilised society and I urge the Minister to take on board my previous arguments and add this to them.