David Norris (Independent)

I am very grateful to Senator O'Toole, not only for giving me the last five minutes of his time but also for making such a strong, coherent and dispassionate case for the inclusion of same-sex couples in this Bill. This is an important matter.

Usually the explanatory memoranda of Bills are helpful but not in this case, which assumes a familiarity with the principal Act that busy parliamentarians do not always have. It does not make sense unless one knows the principal Act well. A greater understanding of the deficiencies of we parliamentarians, and more detail, would be helpful.

One of the interesting issues in the context of parental leave is that we are in a somewhat anomalous situation in terms of payment. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Sweden make payments. In Italy, the employer pays 30% of the salary up to six months. In the Netherlands and Belgium collective agreements provide for additional payments while employees are on parental leave. Austria has legislated for paid parental leave for up to two years, which can also be taken on a part-time basis.

We are introducing this legislation, as is clear from the Minister of State's speech, in response to a directive from Europe. The move is not generated domestically. We are simply catching up with the rest but we have not caught up enough because parental leave is theoretical unless people can afford to take it. We understand this in terms of public policy because the public sector has three days leave but the private sector is not required to have the same. The legislation allows for flexibility, and many employers are very good in this regard. While I understand the financial restrictions imposed on them, there are many old-fashioned workplaces where this is not respected.

I am glad that Senator O'Toole spoke on the force majeure provisions and the absence of same-sex couples from the ambit of the legislation. It is astonishing and, I fear, part of a developing pattern. Of the social welfare cuts made last year those that remain in place involve the exclusion of partners in gay relationships and so on. There has been a succession of such measures. The Minister of State's speech today opens with the statement that the Bill is intended to "implement a Government commitment in the Sustaining Progress social partnership agreement." Why "a commitment" and not the various commitments of the partnership? One of the principal commitments, which was agreed with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, was the granting of parental leave for same-sex couples. It is a pity and a shame that this is not done, and I wonder why.

As Senator O'Toole said, there was no reference to this in the Minister of State's speech. A working party was established which looked at 18 areas. Did it look at this one? Was it asked to and, if not, why not? The Government seems to be avoiding this and in so doing it is out of touch with the rest of political life in Ireland.

The directive provides that leave shall be non-transferable between parents. There is probably a very good reason for this but I do not know it. The Minister of State does not say why. Among the interesting facts the Minister of State laid before the House is that in various surveys only 20% of eligible employees took the leave and, of those, more than 80% were women. The Minister of State could analyse that further.

I compliment the Minister of State on the Government's generosity when it looked at different age limits, two, four, six, eight years, or whatever. The working party recommended six but the Government chose eight. That is the kind of movement I like. It is a good idea. The Minister of State also said that certain groups are not entitled to this leave when he stated, "including long-term foster parents, partners to the natural parent of a child where the natural parent may be divorced or separated and has formed a new relationship through remarriage or otherwise and other persons in loco parentis". No reason is given for the exclusion of these people and we need a reason for exclusion from a benefit. It is important that a Minister state why any category of persons is excluded from a particular benefit.

The Minister of State spells out the benefits of parental leave for employers who, "benefit through increased employee satisfaction, improved attraction and retention of staff, greater productivity and decreased absenteeism". Why does the Minister of State or his advisers believe these factors do not come into play with same-sex couples? I hate to have to reinforce the point by saying I am a perfectly ordinary human being, the same as everybody else. If these factors affect heterosexual people they affect us just as well. If it is of benefit to the employers in the case of married or heterosexual persons living in committed relationships, exactly the same is true for homosexual persons.

This highlights the glaring lacunae in the Bill. Senator O'Toole has indicated that he will table one amendment which I will be happy to second, if he requires me to do so. I propose putting down an amendment to section 13(2)(f) which will have the effect of including same-sex couples. I will ask Senator O'Toole if he will be kind enough to support this matter. This omission is a type of discrimination.

In a briefing note to me, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions states:

Congress believes that workers who are in same sex relationships should be entitled to force majeure leave from their employment in the event of serious illness of their partner in the same way as other couples are.

Same sex couples are currently excluded from the force majeure provisions. Congress has campaigned to end this inequality and secured a commitment as part of the recent national agreement Sustaining Progress ,that "the steps necessary to give effect to the issue of force majeure leave in respect of same sex partners will be addressed."

The Minister of State has not addressed them. I propose to and I expect the Minister of State to accept the amendment because the Government has given a commitment which this legislation does not fulfil.

Otherwise, it is quite good legislation. The Government gave that commitment but did not get around to implementing it this time. I will help it do so but I expect the Minister of State to agree and accept the amendment. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions points out that this commitment from Government can be achieved through changes to section 13(2)(f). Congress states:

This section allows the Minister to prescribe other classes of persons who may avail of force majeure. Congress is calling for the Minister to fulfil the commitment in Sustaining Progress and amend the legislation so that same sex couples can have the same rights as other couples at work in relation to being available in emergency situations in respect of their partners. (Congress believes that this request is further supported by the rights given in the ECHR Act 2003).

I support Senator O'Toole strongly in requesting that force majeure leave is made available to parents where there is an emergency in school. If a child is in a serious accident or taken to hospital it is unrealistic to expect his or her parents to place their jobs in jeopardy simply because they are caring parents. I urge the Minister of State to also take this on board.