Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

The reality is that choices need to be made.

Senators Norris and O'Toole mentioned force majeure leave and the need for parental leave when children are hurt in accidents or are ill. As I stated, the parent is entitled to take time off under the force majeure provisions of the principal Act.

Both Senators Norris and O'Toole referred to force majeure leave for same-sex couples. The parental working group recommended that the issue be addressed. Section 12(4) of Sustaining Progress contains a Government commitment to examine the steps necessary to give effect to this recommendation. I have much sympathy for the case made by both Senators. There is no doubt there is a discrepancy in that heterosexual couples can avail of force majeure leave to look after each other as well as parents, brothers or sisters, for example, while same-sex couples cannot do so for each other. It is not necessary to make provision in this regard in this Bill. If the Government decides to grant statutory entitlement to force majeure leave to same-sex couples, it can do so by ministerial order under section 13(2) of the Parental Leave Act 1988. In the context of my role as Minister of State with responsibility for equality, I believe there is a case to be made for force majeure leave for same-sex couples. I will be recommending it to my colleagues in Government. It is a matter for Government but the case made by both Senators merits positive consideration.

On the question of obtaining leave in respect of a child until it reaches the age of 12 months, as raised by Senator O'Meara, family leave is available for this period. If one adds up the 24 weeks of maternity leave, 16 weeks of which are paid, the 14 weeks of parental leave for a father and the 14 weeks of parental leave for the mother, one will note that it amounts to a year's parental leave. Arguments were made about the attractive periods of leave available in other countries. It is a question of making progress by degrees.

Senator Cox raised two issues in respect of the blocks of leave. This was debated in the talks on Sustaining Progress and it was agreed that there would have to be a ten week gap to provide for the difficulties experienced by small companies. We accept the point made and will re-examine the issue to ascertain whether there is scope for improvement. However, we are bound by the agreement negotiated in the talks on Sustaining Progress.

On force majeure leave in respect of agencies or temporary working arrangements, whoever pays the wages of the worker is generally responsible for all elements of that pay. However, I cannot state the exact position on the question raised by Senator Cox in this regard, particularly in respect of the difficulties associated with a temporary agency worker moving continually from one employer to another and perhaps seeking force majeure leave in each employment. We will certainly consider this and revert to the Senator thereon at a later date.

I have confirmed the position on paternity leave for Senator O'Rourke. In answer to her question, I am not aware of any employer in Ireland making a parental leave payment.

Senator O'Rourke asked about the entitlement of an employee to return to the same job, under the same contract of employment, on the expiration of his or her period of maternity or paternal leave. This is possible under Directives 2002/73/EC and 2004/207/EC. Section 7 of the Bill provides for this important entitlement.

Many Senators, including Senator O'Rourke, mentioned child care. I must stand up for the older men of this country and state that I do not accept the age of chivalry died long ago. I accept that today's fathers may be better than those of the past but I do not accept Senator O'Rourke's description of older men. There may have been cases where they left all the work to the mother, but this was not the case in every household.

During the local election campaign of 1995 there was no mention of child care on the doorsteps, yet it was the main issue during the 1997 general election campaign. I distinctly remember this because I became Minister of State with special responsibility for children shortly afterwards. Over the course of two years, child care became the main issue due to the great and immediate improvement in employment possibilities and the very positive development whereby women were able to gain access to employment in much greater numbers than was previously the case. It was only in 2000 that I, as Minister of State with special responsibility for children, introduced the very first set of regulations to govern child care. There were no regulations governing crèches, playschools or any type of child care until then.

Child care is a very recent area of priority. While I accept all the points made, to the effect that there are not enough child care places and that child care is too expensive, and while we must certainly address the issue, it is only fair to refer to the very positive developments in this area. Some 33,000 new places are being created under the initiative launched a few years ago. In 1997, child benefit was €37 per month and the cost to the State was €505 million. This year, child benefit has increased to €141 per month and the cost to the State is €1.9 billion, or approximately four times that of the 1997 level. There has been no greater increase in any area of public expenditure than in child care. It is only proper that we recognise the work done and being done. I accept the point made by Senators that there is much more to do, that we need to increase the number of child care places and ensure that the cost of child care is kept down. That is a central element of Government policy.

I thank the Senators for their contribution to the debate this evening. We will reflect carefully on all the points. There are unfortunately several issues we cannot change but I welcome the positive tone of this debate. It will help me and my officials to consider amendments before we return to this House and go to the Dáil.