Seanad debates
Wednesday, 9 February 2005
Parental Leave (Amendment) Bill 2004: Committee Stage.
3:00 pm
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
We have examined this amendment carefully and tried to establish exactly what Senator O'Toole has in mind. Now that he has spoken about it, I feel even more strongly that to amend the Bill as proposed would not be in its interest.
Section 7(1)(b) already offers employers and employees a great deal of flexibility in how parental leave may be taken. This flexibility is enhanced by section 3(a)(ii) of the Bill. An employee already has a legal basis in section 7(1)(b) to apply to take leave in a format other than a six or 14 week block. The spirit of this subsection is a co-operative one between the employer and the employee so that, where it suits both parties, they may agree together on the parental leave being taken in whatever fashion they jointly decide.
To impose a statutory obligation on employers to expressly demonstrate a business case or a consequential negative impact to justify refusing an application for parental leave in a broken format would be futile and would merely add to the unnecessary administrative burden on the employer. The reality is that many employers and their employees already have a very flexible parental leave scheme which has been negotiated and is in place. Those that do not are unlikely to be more amenable to flexibility because they are obliged to receive and respond in a prescribed way to requests for greater flexibility.
In addition, amendment No. 7 is in conflict with the six weeks' advance notification requirements provided for in section 8 of the 1998 Act. My big worry is that this amendment would create unnecessary bureaucracy. If I really thought there was benefit to be obtained from it, I would consider it. However, in view of the cogent case in terms of the existing flexibility, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
No comments