Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We should always be very careful about falling into global assumptions about men or women. The one thing I discovered in my work on equality, about which I was a bit surprised, is that women who have children work longer hours because of the financial imposition, and it is an area in which Senator Mary White has had an interest long before I ever got this job and we have discussed it on several occasions. We need to be careful we do not impose on people what we consider to be their protective role. That is something which surprised me.

A Europe, Middle East and Africa manager for Dell told me that it has taken a root and branch approach to ensure it supports and maintains, as far as possible, as many women as it can in its workforce because it considers them to be so valuable and the company asks them what they think would help them.

This Bill would clearly have an equality bonus because one would not have the obvious first impression by an employer in terms of women of child bearing age. Women of that age may not intend to have children or it may not be possible for them to have children but how can one convince someone sitting across a desk of that? I think it would have an equality bonus. This issue will bring us into different areas which are not necessarily connected to maternity issues at all but will open up the discussion in regard to other areas.

I think that for a while people thought the two officials sitting behind me and I lived together because we spent the six months of the Presidency working on the whole maternity-paternity leave area in Europe. We met all the relevant Ministers in Europe. I am sure that some day someone will make a freedom of information request in regard to that and thank us for our efforts. Unfortunately, there are some people who are more conservative than us, although sometimes one would think that was not possible, and they refused to move on this issue. However, we have not given up. We do not hold the Presidency anymore, so we do not have the type of influence we had but we worked extraordinarily hard on it and I think our efforts were appreciated. We are not the only ones thinking about this issue; other people in Europe are thinking about it also. Other countries are worried about the cost implications, as was Senator Feargal Quinn.

I thank Senators Mary White, Diarmuid Wilson and Darragh O'Brien for bringing forward this proposal. Their intentions are laudable, as I would expect, and worthwhile, as they recognise the important role that mothers and fathers play in the caring and nurturing of young children. I am well aware of the difficult work that goes into the development of a Private Members' Bill and, on many occasions since I have become Minister of State, I have paid tribute to colleagues in both Houses who have undertaken this task. I again acknowledge the hard work undertaken by the Senators in bringing these proposals forward.

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, has asked me to acknowledge the work of the Senators in preparing these proposals. As they may know, in his time as a backbencher, he was responsible for a number of Private Members' Bills which became law - I think more than anyone else. In the light of that record, he has asked me to say - and I agree completely with him on this point - that it is his firm conviction that Government should not automatically oppose a Private Members' Bill where it contains a good idea, even if it needs more work at a technical, drafting level. There are a number of problems with the detail of this Bill, as distinct from the principle, which I will come to those in a moment, but I would say to Senators and Members of the other House who may be thinking of bringing forward Private Members' Bill in the justice area in future that they might consider availing of a confidential consultation with the relevant departmental officials in a advance of publication. That is always helpful. The Department cannot express an opinion on the merits or on the politics of it and cannot help with the drafting but could point out any obvious technical problems with the draft Bill and give the sponsoring Member an opportunity to have these corrected. This would actually be a useful step as we parliamentarians could then concentrate on the substance when we debate the Bill rather than having to point to technical issues.

There are a few technical problems with the Bill, as published. I am slightly confused by a number of elements of this draft legislation, which I hope Senator Mary White can explain. These include that the Bill proposes to increase the number of weeks of maternity leave from 26 to 28 weeks and provides that this new allocation be shared - 14 weeks for the mother and 14 weeks for the father. This appears to be the intention, although the Bill has a number of drafting defects, including the proposed new section 8(1) to be inserted in the existing Act, which creates an entitlement of not fewer than 14 consecutive weeks leave for the pregnant employee or the father, that is, the word "or" means this is not for both. I am sure this is an error but the Senator might confirm this. It is easy to see how these things can happen without the help of draftsmen.

I might also mention the Title of the Bill, Parental Leave Bill 2013. The Bill, in fact, proposes to amend current maternity leave legislation and not parental leave legislation. For the benefit of doubt or confusion, I wish to set out the current position in regard to the various types of leave available. Maternity leave of 26 weeks, which attracts a social welfare benefit, is currently available to mothers, as is an unpaid period of 16 weeks. Adoptive leave of 24 weeks, which also attracts a social welfare benefit, is currently available to mothers, as is an unpaid period of 16 weeks. I note that the Senator's Bill is silent on the issue of adoption. I am not the only one who picked up on that but I am sure it is something which can be looked at. Parental leave of 18 weeks, which is unpaid, is available as an individual right for both mothers and fathers. This leave can be taken in respect of a child up to the age of eight or, in the case of a child with a disability or serious illness, up to the age of 16.

We currently have no provision for paternity leave which, in a number of other countries, is available to fathers. We should have provision for paternity leave in our system and the Government has agreed that we should have paternity leave. On this point of principle, therefore, the Government will not oppose the Bill. However, the Government cannot support the introduction of this two additional weeks paid maternity or paternity leave at this time. To come to Senator Feargal Quinn's point, last year close to 24,000 women received maternity benefit at a cost of over €300 million to the social insurance fund. It is estimated that the cost of such an additional two weeks would be in the region of €11.4 million per year. This, in itself, does not sound like a huge amount of money but it is just not feasible in the current economic climate. We need to avoid creating perverse economic incentives where higher paid men in employments that offer maternity leave on full pay would take the leave rather than the mother who is in a lower paid employment which only attracts the social welfare maternity benefit.

We need to take our economic realities into account and avoid increased costs and any dislocation in the labour market as far as possible in making progress in this area, although we are committed to making progress. Essentially, people in well-paid employment could gain an advantage rather than having people benefiting right across the spectrum. These are issues to be teased out.

A much more substantial frailty in the Bill is that the entitlement to 14 weeks leave for fathers is created without any qualification and without giving the mother any choice. We must be careful about that and there are many permutations. A mother currently has 26 weeks leave, which attracts maternity benefit, a social welfare payment, and this Bill would reduce that to 14 weeks without any consultation with the mother. This new right is given to fathers without any qualification, regardless of whether there is a continuing relationship between the parents, the circumstances of the conception or whether the father is spending any time of any nature with his child or making any contribution to his child's support. Are we serious about reducing a women's entitlement and transferring it to the man without regard to whether he has any involvement with the child? I do not think we are but the issues can be examined.

I do not support the removal of an existing right, especially in this area, where women have had to fight over the generations for the right to maternity leave and not be discriminated against because they take such leave. That relates to Senator Moran's point. There is also the right to return to work and to the same pay and conditions as before. Nothing in this proposal should weaken the rights of women, and I am sure everybody agrees with that point. This proposed Bill also requires the mother and father to take the leave at separate times and I do not understand the reasoning behind this aspect of the proposal. I imagine that in certain cases both the mother and father may wish to consider taking leave together to cope with the demands of a young child, and anybody in that position knows that it is great to have another person available when the other takes a rest or takes a break from night feeds. Nevertheless, I am interested in understanding the Senator's views on this aspect.

Notwithstanding the obvious flaws in the Bill as published, it is timely to take on board the idea of creating a provision for paternity leave by allowing maternity leave to be shared with the father in certain circumstances. As I stated earlier, we do not have a statutory provision for paternity leave but it is important that fathers and their important role in nurturing children are acknowledged. I consider this an omission in our current system, especially in terms of promoting greater equality in society by encouraging a fairer sharing of domestic responsibilities between men and women. Evidence from countries such as Norway indicates that paternity leave - aside from its social benefits and positive impact on fatherhood - promotes equality for women and supports a higher level of female participation in the labour force.

I favour a flexible approach to address modern workplaces and give working families maximum flexibility in choosing how to divide leave and life. There must be a period of compulsory leave for the mother for health and safety reasons, and that is currently six weeks in our system, with two weeks before the birth and four weeks afterwards. I favour an approach whereby the mother remains in control of the leave but can decide to share some of it after the compulsory period with her partner. How much can be shared would need to be considered in detail and we would need to consult relevant parties, not least with mothers. Such a flexible system would help to create a system of parental leave that works for modern lives and respects a family's right to choose how to care for children. This flexibility would also enable working fathers to take a more active role in caring for their children and help towards reducing the gender bias that currently applies to women's careers.

In summary, the Government cannot support the proposal to increase the overall length of maternity or paternity leave and cannot support a proposal that fathers would have an automatic right to 50% of the available leave allowance, regardless of whether there is a relationship with the mother. However, I am suggesting to Senators that the Government will accept the principle of the Bill, which is that we should have provision for paternity leave on a shared basis in our family leave system. We will accept it on the basis that we will not take Committee Stage until the first quarter of next year. This will allow us to consult more widely with employers and trade unions, relevant non-governmental organisations and with women groups, as well as with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Social Protection in order to design an approach that is affordable and feasible. This would also include consultation with the Equality Authority, soon to become part of the human rights and equality commission, on the gender equality aspects. The path to be followed will also have to ensure no major increase in public expenditure in the context of the State's current circumstances.

Following this consultation, the Government will bring forward Committee Stage amendments early in the new year. The shape of an amended proposal could possibly include maternity leave remaining vested in the mother; and the mother having the choice to share a part of the leave, to be defined and in any event excluding the minimum period which must be taken by the mother for health and safety reasons and to meet EU law requirements, with the father. The father will also have to meet the necessary social protection requirements in his own right with regard to social insurance contributions, etc., in order to receive payment. That point was raised by Senator Moran. Proposals may also include safeguards to avoid any dislocation or perverse incentives, and Senator White may know more about tackling this than anybody else because of her involvement in commerce. There would also need to consider similar provisions applying to adoptive fathers and mothers. We need to design an approach that will work and we need a full impact assessment on the amended Bill. I ask the Senators now for time so the Government can consult fully on the implications of the Bill and to allow for the development of a number of detailed Committee Stage amendments to address the issues of concern I have outlined. If that is agreed, we will not oppose the Bill.

As many Senators are aware, the Government approved proposals last December to draft a family leave Bill. This will consolidate all the family leave legislation, including that dealing with maternity, parental, adoptive and carer's leave, into one Bill. Responsibility for carer's leave is being transferred from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the Department of Justice and Equality in the context of this statute law consolidation exercise. This consolidation will involve examination of possible discrepancies and anomalies between the various Acts with a view to making the code more accessible and streamlined. This is a significant statue law consolidation and revision project on which work is ongoing. It is too soon to say when the Bill will be published but we are aiming for early next year. Depending on the timing of publication of this Bill, it may also be possible to incorporate the principle of the Senators' proposals in the consolidation Bill and still come back in the first quarter of the year. If that is not possible, we will return with amendments to the Bill in the first quarter of 2014 as a stand-alone exercise which can ultimately be incorporated in the family leave Bill.

I thank the Senator for her difficult work and I hope we can all agree on a way forward.