Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I support the Minister in not wearing a tie. I have gone all my adult life without wearing a tie and it has not impeded my competence and capacity.

I really welcome this Bill. It corrects and extends the benefits that are much needed. The Bill is essential. I am delighted that we are bringing parents' leave and benefit to five weeks, that we are extending the claim period up to two years, which is very progressive, and that the Minister is bringing it into being really quickly, which is to be welcomed. I know that people are relying on it for after Easter. I have had lots of emails from people asking if this will be in by Easter, so they will be delighted with this news.I know that same-sex parents of adopted children were inadvertently omitted previously and that we are catching up on the outcomes of the marriage referendum. I acknowledge that this was hurtful. I am really delighted that we stand in a place of equality today and that same-sex male parents are getting exactly what they deserve through that recognition.

The entirety of the Bill, therefore, sensitively extends leave and transforms it into a child-centred, equality-based provision. All leave provided with regard to a child coming into the life of his or her parents, either by birth or subsequently by adoption, is centred around the care of the child. Its purpose is to bolster and support equality of caregiving by the parents of that child.

In a week when we marked International Women's Day, it is particularly welcome that we are introducing a Bill which will ensure an entitlement to leave is shared among both parents. Indeed, the provisions of the Bill allow for up to four people to obtain State-aided leave with regard to a child, including the parents and their partners, if the parents are in new relationships within the requisite timeframe. Such provisions encourage the re-entry of women into the workplace and set a societal norm about fathers being liable for the care of their children. My husband has never referred to his care of our child as babysitting. He is probably reasonably unusual in that because I have heard men all too frequently referring to the care of their own children as babysitting. The care of the child is an obligation of both parents, regardless of gender. Just because a one gives birth to a child, it should not render any obligation of sole care.

The Bill is about transposing that EU directive of the work-life balance for parents and carers. It is needed, regardless of our EU obligations. I note that we are going beyond the requirements as per the set-out timeframe in transposing this into law here and now. We are not obliged to transpose it into domestic law until August 2022, and there is a two-year extension for its implementation. We still have some work to do on it. I am not ignoring that at all. I appreciate that we are not time-wasting either. We are moving quickly on it and implementing the requirements well in advance of the obligations. Therefore, I look forward to when its provisions are put in to their fullest extent.

I note the original directive states that:

Work-life balance policies should contribute to the achievement of gender equality by promoting the participation of women in the labour market, the equal sharing of caring responsibilities between men and women, and the closing of the gender gaps in earnings and pay. Such policies should take into account demographic changes including the effects of an ageing population.

I will leave it to my colleague, Senator Currie, to speak about this because it is, by far, her area of expertise. It is good to note that, however.

I will end on a highlight, although I have one problem. First of all, the rate of benefit inhibits people from taking this up. We will have a problem here. I have reservations about people actually benefiting from the leave because the rate of parental benefit is reasonably low. It would, therefore, prejudice the income of a family who were to avail of it if the provision were not there within their workplace. From that point of view, we need to look towards that in the long-term. While this Bill is progressive, we still need to consider that.

My biggest disappointment is that there is no provision in the Bill for lone parents. The provisions for parental leave can be claimed by up to four other people, that is, biological parents and their partners in circumstances where the biological parents are no longer together. I appreciate that the objective is to ensure the care is shared and does not fall to one parent. The criteria for claiming parental leave seem to set a pretty low bar if we look at cohabitees or civil partnerships. In fact, the provision for proving that the child is actually being cared for by a person not availing of the leave in circumstances where the parents are no longer living together is questionable. The threshold for parental leave is extraordinarily low when more than one person is claiming it but a lone parent who seeks more than five weeks is denied the leave. That provision appears to be a paternalistic provision that has been put in place to make sure that more than the mother takes leave, and I respect the fact it is an EU driven provision and not one that belongs to the Minister. However, if the mother needs the leave to care for her child, then she cannot avail of it. In the main, I completely acknowledge that one-parent families can be both male and female led but the vast majority of them are women. With the two-year extension, we have mothers who need to avail of the additional leave and who are parenting alone for a multiplicity of reasons. It could be that this includes women who have stood up to domestic violence, suffered a bereavement or a relationship break-up where the child has been weaponised by the other parent, which is all too frequent an occurrence. In those circumstances that lone parent is confined to five weeks with no supports and cannot nominate a mother or a co-habitee who they are not in an intimate relationship with to benefit from the extra five weeks. I think the criteria are a little unfortunate and I implore that if we are to liberate mothers, we ensure we do not inadvertently discriminate against them. I think also that this legislation is a lost opportunity. Throughout the pandemic I have heard from and engaged with individuals, and the organisations that represent them. One Family has been the main one and it has been extraordinary in advocating for a balance to be struck.

My colleague is going to identify the following issue but I want to mention it. While I am critical of the threshold and of who else can avail of the leave, and I stood here last Monday and gave out about the situation around surrogacy and the Minister was very kind and tolerant about it, the chink of light that I have found is if one is a spouse, co-habitee or civil partner of the biological father, then one will be able to avail of leave under this legislation that people, heretofore, for their surrogate-born children have been unable to avail of. For the first time, I see a possibility that the intended mother in these situations will get five weeks leave by virtue of their relationship with the father. I want to acknowledge and put on record my appreciation of that positive measure.