Ivana Bacik (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the Bill of which we are very supportive. Indeed, the Bill has cross-party support, which is very welcome. As Senators said, and the Minister has acknowledged, the legislation is eagerly awaited and anticipated, in particular by parents who look forward to parental leave being extended from two to five weeks paid leave and, of course, to the expansion of the category of children who are covered from the first year to the first two years of their lives. Those are very welcome changes. The other changes the Minister outlined are also very welcome. The Bill will rectify, as he said, the anomaly in the current legislation that left married male same-sex couples unable to avail of adoptive leave. Indeed, also welcome is the removal of the presumption that the adoptive mother is the primary caregiver. That is a very positive and progressive change, on which I commend the Minister.

It is unfortunate that we have had a short time to consider the legislation given how recently it was published and the changes made. I wish to express my thanks to the Library and Research Service. I am sure that all of us have found its briefing very helpful. The service has certainly given us a good contextual background. Many of us are very conscious of the background to this legislation.

The Minister indicated that he will table amendments. Perhaps he might clarify whether it will be on Committee Stage in the Seanad or at a later Stage that he will table amendments to bring in the personal injury guidelines. In keeping with comments I and others have made during many debates on legislation, it is unfortunate that we are going to see totally unrelated amendments included in this very important Family Leave Bill. I know that these are pressing matters. We certainly will not oppose the amendments because we recognise their urgency and, indeed, recognise the urgency of this legislation itself. However, as a matter of good legislative and drafting practice, it is not ideal that these amendments would be in a different and unrelated Bill. Others have pointed out that this Bill is being introduced in International Women's Week. It is an important measure for gender equality although I agree with Senator Pauline O'Reilly's comments that childcare should not be seen as a burden, and nor should it be seen as a burden for women. It is frustrating that that language tends to creep in. We know that across the EU generally, men have a lower uptake of parental leave than women where it is available to both. It is positive that parent's leave is available on a gender neutral basis but we know that men have a lower uptake than women and we might say it is due to the two "Cs". Cash and culture are the two big issues that tend to create a situation where mothers are more likely to take the leave than fathers. The culture is that it is less common for fathers to take leave. The fact that men tend to earn more than women means that it is more of a financial loss, certainly to a heterosexual couple, where the man takes leave and the woman does not. That raises issues about the rate of pay of the leave.

While I welcome this legislation very much, we need to recognise the need for other changes, including a cultural change. I ask the Minister if the Government has a proposal to highlight the fact that this leave will be available on a gender neutral basis, to try to challenge stereotypes whereby childcare is always seen as a woman's responsibility and, in parallel with that, to address the cultural barriers, and the cash barrier, to men taking parental leave. I am very glad that the Minister indicated in the Seanad on Monday that he will be bringing forward the amendments to the gender pay gap information legislation within the next two weeks because that is a real gap in our laws at present. We simply do not have a legislative means for tackling this ongoing issue where women are paid less than men.

I want to address a couple of other issues around family leave more generally. I was recently involved in the Athena SWAN gender equality benchmarking process at third level, in Trinity College. One of the issues that arises across all third level institutions, although it is not unique to third level, is the issue not just of a right of return to work after availing of parental or maternity leave but how employees are treated when they return. That is crucial. We see in academia, for example, a pattern whereby those who return from family or maternity leave, typically women, miss out on promotional opportunities because they lack research time. They are straight back into full teaching and administration loads and they lack the time to carry out the research. Particularly when people are in their 30s is what makes the difference between promotion or non-promotion in academic settings.

That is just one example of a particular workplace setting but, undoubtedly, across different professions, from research I and others have done in law, we have seen the phenomenon of postponed parenting. Women are putting off having children until their career has got to a certain stage but then missing out on promotional opportunities because while rights to return to work are enshrined in law, there is no right to any phased or incremental lessening of duties on return. I put that out there. I am not sure if legislation is the appropriate place in which to make provision for that. There is a real awareness about this in the Athena SWAN charter and a growing tendency now for different institutions to adopt measures to facilitate women returning from maternity leave, or employees returning from parental leave, to buy out teaching time or to make some provision to ensure they have not missed out on promotional opportunities because they took leave. That is about culture also and it is a difficult one to address through legislation.

I want to address the issue that Senator Pauline O'Reilly mentioned. I thank her for expressing her support for a Bill I introduced in the House on Monday, which I hope we will have time to debate over the next month or so. It is a new reproductive health related leave Bill that I introduced having been inspired to do so by the work of Councillor Alison Gilliland and the Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO. I spoke about this on Monday. This is a Bill to provide, for the first time, specific recognition for those employees who need to take time off work because they have suffered early miscarriage or for other reproductive health related reasons, for example, to undergo IVF treatment.While our Bill is gender-neutral in its framing, this is a gendered issue because it impacts more upon women. We know from European Court of Justice case law that it is unlawful gender discrimination to discriminate against a woman who has taken sick leave to undergo IVF treatment. The INTO research shows there is a need to give specific recognition to this. We have, therefore, brought forward a Bill to provide for up to ten days' leave for reproductive health-related reasons and up to 20 days' leave for early miscarriage which, prior to the 24th week of pregnancy, is not recognised specifically in law. I ask the Minister to look favourably upon this matter. Senator Doherty has spoken favourably about this principle and we would be very happy to work with the Government in trying to get it into law, as will the INTO.

I very much welcome that we will see provision in law for Ministers to take maternity leave. I do not believe there is any need for constitutional amendment. Article 28.12 of the Constitution gives ample scope for this to be done simply through legislation. This is a progressive step and is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, which I again welcome.