Firstly I would like to thank Senators White, Wilson and O Brien for
bringing forward this proposal today. Their intentions are laudable and
worthwhile as they recognise the important role that both 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 I have many times since I have become Minister
paid tribute to colleagues in both Houses who have undertaken this task. I
again today acknowledge the hard work undertaken by the Senators in
bringing these proposals forward.
Minister Shatter also has asked me to acknowledge the work of the Senators
in preparing these proposals. As you may know, he has been responsible in
his time as a backbencher for a number of Private Members Bills that became
law. These are the Protection of Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998,
the Adoption Act 1991 (which was only the second Private Members Bill in
thirty-two years to become an Act), the Judicial Separation & Family Law
Act, 1989 (the first published Private Members Bill to be enacted into law
in over thirty years) and the Landlord & Tenant (Amendment) Act 1993.
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 the Bill 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, and I will come to those in a moment, but I want to
offer to Senators (and members of the other House too of course) that may
be thinking of bringing forward Private Members Bill in the Justice area in
future that you might consider availing of a confidential consultation with
the relevant Departmental officials in a advance of publication. The
Department can’t express an opinion on the merits or on the politics of it,
and cannot help you 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 can then concentrate on the substance when we debate
the Bill, rather than having to point to technical issues.
And there are a few technical problems with the Bill as published. I am
slightly confused by a number of elements of this draft legislation before
us today. 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 less than 14
consecutive weeks leave for the pregnant employee or the father (i.e. the
word ‘or’ means this is not for both). I am sure this is an error, but the
Senators might confirm.
I might also mention the title of the Bill – Parental Leave Bill 2013. The
Bill in fact proposes to amend current Maternity Leave legislation not
parental leave. For the benefit of doubt or confusion I wish to set out
the current position regarding the various types of leave available.
Maternity Leave of 26 weeks which attracts a social welfare benefit
is currently available to mothers. An unpaid period of 16 weeks is
also available to mothers.
Adoptive Leave of 24 weeks which also attracts a social welfare
benefit is currently available to mothers. An unpaid period of 16
weeks is also available to mothers. I note that the Senators’ Bill
is silent on the issue of adoption but I assume that this is an
oversight.
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 8 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.
The Government cannot support the introduction of this two additional weeks
paid maternity or paternity leave at this time. 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
2 weeks would be in the region of €11.4 million per year. This in itself
doesn’t 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 whereby 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. But we are committed to making progress.
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. A mother currently has 26 weeks leave which
attracts maternity benefit, a social welfare payment. 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 and indeed
regardless of 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. Think about that. 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 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 right to not be discriminated against because they take
such leave and 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 all of you agree with me regarding this point.
This proposed Bill also requires the mother and father to take the leave at
separate times. 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. I am interested in understanding the Senator’s views on this
aspect.
However notwithstanding the obvious flaws in the Bill as published, I do
consider that 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 said earlier we do not have a statutory provision for paternity leave.
However it is important that fathers and their important role in nurturing
children are acknowledged. I consider that this is an omission in our
current system, 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 shows 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 has to be a period of compulsory leave for the mother for health and
safety reasons – current 6 weeks in our system (2 weeks before the birth
and 4 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, not least with women.
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 their 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 leave/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 or not. That proposal in its detail is deeply flawed.
However, what I am suggesting to the Senators is that the Government will
accept the principle of the Bill, i.e. that we should have provision for
paternity leave on a shared basis in our family leaves system. We will
accept it on the basis that we do not take Committee stage until the first
quarter of next year. This will allow us to consult more widely with
employers and Trade Unions, with relevant NGOs and with women, as well as
with the Departments of Enterprise and Social Protection to design an
approach that is affordable and feasible. This would also include
consulting with the Equality Authority, soon to become part of Irish 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 will remain vested in the mother.
· The mother may opt 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 of course have to meet the necessary Social
Protection requirements in his own right regarding social insurance
contribution etc to receive payment
· Safeguards to avoid any dislocation or perverse incentives.
· Similar provisions will also apply 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 for the Government to 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 above. If that is agreed, we will not oppose the Bill.
As many of you will be aware, the Government approved proposals last
December to draft a Family Leave Bill. This will consolidate all the
family leave legislation (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 also to incorporate the principle of the Senators’ proposals in
the consolidation Bill and still come back in the first quarter. If not,
we will still come back with amendments to the Senators’ Bill in the first
quarter of 2014 as a standalone exercise, which can ultimately be
incorporated in the Family Leave Bill.