Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Adoptive Leave Bill 2004 amends the Adoptive Leave Act 1995 to implement several recommendations of relevance to adoptive leave made by the working group on the review and improvement of the maternity protection legislation. The 1995 Adoptive Leave Act provides leave similar to maternity leave for an adopting mother after the placement of a child into her care. The purpose of the Act was to redress a perceived anomaly that women who adopted children were excluded from the maternity leave entitlements in place under the Maternity Protection Act 1994. The 1995 Act replicates all the relevant benefits of the maternity protection legislation for women whose motherhood arises from adoption and its provisions were modelled on existing arrangements for natural mothers. Provision is also made in the Act for similar leave for men in exceptional circumstances which arise where the employee is a sole male adopter or if the adopting mother dies either shortly before or shortly after placement of the child.

The maternity working group, some of whose recommendations form the basis of the Adoptive Leave Bill, was set up as a result of a commitment made in the Government's An Action Programme for the Millennium and under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The working group was chaired by my Department and included representatives from all pillars of social partnership, relevant Departments, the Health Service Employers' Agency, the Health and Safety Authority and the Equality Authority. The group's recommendations were accepted in full by the Government. The Government also decided to amend the Adoptive Leave Act to incorporate, where appropriate, the improvements proposed to the Maternity Protection Act. The most important recommendation, which was to extend the duration of maternity and additional maternity leave by four weeks each, was immediately implemented by statutory instrument in March 2001, with identical increases applied simultaneously to adoptive leave and additional adoptive leave, again by statutory instrument. This brought the statutory adoptive leave entitlement, which attracts payment of salary or adoptive benefit, to 14 weeks and the additional unpaid adoptive leave entitlement to eight weeks. The remaining recommendations of the working group of relevance to adoptive leave require primary legislation to amend the Adoptive Leave Act and these will be implemented on the enactment of this Bill.

The Adoptive Leave Act 1995 was introduced to provide an entitlement to periods of leave from employment for an adopting mother after the placement of a child into her care on an equivalent basis to the entitlement to leave available in the maternity protection legislation to natural mothers. This equivalence was maintained in 2001 when matching increases in the periods of leave available to natural and adopting mothers were applied. In keeping with this policy, an amendment to the maternity leave provisions in the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 will also be applied to adoptive leave. Section 3 of that Act provides for the reduction of the compulsory pre-confinement period of maternity leave from four weeks to two weeks, thereby increasing the period of such leave available after the birth of the child to 16 weeks. With a view to maintaining the parity of entitlement between adopting and natural mothers, the Government has agreed to increase the period of adoptive leave by two weeks to 16 weeks. This provision in section 3 of the Bill effectively means that both natural and adopting mothers will be entitled to avail of up to 16 weeks' leave from work with payment of Department of Social and Family Affairs benefit from the time a child is born or placed into their care.

The increase in leave to 16 weeks will be implemented by means of an order amending the Adoptive Leave Act 1995. As Deputies know, the draft order was considered earlier today by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, and a resolution approving the order will be made shortly. The increase is being implemented in this manner so that adopting parents can avail of the increased leave provisions at an earlier date in advance of the enactment of the Adoptive Leave Bill 2004 to coincide roughly with the commencement of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004.

The adoption of a child into a family requires considerable advance preparation and adjustment. The adoption process is a long and anxious journey for adopting parents but happily in the majority of cases it culminates in the fulfilment of their wishes to have a child. For good reason, the preparatory and assessment process is thorough and demands the full commitment of adopting parents. It is important to ensure that those wishing to adopt are given every support throughout this period and that support extends after placement to allow time for bonding and adjustment. The measures introduced in the Adoptive Leave Bill will enhance the existing legislative provisions which support employed adopting parents. The Bill achieves this by allowing more flexibility in managing work and family responsibilities during this period and by offering greater employment protection to employees who exercise their right to adoptive leave.

A good approximation of the number of employees availing of adoptive leave may be deduced from the number of recipients of adoptive benefit payments made by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. In 2003, there were 183 recipients of adoptive benefit while in 2002 there were 215 recipients. The numbers of children available for domestic adoption in recent years has declined and given rise to a marked growth in the number of foreign adoptions. According to the Adoption Board, unofficial figures for 2003 show that of the 621 adoptions authorised that year, 358 were foreign adoptions, 92 were Irish non-family adoptions and the remaining 171 were adoptions within families.

As a consequence of the growth in foreign adoptions, the Department of Health and Children introduced a structured approach in preparing and assessing prospective adopters for inter-country adoptions. As part of this structure, adopting parents are now required under the standardised framework for inter-country adoption to attend a series of preparatory group sessions organised by their local health board or adoption agency. Participation in the education and preparation stage of the standardised framework is compulsory for adopting parents. Participation in the standardised framework will be made a statutory requirement under legislation to be introduced by the Minister for Health and Children to ratify the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. This important stage of the process gives prospective adopters an opportunity to learn more about inter-country adoption so they can make an informed choice as to whether this is an appropriate step for them to take. It provides them with an opportunity to evaluate and improve their own knowledge about inter-country adoption and a place to meet other applicants at a similar stage in the process and where mutual support and learning can take place.

The education and preparation phase of the process takes the form of a course normally comprising six to eight three-hour sessions, giving 18 to 24 hours of preparation over a four-month period. Alternatively, some health boards run the course over three days. I understand the Department of Health and Children is encouraging health boards to explore the possibility of introducing more efficiencies in the education and preparation stage of the inter-country adoption process which may result in classes being held outside working hours and a reduction in the time between the completion of classes and the placement of a child.

To complete the assessment phase of the standardised framework, all prospective adopters, whether they are involved in domestic or inter-country adoptions, are required to attend an average of five to seven pre-adoption meetings, each of about 1.5 to two hours' duration, with social workers. These meetings generally take place during regular office hours at the health board or adoption agency offices. However, this part of the assessment process also includes at least one home visit by a social worker.

Many employers allow their employees paid time off from work to attend pre-adoption classes and meetings. However, there is no entitlement to time off, paid or otherwise, for this purpose. As a result, some employers only allow time off for this purpose at the employee's expense. To alleviate this, the Bill provides a new entitlement for adopting parents to time off from work, without loss of pay, for the purpose of the pre-adoption classes and meetings which they are obliged by the State to attend as part of the adoption process. This new provision parallels the provisions in the maternity protection legislation for paid time off work before the birth for pregnant women to attend ante-natal care appointments and classes. By providing an entitlement to both adopting parents, it also recognises that the adoption process differs from maternity in that it requires the full participation of each parent throughout the preparation and assessment process.

Section 2 makes technical amendments to the interpretation provisions of the 1995 Act. I have already referred to section 3 which provides for an increase in the adoptive leave entitlement for employed adopting mothers or sole male adopters by two weeks to 16 weeks. Section 5 applies the increased adoptive leave period referred to in section 3 to adoptive leave for fathers in certain circumstances following the death of the adopting mother. It also provides that the Minister may, by order made with the consent of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Minister for Finance, extend the period of leave.

In sections 4 and 6, I avail of the opportunity presented by the Bill to incorporate directly into the principal Act the increased periods of adoptive leave and additional adoptive leave provided in SI 30 of 2001, the Adoptive Leave (Extension of Periods of Leave ) Order 2001. This will simplify the legislation.

I have already referred to the new entitlement provided in section 7 for employees to take time off from work, without loss of pay, to attend pre-adoption classes and meetings which they are obliged to attend as part of the adoption process. This new entitlement derives from an agreement negotiated with the social partners during the Sustaining Progress partnership talks in 2003. Subsection (4), which was inserted into the Bill following a Government amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad, clarifies that the provisions of this section apply to pre-adoption classes and meetings held within the State. Provision has also been made for the exclusion of members of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána from the provisions of this section in specified circumstances. It is intended that regulations under this section will specify the conditions with regard to time off to attend these classes and meetings.

Section 8 is a new provision which allows an adopting employee and employer to agree to terminate additional adoptive leave which is unpaid leave in the event of the employee becoming ill. Once the leave is terminated, the employee's absence from work is treated in the same manner as any other absence from work due to sickness, with the employee benefiting from payment of sick pay or disability benefit depending on the sick leave arrangements available under the employment contract. This provision applies a recommendation of the maternity working group.

Sections 9 and 10 are new provisions which allow an adopting employee and the employer to agree to postpone adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave or both in the event of the hospitalisation of the adopted child. The postponed leave may be taken subsequently in one continuous period commencing not later than seven days after the child is discharged from hospital. These provisions also apply a recommendation of the maternity working group regarding adoptive leave and are closely modelled on section 7 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004.

Section 11 amends section 12 of the principal Act to incorporate an adopting parent's statutory entitlements in cases where placement is of less than 24 weeks' duration. Section 12 provides that an employee's absence from work on additional adoptive leave will count for any employment rights associated with the employment with the exception of remuneration and superannuation benefits. It also provides that while absent from work attending pre-adoption classes or meetings, employees will be treated as if they had not been absent. This provision applies a recommendation of the maternity working group for additional adoptive leave and means that time spent on such leave will be counted as service for the purposes of calculating increments, annual leave and seniority.

Employees who are absent from work on adoptive leave, additional adoptive leave, or to attend pre-adoption classes and meetings are afforded protection under sections 13 and 14 with respect to the termination or suspension of their employment during such absence.

Section 15 strengthens the current provisions covering the return to work of an employee who was on adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave to give effect to the 2002 gender equal treatment in employment directive, Directive 2002/73/EC. An employee returning to work from adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave will have a statutory entitlement to any improvement in the terms or conditions of the employment to which he or she would have been entitled if he or she had not been absent on such leave.

Section 16 also ensures compliance with the 2002 gender equal treatment in employment directive by providing that in the event of an employee returning to work on the expiration of adoptive leave or additional adoptive leave but resumption of the same work is not practicable and suitable alternative work is offered, the terms or conditions of such employment shall not be less favourable to the employee than those of the contract of employment immediately before the leave. It also provides that such terms or conditions shall incorporate any improvement to which the employee would have been entitled had he or she not been absent from work on such leave.

Section 17 is a technical amendment which amends the notification requirements for employees with regard to intent to return to work from leave to provide for notification of intent to return to work from postponed leave.

Sections 18 and 19 provide for necessary amendments to sections 2 and 6, respectively, of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to take account of the new rights to time off to attend pre-adoption classes or meetings under the Bill.

Section 20 amends paragraph 5, Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended by the Redundancy Payments Act 2003, which specifies periods that do not breach continuity of employment, to incorporate periods of absence from work to attend pre-adoption classes or meetings. Provision is also made for the amendment of Paragraph 8A, Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended by the Redundancy Payments Act 2003, which specifies absences allowable as reckonable service, to incorporate periods of absence from work to attend pre-adoption classes or meetings.

Section 21 revokes the Adoptive Leave Act 1995 (Extension of Periods of Leave) Order 2001, S.I. No. 30 of 2001, as its provisions have been incorporated into this Bill.

I take this opportunity to refer briefly to other important developments taking place with regard to adoption. My colleague, Deputy Brian Lenihan, the Minister of State with responsibility for children, initiated a consultation process last year on adoption legislation. His intention is to undertake a complete review of adoption legislation in Ireland with the aim of making it more compatible with life in the 21st century by ensuring that it takes account of the huge changes in our society as well as changing trends and practices in adoption that have taken place since the 1952 Adoption Act. The consultation process was broad-ranging and examined a number of issues, including a draft Bill to provide for ratification of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and to make changes to the role and structure of the Adoption Board. The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption provides safeguards for children involved in inter-country adoption by regulating the processes by which children are adopted.

The consultation process also examined the provision of a structured and regulated way of providing access to information and contact for those affected by adoption. It provided many valuable insights into these and other sensitive issues needing to be addressed, either on a legislative or an administrative basis. The views garnered through the process have been examined in the context of preparing proposals for changes to the adoption legislation. I understand that the Minister hopes to submit proposals to Government this autumn and I look forward with interest to developments in this regard.

The Adoptive Leave Bill before the House is part of a suite of statutory work-life balance measures to which the Department is committed under the Sustaining Progress partnership agreement. The Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 implements in full the recommendations of the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation. Its provisions strengthen and improve the employment rights of pregnant mothers, women who have recently given birth and those who wish to resume work while breastfeeding. Regulations under the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 which have recently been finalised will provide for detailed arrangements on the new entitlements to time off from work, without loss of pay, for the purpose of attending ante-natal classes; breaks from work or a reduction of working hours, without loss of pay, for the purpose of breastfeeding; and to postpone the period of maternity leave in the event of hospitalisation of the child. The Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 will be commenced next Monday, 18 October.

The Parental Leave Act 1998 is also due for amendment in line with the agreed recommendations of a working group which reviewed that Act. On 8 September last the Government approved the general scheme of a Bill to amend the 1998 Act for priority drafting. I expect to publish the Bill later this year with a view to enactment at the earliest possible date.

I look forward to Deputies' contributions to the debate on the Adoptive Leave Bill. I believe the Bill represents a balanced and progressive response to the needs of employed adopting parents. It builds on progress already made on our employment equality legislation and marks another important step towards fulfilling the Government's commitments in Sustaining Progress. I commend the Bill to the House.

Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish the Minister of State well in his new portfolio and hope it goes well for him. He will certainly have plenty to do in this area of justice.

I acknowledge the work of the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation. Most of the recommendations it put forward have been addressed by this Bill. I commend the Government on bringing the Bill forward, although there have been some delays in doing so. Many parents have waited anxiously for it for some time and I am delighted it is now before us.

The adoption process is difficult and parents need all the support they can get to get through it, without the added worry of employment concerns. The Minister is aware that the adoption process is a long and tough experience. Applicants to an adoption agency undergo a detailed assessment which can last up to two years. As a result of this Adoptive Leave Bill, they can concentrate on the adoption process knowing that they will have the right to take time off work to pursue their dream of starting or extending their family.

I have a concern which I hope will be clarified. Adoptive parents will be entitled to take 16 weeks' leave after an adoption. This is different from the entitlement of natural parents who will have two weeks' leave prior to birth, giving them a total of 18 weeks' leave. Is that correct and does this imply discrimination against the person adopting a child? Although adoptive parents do not need to spend time in hospital to have the baby, they need preparation time off beforehand to prepare and organise for the arrival of the child. Will the Minister of State clarify that as I may be interpreting the provision wrongly? Both natural and adoptive parents should receive the same leave entitlement.

The Bill increases the amount of time off for parents. Similar provision is made for men in exceptional circumstances, for example, where the man is the sole adopter or where the adopting mother dies either shortly before or after the placement of the child. I discussed this point with my colleague, Deputy Enright, and I would like it clarified. Is a father entitled to the leave or must we assume that it is the mother or female parent who gets the full entitlement? Does a father only get it if he is a sole adoptor or if the mother dies? Surely, in this age of equality a father should be entitled to parental leave. Perhaps I have interpreted this provision wrongly, but should there not be an option for either parent to take time off. Adoption is difficult for both parents.

The Bill provides for time off work without loss of pay for employees to attend pre-adoption classes and meetings, which prospective parents are obliged to attend. Will the Minister of State illustrate the protection afforded to people whose employers do not adhere to this provision? What steps can be taken to seek recourse in a dispute? We have come across cases where employers do not always provide entitlements or cause difficulty and put pressure on people not to take their leave or time off. What will be done to redress situations where employers take advantage of their employees during the adoption process? Will a complaints board be set up? What provisions are made for self-employed people who want to take time off to adopt?

I welcome the extra leave and time off provided in this legislation. I also welcome the provision in the Bill where, if a child is ill or is hospitalised, parents can return to work for a time and resume the leave later when it suits them. If the parent is sick he or she can take sick leave and resume adoptive leave later. Will the Minister of State clarify what happens in a case where a person has commenced his or her leave, but the adoption does not go through?

If adoptive parents begin their 16 weeks leave the week before the adoption but the adoption breaks down because something changes at the last minute, can they begin the process six months later, for example, or is there a limit? I hope there is no limit. The Bill introduces all the working group recommendations and I have no problem with it per se but I seek clarification because there should be equal access to adoptions for both females and males.

The adoption process must be examined and I accept the Bill is one part of the legislative programme in this area. However, people are experiencing massive problems and delays, especially regarding inter-country adoptions. I have come across couples who have had serious difficulties organising adoptions in Belarus and elsewhere and that is a pity. They did not always get the support of the Adoption Board, to which they felt entitled. I recall one couple who felt they were nuisances even though they were trying to do some good for society, for themselves and an unfortunate child who needed a home. They were made to feel awkward about it and they were not helped, which is a shame.

Various Bills can be introduced to give people additional time off and so on but that may only amount to tokenism because the legislation must be backed up with proper services and information so that parents are given the help they need. I hope the changes the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, proposes to bring forward will reflect that. He has tried his best in recent years in regard to the adoption process but more must be done.

The Bill provides for couples to be given more time off to attend courses prior to adoption but there are significant waiting lists for both fostering and adoption in a number of health board areas. One couple who contacted me could have to remain on a waiting list for a course for two years. It could take two years for them to go through the process that would deem them suitable to become adoptive parents. Both of them are aged 40. They want to adopt children now because they feel they are at the right age but they cannot get accepted for a course to prepare themselves for adoption.

The Bill is a start and, while it is positive and welcome, a great deal more needs to be done. The Adoption Board must guide people through the process. The legislation will provide more or less equal rights for both natural and non-natural parents. The Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill 2003 passed through the House a number of months ago but people are not still clear about their entitlements under it. Leaflets were published and sent to homes or they can be picked up in social welfare offices but, despite this, the information regarding entitlements is not reaching people. There will always be employers who will not encourage employees to avail of their entitlements. They will begrudge them help on entitlements. There is an onus on us when we introduce new laws that improve entitlements to make sure they are successful. We need to inform and encourage people to seek advice, attend classes and so on regarding parenthood. We need to get the message out loud and clear. I commend the Bill to the House and I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, for bringing it forward.

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin (Kerry South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish the Minister of State well in his new portfolio. He will have a good start today because all the work on this legislation had been done prior to his appointment and he will, therefore, experience a honeymoon period.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the Bill and I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. Many of its provisions were addressed in the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 and we had a good debate with the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on that. The most notable and welcome provision is the extension of the period of adoptive leave, following the recommendations of the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation. I regret it has taken almost three years to bring the Bill forward in contrast with the recent Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2004, which was railroaded through the House at break-neck speed last week. This legislation could have been introduced sooner.

The perception for many years may have been that the arrival of an adopted child did not require the same advance preparation as did the birth of one's own child but this is not the case. The adoptive process is long and stressful for many parents, particularly where they adopt their child from abroad. The assessment process is intense, tough and lengthy for reasons we all fully understand and every support should be given to adoptive parents at this time.

I welcome the Bill if it provides more support and solace to prospective adoptive parents. Due to the declining number of children available for adoption in Ireland, there has been significant growth in the number of foreign adoptions. For example, in 1997, there were only 84 foreign adoptions and that number increased dramatically to 647 in 2000. I am not aware of current figures and I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide them. I presume they are significant because many people like to adopt foreign children.

With regard to foreign adoptions, the adoptive parents frequently must spend time in the country from which they intend to adopt the child. This will often mean having to take days or even weeks off work. A good friend of mine had to travel to the country involved on a number of occasions because difficulties arose. As Deputy English stated, couples experience difficulties with foreign adoptions and, while the time off provided in the legislation is welcome, it will not be sufficient in cases where there are difficulties. I understand we cannot legislate for that that but this issue should be examined in exceptional cases. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will update legislation on adoption in general and this issue should be considered then.

I would like him to address another issue. I cannot understand why a woman must be younger than a man to adopt a child. Numerous surveys have been published over the years, which highlight that women live, on average, ten years longer than men. Perhaps the man should be younger. Why does a woman have to be younger than a man to adopt a child?

I am pleased with the provision to allow adoptive parents time off work to attend pre-adoption classes and meetings, as they are obliged to anyway. This was an anomaly when compared to the provisions for parents who have children naturally. Significant preparation is involved before the adopted child is brought into the family. It is a life altering change for adoptive parents and families and the ability to attend the necessary classes and meetings should not be constrained by work commitments.

All prospective adopters, whether they are involved in domestic or inter-country adoptions, are required to attend an average of six pre-adoption interviews with social workers to discuss their applications. These usually take place during the normal working day in the health board or adoption agency offices. This means, therefore, that prospective adoptive parents often have to give up a few days work to attend the interviews. The health boards usually provide courses and this often requires taking time off work as the courses run for a few days. Given the obligation on parents to attend these interviews, every support and all the necessary time should be given to the parents to fulfil these requirements.

This Bill complements that Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill 2003, which was passed earlier this year. While adoptive mothers do not have to go through pregnancy, their entitlements to leave from work should correspond to those for maternity leave. A new person is joining the family and an adoptive parent should be afforded the same time to spend with a new child as parents and a mother who has given birth to a child. It is, therefore, welcome that the Bill ends the noticeable differentiation between pregnant mothers and adoptive mothers in accordance with the Government's work-life balance programmes under the Sustaining Progress agreement.

I ask the Minister to indicate in his reply whether he is satisfied that the number of social workers who conduct interviews with adoptive parents and work with them before the adoption is sufficient to meet demand. I remember dealing not too long ago with a woman who had been through the adoption process and expressed concerns about the low number of social workers in the field. Up to a few years ago, the Southern Health Board had the highest level of applications for adoption of all health boards, with 23% of all first applications for inter-country adoption. I understand that approximately six staff deal with applicants in the Southern Health Board. Does the Minister think this is sufficient? Over the years many people who applied to adopt found they were too old to do so by the time they were interviewed by social workers. This is a shame. People who propose to adopt a child should be supported rather than left for years until such time as they are too old.

This legislation will have positive effects for Irish adoptive mothers in particular. As I said when I spoke on the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill in February, more and more women are in the Irish workforce. While women have been specifically targeted for employment in our workplaces at various times over recent years, many obstacles remain in their paths and many issues remain to be resolved. I refer Members again to recent statistics which bear out just how many women have joined the workforce in recent decades. The number of women working grew from 212,000 to 488,000 between 1976 and 1996, and by 2001 women comprised 50% of the workforce. The proportion of working women with partners and children increased from 44% to 50% in recent years. If we are to encourage women to remain in the workplace, we must encourage the introduction of legislation such as we are considering as well as more progressive provisions.

Changes in maternity and adoptive leave provision have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the number of women in the workforce. Many of the thousands of women who have joined the workforce in recent years are adoptive mothers and it is shameful that we are only now catching up after years of neglect in the adoptive leave area. In general, Ireland compares very poorly in a European context in terms of holiday entitlements for workers. We are far below the European average on public holidays and the amount of paid leave for employees in various circumstances. While the Bill goes some way to correcting this for adoptive parents, we have a long way to go to meet European norms of public and other holiday entitlement for the Irish workforce.

When I spoke here in February on the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill, I referred briefly to child care. It is fitting to refer to this subject again in the context of the Adoptive Leave Bill. With many of the deficiencies in the area of maternity and adoptive leave addressed, it is time for the Government to turn its attention to the enormous child care crisis. An effective solution to the crisis would obviously have major benefits for adoptive parents as well as all other new parents. When couples adopt, child care may be one of the first priorities they must address. Figures outlined in a survey recently published on www.recruitireland.com showed that many Irish workers now spend more on child care than on their mortgages or rent. Clearly, the cost of providing child care is a major economic disincentive to work and effectively excludes many parents, particularly women, from re-entering the workforce.

Given the cost of child care as outlined in the survey, it is clear that many parents and potential workers will not be able to provide such care without financial support from the Government. The Government has failed abysmally to meet the child care needs of working parents. Prior to the previous general election, the Progressive Democrats promised to fund an additional 40,000 child care places but the Government has come nowhere near meeting this figure. The Government has cut crèche supplements and slashed community employment schemes, including those which provided child care. Parents, including adoptive parents, require a range of options. There should be more workplace crèches and professionally-run child care centres. As a one-to-one private arrangement is most suitable for many parents, it should be possible for child minders to offer such a service without having to go though undue bureaucratic procedures.

While Ireland is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, we lag far behind most other EU members states in the provision of child care facilities. The Government should concentrate its efforts on State-provided and funded child care which is affordable and accessible. I ask the Minister to make child care a priority during the remainder of his term of office and to address the two main concerns I have outlined today. The first of these is the number of social workers who deal with proposed adoptive parents and the second the age limit at which a woman can adopt a child.

I take this opportunity to wish all adoptive parents well. Adoption is a difficult but very worthwhile process. The Labour Party will support this Bill which gives parents every assistance and encouragement. I hope the proposals the Minister of State Deputy Brian Lenihan, is considering will be accepted to give adoptive parents even more support.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Cuffe and Morgan.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill broadly. Its provisions will significantly extend the duration of adoptive leave by two weeks to a total of six weeks' statutory adoptive leave entitlement attracting payment. Such leave will allow an adoptive mother and child to bond at a vital time in the latter's young life just as a natural mother bonds with her child during his or her early days.

Psychologists contend that the baby-mother bond is a key one which has important indicators for future life. As the components for the development of a happy, healthy, independent adult are formed at an early stage, it is important that adoptive mothers be given the same opportunity to bond as a natural mother. According to psychologists, better bonding leads to more natural mothering, which is what the process under discussion is about. Experts and casual travellers alike have remarked that in more primitive cultures one never sees babies crying. A peace corps worker who was in Africa in the 1960s recalled that in a marketplace not one of the 50 babies present and tied to his or her mother's back with a knotted shawl was crying. We have a great deal to learn from such cultures about the mother-child bond. Paediatricians and psychologists agree that where children enjoy a close, interactive relationship with their parents over an extended period, they appear to be more balanced and satisfied generally.

The forerunner of this Bill was the report of the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation. It was a landmark report as far as adoptive parents were concerned. The improvements in adoptive leave provisions are being synchronised with the maternity leave provisions contained in the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004, which is only right. The Adoptive Leave Bill should mirror the 2004 Act as adoptive mothers and their children find themselves in similar circumstances to their counterparts. The same demands are placed on them and children have the same needs in terms of feeding and waking times. A child has a package of needs whether he or she is the child of an adoptive or a natural mother and we should strive to ensure equality in the legislation.

In times past, grandparents were available to educate young mothers in the care of children. That luxury no longer exists as grandparents are now likely to be much younger and in the workforce. It should be recognised in legislation that young mothers must learn the necessary skills on their own. The decision to implement in full the working group's recommendations heralded a new deal for adoptive parents. It is not that long ago since the rights of adoptive parents to any leave was a mere pipe dream. The injustice of the situation was quickly corrected following completion of the working group's deliberations.

Prior to 1995 an anomaly existed whereby adoptive mothers were denied the same leave entitlements as in maternity cases. The 1995 Act was the first real step to correct that anomaly. The correction of the anomaly in the treatment of natural and adoptive parents is a matter of simple justice and is to be commended. The adoption process involves a considerable amount of emotional stress, with adoptive parents being in a vulnerable state at a difficult time. Adoptive parents suffer the same stresses as natural parents in terms of worrying whether they will cope and how the new baby will take to them.

Parents planning to adopt require counselling and support as many who choose to adopt do so from different standpoints and at different times. There are many issues involved in the process which is often viewed by parents as a nightmare in terms of the hurdles put in their way, such as interviews to determine suitability and so on. The many issues they have to address cause a great deal of stress, but they have to deal with the situation.

The Bill provides support for the stability of many Irish families. It further facilitates the adoption process by entitling parents to increased paid leave in connection with the adoption procedure. The Bill also facilitates a much greater retention of women in the workplace and contributes to a greater gender balance there as well as making a positive contribution to improvements in their quality of life.

Parents proposing to adopt from foreign countries require time off work to visit the country concerned and that raises issues such as security of employment. We must safeguard the employment of those who go the extra mile to ensure they can start a family. Parents may be required to spend protracted periods abroad meeting families and negotiating with foreign Government officials for two to three months before returning to Ireland with a child. The adoptive parents are also totally immersed in the customs and cultures of the country of the child's birth. The provision entitling adoptive parents to attend reparation classes and pre-adoption meetings with social workers and health board personnel without loss of pay is to be welcomed. While a natural mother requires a considerable amount of time off work to attend clinics, adoptive parents often need greater time off given their requirement to meet health board officials while going through the screening process.

Lack of child care programmes remains a serious problem. The Minister for Finance may be in a position when delivering the forthcoming budget to loosen the purse strings and introduce a child care payment or income tax relief for child care. Adoptive parents may be expected to pay for expensive crèche or child care facilities for the newly adopted child and, in many cases, this provides a disincentive for one partner to remain in the workplace. Child care tax allowances such as those provided in the United States or a special child care payment would enable parents to remain in the workplace.

The Bill represents a significant advance in providing for labour rights for prospective adoptive parents but we continue to play catch-up in comparison with some of our EU and non-EU counterparts. The legislation goes a considerable distance towards reconciling the imbalance which existed not merely between adoptive and natural parents but between adoptive mothers and fathers in terms of less equal or discriminatory treatment in the manner of the adoption.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party welcomes the Bill which is a step in the right direction in terms of modernising and improving the rights of adoptive parents. I note it follows the recommendations made by the working group and in that regard improves maternity protection legislation.

I have not had a chance to compare and contrast what is offered by the legislation and what is available abroad. I have briefly examined similar entitlements in the UK. It appears we are not going as far as the UK in certain instances. For instance, in the UK adoptive parents are entitled to two periods of 26 weeks to be taken as the parents wish. While I did not examine the issue in great detail I believe we should try to at least be equal to the UK in that regard and should perhaps look further afield at Scandinavia and go a little further towards meeting what is available there.

I was struck by the references in the Bill to gender which, it appears, stems from the principal legislation which places strong emphasis on the different roles of mother and father. I accept that may be the case in terms of the mother giving birth but when considering adoptive parents we should perhaps remove the references to gender as it may well be that the father is the primary carer. We should anticipate that likelihood and should gender-proof the legislation to allow either parent to take on that responsibility. We should also look ahead to a day when we need not consider gender as two men or two women seek to adopt a child. The legislation should anticipate such a situation.

I welcome the two-week increase in adoptive leave entitlements. The provision allowing employees to attend pre-adoption meetings makes a great deal of sense, particularly given that more than half the adoptions in Ireland are of children from abroad, with which comes enormous requirements to travel, language difficulties and financial issues. The picture on the front page of a newspaper earlier this week of the Taoiseach with five mothers with newly adopted Vietnamese children illustrates how important is the need to cater for those adopting from abroad. I can only imagine the Taoiseach was feeling a little broody following the taking of that picture given the charming faces of children and parents beaming into the camera.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Only slightly.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was a heartening sight to see. Some 336 adoptions in 2002 were of children from abroad, a very high figure. We must ensure we cater for the often onerous issues that arise when one is adopting from abroad. As a couple must adjust to a baby coming into their lives through natural birth, so too must adoptive parents. Very often it is a more difficult time for adoptive parents. Adopted children often have stronger emotional needs, something which should be reflected in the legislation. It can take adopted children a long time to adapt to their parents. Parents need time to get to know the child and to allow the child to adjust to its new life. The Green Party welcomes the main provisions of the Bill.

I would like to digress for a moment to speak about the onus on Irish society to become more child friendly. We need to look to all Departments and to work out whether we are creating an environment which is conducive to family life and the life of children. It appears that in planning of new residential estates we are planning more for the motor car than the child. There are good models abroad, in Germany and the Netherlands, where streets, towns and communities revolve around the needs of children. The streets are safe for them to play on. Play areas are provided and that stops children going near the road. How other countries look at the needs of children in society should give us food for thought. While I have not been to Scandinavia for some years, I remember there were pocket parks in almost every neighbourhood within which there appeared to be child care centres. These parks were located within walking distance of where the people lived. That is not happening in new or existing communities in Ireland.

Within the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council area there are only six playgrounds operated by the local authority, while in some counties there is none. That is an indictment of our failure to cater for the needs of children in the wider arena and should give us pause for thought. While the Adoptive Leave Bill 2004 goes a long distance towards meeting the needs of adopted children and their parents, we should look at the wider issue of making society cater for the needs of children. Those needs are not catered for if parents are looking at their watch as they drive their children to the play group or crèche before hurrying back into the traffic and coming back after dark to pick them up. Something is wrong there. We must change Irish society and put the needs of children first when planning policy.

Slightly more leave is allowed abroad. English legislation gives more time to adoptive parents and we should examine that model. We might also play down the gender references in the legislation. There is every possibility that the male would wish to be the primary carer and that should be encouraged in the legislation.

It is important that we get the early years right. This Bill is a step in the right direction and I hope we see more Government policies that put the needs of children first.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My view that this Bill came before the House as a crumb from the IBEC table to the unions was strengthened by the casual approach of the Ministers involved. Earlier today the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was ten minutes late for a committee meeting. I fully understand why he was late, given affairs in Roscommon and the issues of an urgent nature he has to deal with. At least when he came before the committee he gave a good account of himself, even if he admitted that the terms of the Bill could not be changed much because it was a done deal between parties outside this House, the social partners. He could not, therefore, make changes even if we had pressed him hard. That emphasises my view that this House acts as a rubber stamp on deals that have been done elsewhere. There are limited opportunities to make changes. I do not know if the Minister of State had the same difficulties in Roscommon as the Minister and I hope that the earlier suspension was not as a result of difficulties elsewhere.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill, which brings existing adoptive leave provisions into line with the provisions contained in the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act that was passed earlier this year, applying the recommendations of the report of the working group on the review and improvement of maternity protection legislation. That is some title. There will be no time delay in implementing this Bill despite the time lapse between the adoption of the earlier Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act and this Bill. The Minister clarified that this afternoon and I was delighted to hear that is the case.

This legislation is similar in nature so I feel obliged to repeat a number of points I made during the previous debate, particularly on the barriers to women who would like to combine motherhood with work. It goes without saying that adoptive mothers should receive the same level of pay entitlements as natural mothers. Adoptive leave, like parental leave and maternity protection, is at the forefront of the battle to bring about a better work-life balance for workers. I take this opportunity to question why the Bill to amend the Parental Leave Act is not due for publication until next year. That is unfortunate.

In terms of length of leave and statutory maternity benefit, we fall behind in comparison to other EU states. Sinn Féin believes we can learn much about maternity, adoptive and parental leave from the Nordic countries, where leave entitlements allow for babies to be looked after by their parents or a parent for the first full year of life. I reiterate the call I made during the debate on the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill for entitlements in this State to be increased to 26 paid weeks and 26 unpaid weeks leave to enable the new mother, adoptive or natural, to care for her baby during that crucial first year.

Sinn Féin does not believe the maternity leave provided in this legislation is adequate, welcome though it is. We call for the total period of leave to be increased to 26 weeks to allow for a greater period of leave after adoption. This is absolutely necessary given the difficulties with child minding faced by working mothers. If we do not facilitate such an increase in adoptive and maternity leave we will end up forcing working mothers to leave employment altogether. Ireland ranks bottom of the list alongside Greece and Luxembourg in terms of statutory maternity paid leave and maternity leave in an international global analysis of employment conditions and benefits in 60 countries published in 2003.

It is important to highlight the downright scandalous position of this State on paternity leave. It is incredible in this day and age that there is no legal entitlement to paternity leave, paid or unpaid. It is no surprise then that Ireland ranks bottom of the list in paternity leave. Most countries in the EU offer paid paternity leave, from two days in Spain to two weeks in France, while new fathers are entitled to a full four weeks in Norway. Fathers north of the Border, on the same island, just up the road, are entitled to two weeks paternity leave, yet there is no entitlement in this State. I ask the Minister of State in summing up to outline when legislation on paternity leave will be introduced. It is a linked issue and is particularly important. It should be introduced as a matter of urgency if the Government is to make progress towards the goal of achieving work-life balance. Is it the case that paternity leave is not being introduced because IBEC is opposed to it? Does it hold a veto in this area? That appears to be the case.

The quality of life for working parents with small children is severely affected by the lack of affordable child care. Parents are faced with the stark choice of losing one income if one parent stays at home with the child or struggling to find a place for the child in an expensive crèche. The OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Ireland — these bodies insist on long titles — published in July, found that access to accredited development programmes for children from birth to three years old in this State is very weak despite the fact that the development of quality child care is self-financing through increased tax returns from women's work and less dependency on social security. It recommended the extension of funded parental leave to one year following the birth of a child and suggested that in many countries individualised care of infants and the planned return of women to the labour force can be achieved most effectively through this policy.

Much needs to be done to remove the barriers to low and middle income families accessing child care, which remains scarce and overpriced. The OECD further criticised this State for the standard of access to early education for children aged three to six years and called for publicly-funded education for all three year olds. Until recommendations such as those made by the OECD are implemented, it will remain a constant struggle for mothers and fathers to combine work and parenthood. In particular, the principle that the best interests of infants under 12 months old are served where they remain in the direct care of their parents did not guide the Government in the drafting of this legislation or the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act. This was an opportunity to facilitate mothers and fathers to care for their children in the first year of a child's life.

As I stated in my contribution on the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act, this Bill offers very little. Without significant advances in the provision of affordable child care, more women will leave the workforce either because no child care places are available or because what is available is simply too expensive. Good quality child care must be made available to all, especially to those on low incomes. A universal entitlement to free pre-school must be introduced. The progress on child care to date from this Government has been miserable and is blatantly not a priority.

It is disappointing that this Bill delivers little for women seeking to combine motherhood with work. Its provisions are minimal and do not seek to make any real difference to the lives of working women. If this State and this Government is to develop real opportunities for the many thousands of women who earnestly wish to return to the workplace, those opportunities need to be facilitated through many of the measures I have commended to the House.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is minor legislation. It seems strange that the Government always wants to hang on to its little piece of inequality and discrimination, no matter how minor the legislation. I do not understand why adoptive parents cannot be given 18 weeks' paid maternity leave in the same way as a natural mother. One of the arguments made is that a pregnant woman needs to rest for two weeks prior to giving birth and two extra weeks are granted to allow for incorrect dates.

As Dr. Devins will understand, the process of adopting a child, whether within this country or from abroad, is tortuous. There are numerous meetings with social workers and a meeting in one's own house. One must obtain a passport and deal with many foreign embassies to arrange to travel to many of these countries, yet we persist with this discrimination. If there are approximately 1,600 adoptions per annum and the maximum payment from the Department of Social and Family Affairs is €172 per week, that amounts to €500,000 per year. There is no reason for this under the Unfair Dismissals Act or under the Adoptive Leave Act, yet it is included in the legislation. The only redeeming feature of the legislation is contained in section 3 which provides that the Minister may by order made with the consent of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Minister for Finance extend the period of leave. Practically the same words are repeated in section 5 which provides for the adoptive father to receive the extended maternity leave in the event of anything happening to the adoptive mother. The Minister of State should give a commitment now rather than wait to have it changed at a later date. He should give a commitment in the House, or outside as usually happens these days, that he will extend the leave to 18 weeks for both natural and adoptive parents. Those adopting a child should receive more time off before the child is placed in the household because there are so many more difficulties.

The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is undertaking a wide-ranging review of the adoption laws and issues relating to adoption here. I hope he shows a more enlightened approach than that shown in this legislation.

Adoption has changed dramatically in recent years. Few adoptions come from within the country as the vast majority of single mothers keep their children. Therefore, many of those who require an adoption must go abroad to get that child. They adopt children from countries which, by their nature, are deprived. We are aware of issues regarding China, Vietnam, Romania and other eastern bloc countries. In the past, the issue of adoption was unregulated except that it could be treated almost like a commodities market. Wealthy western people with no children travelled to these countries to meet dubious state agencies for the purpose of adopting a child. This involved an enormous cost to the agency abroad as well as the costs incurred by the parents in numerous flights to and from these countries and having to remain there for a week or two, yet this is something we do not take into account. That still happens. They must spend a significant period in the adoptive country. All this should be taken into account in the Bill. Given that we are not giving these parents extra time to fly abroad, the least we could do is give adoptive parents the same rights as natural parents who are fortunate enough to have a child of their own to rear.

Changes in society mean that both parents work and deliberately decide to postpone having a family to an age where many mothers' fertility decreases quite dramatically. Fertility can drop by up to 50% to 60% from the age of 25 to 35. There will be many more couples who have postponed having a family and who will realise they have fertility problems, that IVF will not work and that the only way they can have a family is by adoption. Let us get rid of this discrimination from the beginning and let us hope when the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, reviews the legislation, he will make it easier for parents to go abroad to adopt a child. They experience enough difficulties abroad without our stacking obstacles against them.

Most of the meetings with social workers who view the home are beneficial and are for the purpose of protecting the child. It is not that the State is interfering. The State is good in that respect in that it watches its duty to the child. We need to be more careful in putting through this legislation.

Adoption is a difficult and emotional subject. It was certainly an emotional subject from my point of view as a general practitioner when a husband and wife who were trying to adopt came to my surgery having failed to have a family. It is quite distressing for a husband and wife when they realise, having gone through all the tests and investigations, that they will not have a family of their own. Even at that stage, thousands of euro can be spent on expensive IVF treatments. When it comes to deciding to adopt a child abroad, they are in the dark concerning the problems they will incur before they can get that child home. I am in favour of much of what is set out in the Bill because it is for the protection of the child. While the child's circumstances and the country from which he or she comes may be disastrous — we all saw some of the children who came from orphanages in Romania — the conditions may not be much better in parts of China, and possibly Vietnam, although I do not wish to castigate these countries without having an enlightened child care policy. While the circumstances from which the child comes and goes to here are vastly different, we must look after those children.

Not all these are wealthy middle class parents with plenty of money to go abroad and adopt a child. Many who fail to have a family are not wealthy and do not have the money to throw around to adopt a child. We should examine ways to make life easier for these parents.

On the issue of maternity cover, 18 weeks' paid maternity leave is provided for plus an additional eight weeks without pay. This means a mother is entitled to a maximum of 26 weeks to bond with the child in any one year. Four weeks must be taken before the child is expected to be born and the remaining 22 weeks may be taken afterwards. There are major difficulties with a mother bonding with an adopted child. While the mother loves the child, there is an issue of bonding because the child is usually eight or nine months old. We should try to be more enlightened. There is no need to extend the paid maternity leave but there is a strong case to be made for it being more open-ended in respect of non-paid maternity leave. That incurs no cost to the State and so far as employers are concerned, they can recruit contract workers and need not concern themselves about employment law unless they must retain that person for longer than 12 months. If a husband and wife are fortunate enough to adopt a child from a foreign country such as Estonia, Latvia, some of the children may have been affected by the Chernobyl fallout, may have their own problems and may require a number of admissions to hospital or visits to a special unit until the problem is sorted. It would be good for us to be more understanding in this regard and perhaps make unpaid paternity leave more available to the parents involved.

I am sure the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will liaise with the Departments of Health and Children and Enterprise, Trade and Employment on this issue. They should carefully examine how we treat parents, especially those who have adopted children from overseas, because there may be complications when the bond between the child and the adoptive mother is not as strong as that with the natural mother. Such parents need time and space to develop a relationship with their children. However, if they are stuck in a rut worrying about how many weeks they have left, we will cause problems for ourselves.

Why should mothers alone be so tied to the full 26 weeks of maternity leave? Some parents, including our own, returned to work much sooner than after 18 weeks because that was the nature of their lifestyles at the time. Even now there are many mothers who would like to return to the workforce earlier but do not do so because they must look after very young babies. It may also be the case that a mother is self-employed and her husband may be an employee. Although some may think that a mother giving her husband the opportunity to take her maternity leave is a means of exploiting the system, it is not necessarily the case.

Self-employed people have their own difficulties in trying to keep their businesses going because they do not have the protection of paid employment. Therefore, if a mother were self-employed and felt the need to go back to work to protect her livelihood and business which supports her family, why should her husband not be able to avail of her remaining maternity leave, whether that is three, four or six weeks? It is not paternity leave but rather a continuation of the maternity or adoptive leave of the other parent which can be used to continue looking after the child.

We have come a long way in that we now believe fathers as well as mothers can look after their children. To extend the provision of maternity leave beyond the mother alone would be a progression of that belief. There is no reason it could not be made available to the father, although not straight away since mothers would usually like to take a minimum amount of time with their children. However, now that extended maternity leave is available, the option should be made available to fathers. Some people have been critical of the amount of maternity leave granted in Ireland, but I hope we never end up like the United States where mothers enjoy just six weeks' paid leave. It is not as easy to get unpaid leave there as it is to get eight weeks' unpaid leave in Ireland.

This Bill is a tiny aspect of the review of the adoptive laws and child care Acts that the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is working on but it offers the opportunity to examine the other issues I have outlined. We need to get rid of the discrimination. The 18 weeks' leave should be available to both parents. If anything, we should examine how adoptive parents can recover some of their costs if they have spent long periods abroad. Both parents should also have the opportunity to take up maternity leave cover. It need not necessarily be the mother.

I was surprised to learn of the 16 weeks versus 18 weeks figures. A constituent wrote to me about it and I thought it crazy at the time, especially so when one considers the amount of money involved. If the option is available to the Minister of State, he can make a statement that, along with the Ministers for Social and Family Affairs and Finance, both of whom should be easy to get through to on this issue, he will extend the period to 18 weeks for both parents. We can then plan on what we should do with the rest of the adoption laws.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I will not discuss the difficulties others have experienced. However, I wish to raise an issue which has been brought to my attention by adopted people, namely, the availability of counselling and assistance when they are introduced to their natural parents. I spoke to a man who had successfully traced his natural mother and was introduced to her with the State's assistance. However, he was left at that stage and no assistance or advice was available to either party to guide them through the difficulties and trauma they experienced. He said it was a difficult time for natural parents and adopted children alike. The man sought help, assistance and advice during the period. Although his case had a successful outcome, he was emotional about the needs of adopted people when they seek to identify and develop a relationship with their natural parents.

He was strongly in favour of some assistance or counselling being made available by people experienced in the area who understand the process a person goes through when they are first introduced to their natural parents, when they begin to explore different aspects of their lives and when the relationship develops. This is because it is natural that difficulties will arise between two people with different experiences who are linked together biologically.

My response was that there are many areas in need of counselling services, of which this is one. The area is neglected by the State and the relevant Departments. To be fair, it may not be the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which deals with this but rather the Department of Health and Children. However, this is a real live human issue which arises for many children, especially those who were adopted ten, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago and go on to meet their natural families. The numbers will probably decline because there is more openness between natural families and adoptive parents and their children. I know of families which have adopted abroad and have periodically taken the adopted children back to their natural parents to maintain some bond with them.

Adopted people beginning to research their natural parents should be trained to deal with the difficulties they will experience just by virtue of the fact of their making a decision to go to the State authorities to seek such information. There is also a difficulty in tracing people. I know a person who went to Dublin to trace his mother only to be informed that the mother had not consented and the name was not available. When the person went to the agency in Mallow he got the name and the mother was anxious to meet him. The point is that he went to an agency in Dublin which gave him information that the mother was not available, yet when he went to another agency, she was. There needs to be an examination of the co-ordination of information in that area. I would like to raise that issue at a later stage with the relevant section of the Department.

I recognise that it may not be an issue for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but I would like to use the opportunity to raise this important issue. Some adoptees feel that the person dealing with them should be adopted and that only an adopted person can understand the feelings and the emotions of an adoptee researching his or her natural mother and then meeting them and developing a relationship with them. They have spoken about having a support group of people who are adopted and have gone through that who would help others through it. Perhaps there is a way of making some information available. I do not have an answer to this. Perhaps we could have a counselling service that has researched, experienced and understands the various stages an adopted person takes from the time that he or she decides to research, meet and develop a relationship with his or her natural mother. Difficulties are experienced in that, both for the adopted person and the biological mother. I have not extended that to the difficulties for adoptive parents.

From my understanding, when a relationship develops with the natural mother and comes to an understanding and a good relationship, the adopted child identifies with the parents who adopted them because of the natural bonding that took place over the years. The relationship and bonding that existed will always put the adoptive parents first in terms of how an adopted person relates to both adoptive and natural parents. People are in need of help in this area. The Department of Health and Children should examine that and reply to us so that we can inform adopted people of the assistance the State can give to such people.

Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their contributions to the Bill and for the positive response to it. I will attempt to deal with the questions raised.

Having been Minister of State with responsibility for children for a period of almost three years, I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the Deputies on the issues which are wider than what is covered by this legislation today. The current Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is bringing proposals before Government in the autumn to deal with many of the issues raised, including the last issue raised by Deputy Neville. I concur with the sentiments expressed. It is an area where one experiences much emotion by people. The support given in times gone by was perhaps not as good as it should have been, but it has improved considerably and I acknowledge that there is a need for further improvement. When I became Minister of State with responsibility for children, it was not possible to adopt from China or Romania or several other countries. It is good to see that there has been significant improvement since then.

In answer to Deputy Moynihan-Cronin's question on the number of adoptions, the total number has increased. In 2002, there were 602 adoptions, of which 336 were foreign adoptions. In 2003 there were 621, of which 385 were foreign adoptions. It is good to see an improvement. One of the saddest things is to see parents who are desperate to adopt and who, for a variety of reasons, cannot adopt or are delayed by the investigations that must take place. Any improvement is good.

I appreciate the point made by Deputy English and Deputy Moynihan-Cronin on the delay in bringing in the Bill. In fairness to the Government and to my Department, this owes more to the delays in drafting legislation because of the workload of the Parliamentary Counsel. There is also a difficulty of getting time to introduce legislation to the Oireachtas. While it has taken some time, it is good to see that the Bill is before the House.

The Government has a good record in implementing its legislative commitments in the equality area. In 2004, we have had two important pieces of legislation, namely, the Equality Act 2004, which transposed three EU directives, and the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004. The Equality Act had an immediate effect and three sets of regulations have been finalised to allow for the commencement of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act next Monday, 18 October.

Deputy English suggested increasing the duration of adoptive leave to equal maternity leave. Section 3 of the Adoptive Leave Bill 2004 provides for a further increase of two weeks in adoptive leave to 16 weeks, as approved by the Government last October. The increase in adoptive leave linked the proposed reduction of the compulsory pre-confinement period of maternity leave. It effectively means that once the legislation is enacted, both natural and adopting mothers will be able to avail of 16 weeks' leave with payment of benefit from the Department of Social and Family Affairs from the time a child is born or placed into their care. Deputy Twomey referred to the issue of 16 versus 18 weeks, but there are a further eight weeks of unpaid leave and a further 14 weeks' unpaid parental leave. Further leave can be arranged with the employer. I think it is important to remember that the basis of this legislation was agreed under the social partnership process. It is important that we take the partnership approach to these issues, that the social partners are involved in these negotiations and that the proposals they devise are considered by the House and the Government.

We must try to agree to the recommendation of the maternity review group. These recommendations were arrived at following negotiations and compromise with the social partners. They should also be agreed in respect of adoptive leave. For us to depart in any significant way by giving additional rights to employees at employers' expense would be considered to be a breach of the partnership process. I am cognisant of that. Consequently, I am slow to accept some of the suggestions that have been made here today which would break the principle of partnership negotiation.

Deputy English and others raised the question of sharing the leave entitlement between adoptive parents. I understand that in the context of the consultation with the former members of the maternity working group on the amendment of the Adoptive Leave Act 1995, consideration was given to a proposal to allow adopting mothers to share their adoptive leave entitlement with their partners. However, the proposal was rejected as it would have constituted a significant departure from the Adoptive Leave Act 1995, the stated purpose of which is to redress the perceived anomaly that women who adopt children were excluded from existing maternity arrangements and to replicate all the relevant benefits of maternity for women whose motherhood arises from adoption.

Deputy English also raised the question of provisions in the event of an adoption falling through. If that were to happen, section 12 of the 1995 Act deals with that. The same applies in this regard as applies under the 1995 Act.

In terms of the rights of a person adopting or the rights of person who has adopted a number of times, the rights in the legislation are available for each adoption. They are not forfeited by circumstances such as those raised by Deputy English.

The lack of information on adoption and maternity entitlements was raised by Deputy English and referred to by Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. The Equality Authority is tasked with providing members of the public with information on their entitlements. This is supported by information provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and organisations such as IBEC and ICTU have provided considerable information and material on work-life balance measures. This information is also provided to employers and employees. I am satisfied that there exists a considerable volume of information on entitlements available. If there are any areas Deputies want to bring to our attention, we will certainly consider them.

On the question of dispute resolution, sections 30 to 40 of the Adoptive Leave Act 1995 establish redress procedures in the event of a dispute relating to entitlements under the Act. A dispute referred to a rights commissioner must be submitted in writing and made within six months of the issues arising. In 2002, there were 20 such maternity cases referred to a rights commissioner and already this year seven maternity cases have been referred. Either party to a dispute may appeal the rights commissioner's decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal once the appeal is lodged with the tribunal within four weeks of the decision being issued. Thereafter, either party may appeal from the tribunal to the High Court on a point of law.

The shortage of social workers and the issue of age limits was raised by Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. These issues were strongly articulated during the consultation process on the adoption legislation earlier this year which was conducted by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. The outcome of the consultation process is under active consideration in the Department of Health and Children. I expect the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will bring new legislative proposals to Government in the coming months. I will bring the concerns expressed by a number of Deputies in this regard to the attention of the Minister of State. Points raised by a number of speakers fall within the remit of that legislation rather than the adoption legislation being put through the House.

On the issues raised by Deputy Cuffe and the comparison he made between the situation here and that in the United Kingdom, in the Irish case there are a number of forces pushing the limits on statutory employment rights. There is EU legislation which imposes certain duties on the State to enhance employment rights. We have a good record on implementing EU requirements and often the scope of our legislation goes beyond the minimum EU requirements.

We have a model of social partnership that I believe the British would love to have. It has served us well in terms of creating all the conditions for employment growth in the economy. It has facilitated major increases in the number of people at work. The review of all the maternity legislation was carried out in a partnership process involving all the social partners. All the improvements agreed in this regard during the review were implemented in the Maternity (Amendment) Act 2004. This legislation brings those improvements into effect for employed adopting parents.

It is important for me, as Minister of State, and the Department to be cognisant of the negotiations that took place between the social partners and the agreements reached. I do not agree with the sentiment expressed by one Deputy that we should ignore the social partners and do what we want in this House. We have been well served by social partnership. This legislation reflects the agreement made in that social partnership process.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yet there was no gain for the small farmers.

Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Twomey raised the issue of a mother and father sharing their maternity leave entitlement. The maternity leave Act implements the EU pregnant workers directive 1992. This directive does not permit the mother to transfer a portion of her maternity leave to the father of their child. The father has an individual statutory right to parental leave of 14 weeks which may be taken at any time from the time the child is born up to the age of five. It is not a simple matter to make the change Deputy Twomey suggested because many such issues are governed by EU directives, as in the case of this specific issue.

An important point was made in respect of the process for adopted children making contact with their natural parents. That issue will be dealt with in a comprehensive way by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in the legislation he is about to bring before the House.

Child care provision was referred to by a number of Deputies. When I was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, the provision for child care was extremely poor. It has improved significantly. A total of €449 million is being spent on child care provision. Some €220 million is being allocated to private and community based child care providers. It is estimated that this will create 30,500 new child care places and will support more than 27,900 existing places on the completion of those projects. Some €43 million has been allocated towards quality improvement measures which include supports for the national voluntary child care organisations and the establishment of 33 city and county child care committees. While I accept the fair point made by Deputy Moynihan-Cronin that there is a continuous need for additional resources to be allocated to child care provision, with which no one could argue, it must be acknowledged that the increase in expenditure as a result of the equal opportunities child care programme 2000-2006 has been significant and it is making a significant contribution.