(Limerick-East) asked the Minister for Labour if he will extend the scope of the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981 to benefit women on leave from work as a result of adopting a child.

When the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981, was being propared, the question of applying the legislation to adoptive mothers was given full and sympathetic consideration. However, in the light of various obstacles to providing for this and because working women becoming adoptive mothers almost invariably terminate their employment, it was decided, after consultation with both sides of industry, that adoption leave could best be dealt with through collective bargaining.

(Limerick-East): Is the Minister aware that there are four schemes in operation — the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment, the maternity allowance general scheme, the pay-related scheme applicable in both cases and a maternity grant scheme — which apply in cases of women in employment giving birth to a child, but which do not apply to women in employment adopting a child. Is the Minister aware of the full scope of this situation?

The Minister is so aware. The Deputy will be aware that in the Department of Labour, before legislation is introduced, comprehensive consultation is held with both sides, the trade union side and the employers' side, as it was, indeed, in the preparation of the 1981 legislation introduced by my successor, the former Deputy Nolan. Both the FUE and ICTU agreed in those consultations that it would be preferable to deal with the question of adoptive leave through the normal collective bargaining process. They discussed and consulted in some detail on the difficulties between the two positions as outlined by the Deputy. The wealth of experience of both these organisations led them to agree with the officials of my Department and the Minister at the time that any such cases arising, with the unlikelihood of their arising at all, would better be dealt with through collective bargaining.

(Limerick-East): How many women, and particularly married women, took part in these or other such negotiations about which he is talking? Is this a further example of men legislating for women? Is the Minister aware that under the Social Welfare Acts it is not a question of the maternity leave but that the monetary benefit is there specifically to alleviate the expense of having an additional child? It is equally expensive to acquire an additional child through adoption as to acquire one through natural methods. Is the Minister not aware that this is discriminatory against adoptive mothers?

Firstly, as the Deputy must be aware, legislation of the type he has referred to is normally the subject for consultations between the Minister, ICTU and the FUE. Whether their representatives are male or female is not determined by the Minister of the day. Secondly, some of the Deputy's queries are, perhaps, a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. On the area of discrimination, the Deputy's assertions are incorrect. If there is discrimination, it could be in the other direction. One could say that the adoptive mother does not go through the same difficulties, perhaps, as the natural mother. One could say that discrimination could be applied against the father in such situations. In fact, some member states of the EEC who presently have this legislation are being questioned by the Commission on whether or not there is discrimination.

Ceist 6.

On a point of order, I have been trying to ask a supplementary question. The Chair was not looking around the House.

I do not keep my eye on everybody.

With respect, it is worth keeping an eye on the Deputies wishing to ask supplementaries.

I am the judge of who is next to be allowed to ask a question, not the Deputy. I will allow the Deputy to ask a question.

It appears that the Minister is abrogating his responsibility——

You will have to frame your remarks by way of a question.

The Chair did not give me time to ask my question. I was only in the first sentence.

Supplementaries may only be in the form of questions, short ones.

I put it to the Minister that he appears to be abrogating his responsibility in this area to the FUE and the trade union movement. That is not something of which Members of this House should approve.

It will have to be by way of a question, Deputy.

Would the Minister agree that it is his responsibility to ensure that there is no discrimination in this area? Is he prepared to give this House an undertaking that steps will be taken to place adoptive parents, or the adoptive mother, in a position of equality with the natural mother?

I have already outlined to the House the very wise approach to legislation of this nature by me, in my time in the Department of Labour, and by all my predecessors, in having discussions and consultations with both sides of industry. This is the right approach and is the approach I would follow as Minister for that Department. The other point of discrimination does not arise, as I outlined to the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Noonan. If there is alleged discrimination, it would come about by introducing the suggested legislation.

Would the Minister confirm that his extensive consultations did not include the Association of Adoptive Parents? They were not consulted?

Of course, they were not. I explained the reason for that to the Deputy. He should be long enough here to realise that matters affecting labour legislation involve consultations with both sides of industry, ICTU, representing the trade union side, and FUE, traditionally representing the employers' side.

If the Minister were to amend present legislation to provide equal rights for natural and adoptive mothers, he indicated that this would be discriminatory against natural mothers. Is the Minister suggesting that?

No, Deputy, not against natural mothers, against adoptive mothers in that situation.

Is the Minister suggesting that the right which natural mothers enjoy under the various Acts covering this area is monetary compensation for physically giving birth to a child, or is it meant to be support for the child? Which is it that the Minister is suggesting?

Is the Deputy finished his question?

I am finished listening.

In the case of the question put by Deputy Noonan about discrimination against adoptive mothers in the existing legislation, the point I made was that that was not so and that if, in fact, the Act did cover the position of the adoptive parent, it could be claimed that it was discriminatory against the adoptive father. The Deputy now being, as I understand, a member of the European Parliament, should be aware of developments on the European scene. The European Commission have decided, on the recommendation of their Social Affairs Commissioner, to start proceedings in the European Court of Justice against three member states — Belgium, Italy and the United Kingdom — on this issue.

Could the Minister clarify——

I am sorry, Deputy. I call Deputy Noonan.

(Limerick East): Is the Minister aware that last week, during the debate here on the new Social Welfare Bill, his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, intimated that he was aware of the anomalous situation which existed here. He gave a rather tentative commitment to have another look at the situation in Cabinet. In view of that rather tentative statement, would the Minister have another look at the position in consultation with his colleague, Deputy Woods, because, regardless of what is done in Europe, there is discrimination here. It is anomalous and the Minister is in a position to change it to benefit adoptive mothers.

On the suggestion of any Deputy I will look at any legislation and possible amendments to legislation at any time, but the Deputy must be aware that there are problems and essential differences in this regard. As many Deputies know, the Adoption Board are most reluctant to approve of adoptive mothers unless they are available to look after the child in a full-time capacity. This is a problem which does not come within my ambit or under my control. I am not sure what comment my colleague made, but I would have no hesitation in discussing the matter to which he was referring. However, I would find it difficult to give a commitment in the House to the Deputy.

Would the Minister agree that the purpose of this legislation is to give monetary assistance and benefit for rearing the child?

The purpose of this legislation is as much directed towards giving the child-bearing mother an equal opportunity of working and an opportunity to be absent from work at a particular time in her life when she would prefer to be at home.

Does this apply to all areas of legislation?

No, I am talking about labour legislation. The Deputy may be wandering into areas——

The Minister wandered into other areas——

We cannot have a debate on the subject. A final supplementary from Deputy Shatter, please.

Arising from the Minister's reply and in reference to the equal opportunity to engage in employment that the Minister says this legislation confers on natural mothers, is he suggesting that there should not be a similar equal opportunity conferred on adoptive mothers? Arising out of the Minister's earlier reply and his suggestion that this benefit is in some way discriminatory against adoptive fathers, would he consider extending this whole area to provide a paternity allowance as well as a maternity allowance for both natural and adoptive parents?

The Minister has no such plans at present.

You seem to have missed me, Sir. I have been trying to ask a question.

We cannot continue with this question for the rest of Question Time, so this will be a final supplementary.

The Minister's replies were very exhaustive but I would like clarification on one point. The Minister made an inference that adoption societies will give preference to mothers who can afford to stay at home full-time. There is an alarming inference in that remark: that only mothers who are well-off enough to be able to stay at home will be allowed to adopt children. Does the Minister believe that practice is being followed by adoption societies?

I want to apologise to the Deputy if I conveyed the wrong impression by my choice of words. In monetary terms, it was not so intended. I meant to say that the experience of adoption societies seems to be that the adopting mother who does not work outside the home seems to be preferred when children are being allocated. Of course, it is not within my ambit or area.

Ceist 6.