I move: "That the Bill be read a Second Time." I am sharing time with my seconders, Deputies Brendan Howlin and Ged Nash, who will be taking five minutes each.
Organisation of Working Time (Reproductive Health Related Leave) Bill 2021: Second Stage [Private Members]
Grand.
Five years ago, in 2019, I was approached by my Labour Party colleague, Councillor Alison Gilliland, who has since been Lord Mayor of Dublin and who was then an official of the Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO. She approached me because many members of the INTO had approached her and other officials to express concern about having to take time off work to undergo treatments for reproductive health-related issues, such as in vitro fertilisation, IVF. Many others had told her and other INTO officials of their experiences after losing a pregnancy early in term, before the 24th week. Some of them had reported having to return to work while still experiencing the emotional and physical symptoms of their experience – a number of them even still bleeding. All of them were traumatised by the experience and many felt unable to speak about it in their workplaces. If they were teachers, they felt unable to speak about it to their principals. All these women were united in not being able to acknowledge their experience in a formal way in the workplace or, indeed, to have any formal recognition of having had an early miscarriage or of having had to undergo IVF treatment.
This became a big issue for the INTO. In response, the union carried out a survey in 2019 and found that 60% of respondents, mostly women, as would be the case with the INTO membership, had faced reproductive health difficulties in their workplaces. Clearly, then, this was an issue for their members. A motion was passed at the union's annual conference seeking a change in the law to enable recognition of early pregnancy loss and reproductive health.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, to the Chamber. I was explaining the background to the legislation we in the Labour Party are bringing forward today. As I said, it stems from work done by the INTO and Councillor Alison Gilliland. I pay tribute to the INTO and to Alison for their pioneering work on this matter and for pushing this legislation. After passing the motion at its annual conference, the union approached me and my Labour Party colleagues to seek assistance in introducing a measure into law that would enable recognition for the first time of early pregnancy loss and of IVF treatment and reproductive health issues.
We worked on the Bill for some time and, in March 2021, I published this legislation as a Senator, along with other Labour Party Senators, to provide statutory leave to those suffering so-called early miscarriage, pregnancy loss early in term or needing time off for reproductive healthcare treatment.
The structure we used was to amend the existing Organisation of Working Time Act and to use that statutory framework to introduce this entitlement to a new, albeit relatively short, period of leave. I am conscious that we could have gone down a different route and used the employment equality legislation or the maternity protection legislation but we believed at the time that this was the appropriate framework because it already includes provision for force majeure leave. However, I said at the time we introduced this Bill that we would be happy to work with the Government to seek a more appropriate legislative framework, if required. We are not fussy about how it is done but we want some mechanism for women employees to be able to take reproductive health-related leave and to get formal recognition in the workplace.
We drafted this legislation following that input from the INTO. At the time, we knew that many teachers were suffering and enduring early miscarriage or pregnancy loss and finding their workplaces really not receptive or warm places in which to recover from their ordeal. However, nothing prepared us for the outpouring of correspondence we have received since we introduced the Bill from women across the country who suffered loss of pregnancy early in term, couples who have been balancing work commitments with IVF treatments and men watching their partners struggle with fertility issues. It has been incredibly moving. I have received highly personal and poignant messages from women struggling to conceive and having to undergo successive cycles of IVF without success and from women who have experienced miscarriage early in term and not so early in term. Miscarriage up to 24 weeks is simply not recognised in our workplaces and there is no entitlement to leave. Women have had to take sick leave or unpaid leave in order to recover from their experience.
What has been really moving is that some of the women and men who have disclosed the trauma of pregnancy loss to me had never shared it with others. The publication of this Bill and the debates on it in the Seanad that followed have uncovered a groundswell of feeling out there. We have talked about an unspoken tsunami of grief and the sort of loss that so many have experienced. It is, in fact, a very widespread issue but it is an unspoken one. We believe that publishing and bringing forward this Bill is also a way of highlighting this issue and this trauma and enabling more people to speak up and gain support from the experiences of others. It is what we call the need for leave when it matters most or the need for compassion in our law.
As with the campaign to repeal the eighth amendment, there is a groundswell of support for this and a sizeable group of people who feel that they were unable to speak up until now. This silence may have been due to stigma or just because it was so difficult to speak about their experience. As we know, reproductive healthcare has for far too long been marginalised as an issue in this country. That is why it is so important for us to push this Bill within the Oireachtas and to shift our workplaces to be a little bit kinder and more compassionate.
As I have said, we are conscious that a great many women have experienced this. It is estimated that 14,000 women experience pregnancy loss each year. Our maternity protection law currently only offers leave to those who endure this experience after 24 weeks. We need some recognition for earlier pregnancy loss.
This Bill passed through all stages in the Seanad and finished in that House last November. It had Government support there. We had hoped that we would today see Government accepting the Bill, at least on Second Stage, in the Dáil and then working with us to bring it into law in whatever format it wished. We are very disappointed to see the Government seeking to delay the Bill by 12 months when we know that an election is likely to have taken place in that time. One will certainly have had to have taken place within 14 months and yet the Second Reading of the Bill is to be delayed for 12 months. There is therefore no reality to the Bill becoming law during the term of this Government if the Government's amendment is accepted. That is deeply disappointing, not so much for us in Labour, but for all of those who are clearly and desperately affected. I urge the Minister not to move the amendment to delay the Bill.
We have seen the rationale offered by Government. It talks about the study it has commissioned. I will take the opportunity to thank those engaged in carrying out that study. I refer to the UCC pregnancy loss research group. It has conducted an incredible study into pregnancy loss in the workplace and it has been really valuable to see that work being done. Professor Keelin O'Donoghue, who has been leading the research, is in the Gallery for this debate. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, commissioned the research. He informed us of this research project in November 2022. He informed us of the plans in the equality committee following a Labour Party amendment to a Government Bill, which would have given effect to our Bill, being ruled out of order. We were concerned that the commissioning of the report might delay matters further but we now understand that the research has been completed.
I again thank Professor O’Donoghue, Professor Mary Donnelly, Dr. Marita Hennessy and Ruadh Kelly Harrington. They are to be commended on their extensive and detailed work, which I understand to shine a comprehensive light on the effect in the workplace of the experience of pregnancy loss and fertility issues. As I have said, these are issues that are very often shrouded in secrecy. In December, the research group presented preliminary findings to TDs and to the Labour Party and offered useful suggestions. Its survey of more than 900 individuals appears to confirm that 95% of those surveyed would seek to avail of specific leave if such a provision was in place rather than having to take sick leave or unpaid leave, as I have mentioned.
The work the group has done should serve as an impetus for Government to act and to work with us, the Minister for equality and other Ministers, if necessary, to find a way to make this legislation work. It is simply not good enough to see it being delayed further. My Labour colleagues in the Seanad, Senators Marie Sherlock, Rebecca Moynihan, Annie Hoey and Mark Wall, really pushed this legislation through in November and were really glad to get strong support from Government Senators as the Bill went through the different stages in the Seanad. It is therefore very disappointing to see a different approach now being taken in the Dáil and to see Government making use of this delaying tactic to delay further debate on the Bill for 12 months. I again appeal to the Minister of State to withdraw the amendment, to enable the Bill to pass Second Stage and to work with us - we are very happy to work with him - to see what amendments are necessary to ensure this Bill can become law. We would love to see it become law this calendar year, before the end of the Minister of State's Government's term.
I will point out that other countries have introduced this measure in different ways. New Zealand, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Taiwan and others all have some form of reproductive health leave. It is not unprecedented. We have seen the Government introduce domestic violence leave, which is very welcome. Indeed, this made use of a similar structure, being introduced through the Organisation of Working Time Act. It is beyond time for the Government to move on this Bill. I appeal to the Minister of State to enable it to pass Second Stage today. It will have overwhelming support in this House and from the many women and couples for whom it really matters.
I am very proud to second Deputy Bacik's proposal for this really important legislation. It is important for this House and for each of us to fully understand the impact of the pain and trauma caused by pregnancy loss. Many of us, and I include myself in that, have not fully empathised with those women, men and families who have endured such loss. It is only when you have experienced it directly or have been close to those who have that you can fully understand and comprehend the impact of early pregnancy loss. That is why this matter even being debated is of such importance. The struggle some individuals and couples have with fertility is also an issue of extreme importance that is addressed in this legislation. The scale of the impact of this is very significant. It is not a niche or minor issue but a very critical issue for a great number of citizens in our State who look to this House and to this Legislature to address issues of fundamental importance in their lives. We are well behind the most progressive countries in providing workplace leave to those who have reproductive health issues.
As Deputy Bacik has said, this has been debated as an issue for years now. This particular piece of legislation was introduced in the Seanad by the Labour Seanad group in 2021. In recent times, its advancement and progress has largely been led by Senator Marie Sherlock, whom I credit and thank for all her work, following on from an initial impetus from the Irish National Teachers Organisation's membership crying out for action in an area that affects a great many of them.
The facts are plain. Each year, 14,000 women in Ireland experience pregnancy loss. One in six couples experiences fertility issues. Those of us who know couples who tried to have children and have gone through IVF treatment are aware of the toll it takes on them, as well as the delight if fertility treatment works. We must support them. The citizens and couples in that position deserve the support of this House and the protection of this legislation, which will afford them time off work - ten days for a worker who needs to access fertility treatment and 20 days for a person who suffers pregnancy loss. A woman who loses a child before 24 weeks certainly deserves to have the time to come to terms with that personal trauma and difficulty.
As has been explained, these proposals enjoyed all-party support in the other House and passed all Stages unanimously. It would be a truly regressive step for this House to halt the progress of the Bill. Unfortunately, that is the intention of the Government. It is a tautology to suggest that it needs 12 months to further consider the Bill when it knows that delaying it for 12 months will mean, in effect, killing off this legislation for this Parliament. Even if the Bill passes Second Stage 12 months hence, there is no way it will pass into law in the lifetime of this Parliament thereafter. The Minister and the Government know that full well. I strongly add my voice to that of Deputy Bacik - all my colleagues will add their voices - to ask the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, not to move his amendment but, rather, to support the Bill through Second Stage and deal with any issues that might arise on Committee Stage to get good legislation for those who demand it.
I am privileged to support the Bill for several reasons. It is very much anchored in two areas of policy that are synonymous with the best traditions of the Labour Party, namely, workplace rights and the vindication of the reproductive rights of women. Pregnancy loss is utterly cruel. It is deeply personal, harrowing and physical and has a lasting emotional impact. For a woman who is going through that cruel loss, it is often far too painful to even discuss. It is not an illness or a sickness, however, and we should not treat it as such. It certainly should not be the case that a woman would be forced to produce the equivalent of a sick note to her employer to explain why she is not at work that day or week, or for her to have to take annual leave to recover or to organise her procedures through the IVF process. A woman who loses a child up to 24 weeks has no statutory entitlement to leave. A blunt and hard line is drawn, and that is inhumane, frankly.
The very fact we are looking at introducing a statutory right to time off at a time of early pregnancy loss says the conversation and the laws need to change. There is demand for this. Momentum is building and this will happen; it simply has to. The compassionate, humane and practical measures contained in the Bill would help to change that conversation and have a real and meaningful impact on the lives of women and couples. It is pioneering legislation and I firmly believe that in five or ten years' time people will sit back and say this is normal and how it should always have been and ask why we did not do it earlier. We need a statutory enforceable right to protected and ring-fenced workplace leave for early pregnancy loss and to accommodate the reality of the fertility journey for thousands of women and couples every year.
There are serious shortcomings in the Government's approach to publicly funded IVF but that is, to an extent, a discussion for another day. It is absolutely perverse, however, that we have correctly decided funded IVF is a public good, yet access could be restricted to those who can work flexibly unless a statutory right to leave to access it is introduced.
As we know, a woman going through IVF is at the mercy of her body as to when procedures happen. As things often do not go according to plan, using annual leave, for example, is fraught with danger and that adds to the anxiety the woman may already have. Procedures include scans, follicle examinations, egg collection, transfer and follow-up consultations. Unless the woman is in Dublin, Cork or another major urban centre where the facilities are available, the chances are she will have to frequently travel for up to several hours to access that treatment. If we are to have full and equal access to fertility treatment, statutory leave must be a vital component, otherwise the Government is selling a unicorn to so many women and couples.
To say Ireland has been conservative and slow on reproductive health rights is an understatement. As the Minister of State is aware, there is grumbling from employer bodies on the raft of employment rights legislation, minimum wage and pension reforms adding to what they describe as their burdens coming down the tracks. Many of the burdens, as they would describe them, the imposition of which was started by the Labour Party several years ago, are coming down the tracks but much of the reform is coming at once. That results principally from the failure of the Government in place from 2016 to 2020 to introduce the kinds of reforms we are seeing now, including those on the living wage, pension reform, pension entitlements and other employment rights.
Like my colleagues, I appeal to the Minister of State not to block or delay the progress of this legislation. It can and should go to Committee Stage. These are compassionate and practical workplace reforms that will make a significant and meaningful difference to the reproductive health rights of women, to their lives more generally and to the lives of couples. I ask the Minister of State not to fall into the trap of viewing reproductive health leave as a burden for business but, rather, as a practical and humane intervention towards a more decent, compassionate and caring society.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann resolves that the Organisation of Working Time (Reproductive Health Related Leave) Bill 2021 [Seanad] be deemed to be read a second time this day twelve months, so as to allow sufficient time for the development of Government legislative proposals before the end of 2024, in line with the principles of this Bill, following publication of a research study which has been commissioned and submitted to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.".
At the outset, I make the point to Deputy Nash that it will never be viewed as a burden, nor should it ever be so viewed. I pay tribute to the Labour Party for consistently bringing forward this legislation since it originated in the Seanad under Deputy Bacik. I join her in commending Councillor Alison Gilliland. I was very disappointed to hear Councillor Gilliland will not be seeking re-election. It is not the most parliamentary of language, but she is a good egg. She has been an excellent representative on Dublin City Council, as well as on the European Committee of the Regions on which I served prior to her with Councillor Niall McNelis and others. Just before Christmas, we had a really strong debate on the Bill in the Seanad, with contributions from across the House led by the Labour Party's Senator Marie Sherlock, as well as a particularly insightful intervention from Senator Mark Wall. I acknowledge the importance of those contributions.
I underline the seriousness with which the Government takes this issue. Unfortunately, pregnancy loss is experienced by a significant portion of society. I am at an age where every couple of weeks I get a phone call from friends, family members or upset couples, many of whom are at a stage where they are starting to give up as they do not think this will be for them. They are making that journey through IVF. It is a right, as I stated to Deputy Nash. When you get that phone call or meet the person for a coffee or a drink, the scale of the issue becomes clear.
The point was rightly made that this is something that happened in silence for far too long. It was seen as silent burden that fell solely on the mother. The partner was not expected to be able to show emotion or have a genuine sense of loss to the same extent. I appreciate there are different degrees of loss for a father and a mother or for a non-bearing mother and a child-bearing mother and that must be recognised. It can be particularly difficult for people to share. They must deal with that aftermath alone for too long. It is very sad. It is understandable that pregnancy, trying to conceive and pregnancy loss was a deeply private subject for so long, but I am glad it has changed. It needs to change further and having this debate is a good start in that direction. There is far more movement towards change. There has been a welcome move in society towards greater openness about miscarriage, pregnancy loss, the inability to conceive and the heartbreak it can bring.
This is an area where we see social media actually playing a good role. We criticise social media, rightly so. I have had my battles on there and have had my battles with the social media companies. However, this is an area where it is forcing people - it could be down to algorithms or whatever else - to be a lot more aware of what is going on, to have that conversation and to be a lot more open. I completely acknowledge that despite this, it is clear that parents who have gone through the experience would benefit absolutely from further supports.
Although there is no provision for the loss of a pregnancy prior to 24 weeks, the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 to 2004 provide for an employee to be entitled to full maternity leave in the case of a stillbirth after 24 weeks. The Paternity Leave and Benefit Act 2016 also provides for paternity leave in this situation. The Sick Leave Act 2022 provides for a statutory sick pay scheme for all employees who are medically certified as unfit for work. From 1 January 2024, this has been increased to five days, and it will rise incrementally to ten days by 2026. It is not the right vehicle but it is something that is there. This point was made appropriately from across the benches. I fully want to acknowledge that those experiencing pregnancy loss and other daily commitments that they have to go through go way beyond what is provided for in the existing legislation. The experience of pregnancy loss is sadly shared by far too many and there is room within our legislative framework to better care for working mothers and fathers who go through a pregnancy loss.
As a society we need to continue encouraging a move away from viewing pregnancy loss as something that must be dealt with in secrecy. Employees should feel that a miscarriage is a loss which they can share with their employer, recognising that they have suffered a bereavement and that they need time to deal with their loss. Reproductive health should also be supported in the workplace, and indeed reproductive rights, and I make that point deliberately. Employees should not feel concerned that an honest conversation about their pregnancy loss or reproductive health challenges will disadvantage them. I am sure that most employers would treat employees dealing with pregnancy loss or reproductive challenges in a sensitive manner, but additional support for employers or employees could be an advantage. As has already been alluded to, the Minister, Deputy O’Gorman, commissioned research to examine how best to support working parents who have suffered pregnancy loss and I will touch on this research a little later on to elaborate on the points made by Deputy Bacik.
The intentions and sentiment behind this Bill are absolutely laudable and I am fully in agreement with them. The Government recognises that this is an issue which should be addressed. However, we have now reached the point to drill down into the details and we have to recognise that this is an extremely complex policy area that requires detailed consideration and assessment in advance of progressing legislation. On this basis, I have moved that the Organisation of Working Time (Reproductive Health Related Leave) Bill 2021, be deemed to be read a Second Time this day 12 months, so as to allow sufficient time for the development of Government legislative proposals, in line with the principles of this Private Members' Bill, before the end of 2024, following publication of a research study which has been commissioned and submitted to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, in accordance with Standing Order 176(1)(i).
I recognise that this may come as a disappointment to many colleagues in the House. I wish to make clear that we understand the importance of progressing proposals in this area. This is not a decision we have come to lightly, rather there are steps we have to take to ensure this is done properly. I hope Deputies will take my genuineness and accept my bona fides. This is something we want to do. We want to do it as soon as possible but we want to do it properly. First, the Bill presents a number of potential regulatory impacts across a range of considerations and these potential impacts require detailed assessment and scrutiny in advance of progressing legislation. Second, a qualitative research study commissioned by the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, which examined the workplace experiences of people dealing with pregnancy loss before 24 weeks' gestation has only just been completed. When we took this in the Seanad, we had only had eyes on the explanatory memorandum so it is relatively fresh. It is only right that due consideration and analysis of its finding should be carried out in advance of progressing any legislation. Third, and this is more of a technical and logistical point, Government is of the view that the Organisation of Working Time Act is not the appropriate or logical legislative vehicle to provide for the proposed new entitlements.
With regard to my first point on the potential regulatory impacts of the Bill, a range of considerations should be given due regard in advance of progressing legislation in this area. For example, consideration will need to be given to extending this proposed leave to terminations of pregnancy for medical and other reasons. With regard to the reproductive element of the Bill, the legislation will need to provide for a detailed definition of medical terminology and the circumstances in which leave for reproductive purposes would apply. As this Bill proposes to introduce a new form of leave, detailed legislative provisions regarding the circumstances within which the leave entitlement would arise would need to be developed. Any new provisions may result in the requirement to amend existing relating legislation. In addition, the legislation would need to clearly define the circumstances within which sick leave or medical care leave would be a more appropriate form of leave for pregnancy loss or reproductive health interventions. Inconsistencies between the Bill and existing legislation are also apparent. While the Bill proposes leave with pay when a miscarriage occurs before 28 weeks' gestation, existing entitlements to maternity and paternity leave apply to a stillbirth after 24 weeks.
Further potential regulatory impacts would need to be assessed with regard to the employer and there are a number of elements to consider here. The Bill proposes an employee is entitled to leave with pay from his or her employment for 20 days in the case of miscarriage and ten days in the case of reproductive healthcare treatment in any leave year. Therefore, this proposed legislation would place a new and considerable financial requirement on the employer. It is therefore only right that we engage with businesses on this as there has been a great deal of change as has been alluded to. I stand over every single one of those changes. They are the correct thing and we want to see no backsliding on them. We will continue to go further as has been laid out in the programme for Government. However, there is currently no statutory requirement for employers to pay women who are on maternity leave, or those availing of maternity leave following a stillbirth after 24 weeks' gestation. Maternity and paternity benefits are paid by the Department of Social Protection to those who have a certain number of paid PRSI contributions on their social insurance record and who are in insurable employment up to the first day of their maternity or paternity leave. Therefore, placing this new financial responsibility on the employer deviates from current policy under which the State provides maternity and paternity benefits.
I have a good few more points and I do not know if I am going to them in time. If it is okay with those opposite, I will circulate the full extent of the speech and the Minister in summing up will be able to touch on all of them. I will skip ahead to a couple of points that are really pertinent in terms of the direction of travel in this policy area, that is, in relation to the Organisation of Working Time Act. As I have already laid out, we do not believe that this is the appropriate or logical legislative vehicle to provide for the proposed new entitlements. The Act was enacted to provide for the implementation of the European working time directive. As such, it sets out legislation regarding employees’ working time, such as an employee’s maximum working hours, entitlement to minimum rest periods and an entitlement to a minimum period of paid annual leave. The Act was not designed to set out the terms and conditions around the taking of specific forms of leave such as protective leave. The Act only references protective leave arrangements to clarify that they are not to be included in reference periods used to calculate maximum weekly working hours and nightly working hours. It is considered by the Government that discrete stand-alone legislation or an amendment to existing family leave provisions would form a more suitable legal basis for reproductive leave. Additionally, it is considered by the Government that it would be both more logical and appropriate to progress pregnancy loss legislation through stand-alone legislation or an amendment to legislation that already provides for protective leave. Such legislation has expanded in recent years to legislate for what has become known as protective leave entitlements in legislation in respect of maternity leave, paternity leave and adoptive leave.
Again, these are very technical details and it takes away from the real impetus of what is trying to be achieved here this evening. As I am sure colleagues will appreciate, these are the details we have to ensure are correct. I would like to emphasise that the Government understands the importance of progressing proposals in this policy area. We have tabled this motion today in the aim of developing appropriate and fit-for-purpose legislation that is backed by well researched and evidence-based policy which will serve society in the long term. I urge the House to agree to the motion for a timed amendment for 12 months. This will allow time for Government to consider the recently completed qualitative research study and to allow the development of Government policy and legislative proposals, in line with the principles of the Private Members' Bill, before the end of this calendar year.
The Minister of State referred to how disappointed we would be with a timed amendment. It pales in comparison to the disappointment that many women and couples will have who have had their eyes on this legislation for the last three years. We believe the Government is making a huge error, politically, in what it is doing here. Regardless of when the next election is going to take place, we know that a 12-month timed amendment in the life cycle of this Dáil means this Bill will never see the light of day again. It will have to be reintroduced in the next Dáil. Even if we did not have that situation, we have no confidence that the Government would do anything within the 12 months to bring this forward. There is no evidence it has done that with any of the other Bills that have come from us or other Opposition parties and that have received timed amendments. These timed or delayed amendments go back two and a half years, I think, from when the first one came in. They vary from nine to 12 months.
The Minister of State has said that this requires detailed scrutiny and that it is complex. We agree, and we feel the best place for that is on Committee Stage within the Oireachtas. If the Government wins the vote next Wednesday, this, as an issue and as a Bill, goes out the door and we will not see it again. What disturbs us most is that there is a template for actually getting complex pieces of legislation through. If we look at Coco's law, which started with my colleague, Deputy Howlin, who spoke a short time ago, and ended up being introduced and delivered by the Government in 2020, it was three years in development. It came from Opposition over to Government and we worked with the Government to get that done. There is a similar moral impetus to this legislation as well, and that is why we are bringing it forward. We are not wholly precious about every line or the Title of this Bill. We will work to get the essence of what this Bill is designed to do into law. We are bitterly disappointed for the women, couples and prospective mothers and fathers in this country who are not going to benefit from it for any number of years. I have spoken to women across my constituency and my own peer group. The Minister of State and I are of a similar age. There have been people in and out of my life over the last few years who have experienced fertility treatment and pregnancy loss, as there probably will be in the next few years. They need this legislation, and the Government is plainly denying them it. The 12-month timed amendment is an absolute cod, considering where we are and given the Government's track record on timed amendments. The piece of research that has been carried out by the INTO equality committee has done a lot of the initial heavy lifting. I think we can extrapolate its findings with confidence across many other, if not all, employment sectors and jobs. It is therefore absolutely unacceptable that we are in this situation in relation to this Bill today.
As I have said, our reproductive health Bill would remove the concern that prospective mothers have by providing up to 20 days of paid time off work in the case of pregnancy loss, acknowledging the profound physical and emotional impact that it has on individuals and families. Additionally, our legislation advocates for up to ten days of paid leave for those accessing fertility treatment. Again, the reasons for that have been outlined by my colleagues, Deputies Bacik, Nash and Howlin. There are 14,000 women who experience pregnancy loss every year. It is an extraordinary number and it does not come as a surprise to anybody in this House who talks to people in their lives and knows what their friends, family and peer group have been going through. The legislation offers empathy and dignity to workers of this country. It should be reason enough for members of this Government to immediately move to support the legislation through Second Stage and to get it to Committee Stage, where it can be rigorously analysed, teased out and amended as needs be to ultimately get it into law within 12 months, and not to delay it for 12 months.
Unfortunately, the Government as a whole has shown that when it comes to offering real and impactful change in this area, it has fallen short. I do not think this will be forgotten. The Government has misread the attention of the nation on this issue and I think it will pay a heavy price for that, because it is something that is deeply borne my many women - 14,000 a year - in this country. We also believe the Government's provision of publicly-funded IVF, which has been a step forward, leaves a lot to be desired. The legacy that this Government will leave in this area, by ultimately taking this Bill and ensuring it goes no further, will not be what be what it thinks it will be when it comes to the next general election. Nothing about this Bill cannot be enacted and amended in the next 12 months. It is a simple question of whether this Government wants to ensure that compassionate leave is available to people or not. That is how simple it is. That is the choice the Government has and the choice that, unfortunately, it has turned away from.
It is important to note that fertility treatments are rarely, if ever, a once off. That is something that we really want to pay attention to in this Bill. There are a whole series of tests, scans and procedures that take place. As one of my colleagues mentioned, there is also a lot of travel involved for many people to access these services. It is something that we are accounting for in the provisions of this Bill. It is something that the Government is failing to account for by proposing the timed amendment.
Tommy's, the pregnancy and baby loss charity, found that 20% of women experience PTSD after pregnancy loss, and 16% to 18% will suffer from anxiety and depression. These numbers go to the heart of the issue when we consider the 14,000 pregnancy losses per year and the high percentages of these very difficult, emotional responses. That is not counting the physical impact of pregnancy loss. We are treating pregnancy loss in this country like an illness, where we have to take sick leave and annual leave. It is not an illness; it is grief. We need to be a compassionate country. This is the test to determine if this Government is a compassionate one.
In the UCC research commissioned by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, a number of things are made clear. First, and most important, the findings show that most women need leave from work following a pregnancy loss. They need that leave. That is what research commissioned by the Government itself highlights. It also highlights the level of secrecy and stigma that is still attached to pregnancy loss. That is another reason why this empathetic piece of legislation needs to be brought to Committee Stage and brought into law. There is a fear of dismissal from work, a fear of discrimination in career progression, a fear of perceptions that people are not telling the truth or the full truth. There is a fear of being the subject of idle gossip and tittle-tattle around water coolers and in cafeterias. That comes from the stigma that is attached to it. It comes from the fact that we are not recognising it in legislation. We are not recognising that we need leave and that it should be on the same level as other statutory leave. There is a growing awareness and importance of this need within the workplace. In the past 20 years, this country has taken strides forward in progressive changes throughout our society, but the issue of pregnancy loss and the difficulties surrounding IVF treatment have been left in the shadows and in the silence. By bringing this legislation forward, we can take another progressive step forward and shine a light on an area that for too long has been left in the dark. If the Government continues with the path that it chooses to take, it will be clear that once again, it has opted to turn its back on people when they really need it. When we really need compassion and to see the Government get into the detail of an issue and of workers' rights to leave, it is going to turn its back on it. The 12-month delay is an affront to the women and people of Ireland. The Government has a week to take a different path. Then, we will have between nine and 12 months to get this into law. We will work hard to do that with anyone in this House, including Government. I urge the Government to change its tactics on this.
Hear, hear.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this legislation and I thank the Deputies for bringing it forward. I genuinely think there is something a bit cynical about the 12-month delay. This is a piece of legislation that has been knocking around for a while. The work that the Minister of State has talked about could have been done. What he is doing is making very clear that if it happens, it certainly will not be because of this Government, because it is being put past the end of the time that this Government could possibly run for. The Minister of State is saying very clearly that either the Government does not want to do it but does not want to admit that, or it wants to do it but for some reason it just cannot. I think it is a bit cynical. While it might be very necessary in some instances to put that 12-month delay in place, and I have seen it used to good effect, sometimes the perception is that it is being done just to kick the can down the road so as to not engage with an issue, or because the Government does not want to be caught on the wrong side of a debate but also does not want to take any action. I encourage the Minister of State to reflect on that.
I fundamentally disagree with the Minister of State regarding the Organisation of Working Time Act, which I believe is the place for this. My legislation on access to paid leave for victims and survivors of domestic abuse was an amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act and I acknowledge the Government went forward with the work-life balance Bill. We need to situate rights like this in workers’ rights legislation, which is the appropriate place for them. While I accept we may never agree on that, I genuinely believe it. When we talk to people working in the area of workers’ rights, they will say that they believe the Organisation of Working Time Act is the appropriate place.
Sinn Féin supports the principles of this Bill. We supported it in the Seanad, where we were heartened to see that it was not opposed by the Government, although we now see that, if it is not being opposed, it is effectively being obstructed. It will not happen because it will go beyond the lifetime of this Government so, effectively, the Government is saying that it is not going to do it. It should be honest about that. There is a 12-month delay mechanism when it could be a six-month or three-month process. It is not being done and is being put very firmly beyond the lifetime of this Government, so it is not something the Government is going to do.
The Bill is fairly straightforward. It amends the Organisation of Working Time Act to provide for a statutory entitlement to paid leave as a consequence of early pregnancy loss or for the purpose of availing of reproductive healthcare. It extends the protection against unfair dismissals conferred by the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2015, to cover workers for each leave in such instances.
While the Bill may be straightforward, it nonetheless seeks to deliver a significant and important change. There is currently an absence in statutory leave laws and workplace protection laws for women who suffer the grief of an early miscarriage. There are also no provisions in Irish law for leave for any woman or man who needs to take time off work to access IVF and the procedures around that, or other fertility treatments. This is the core of what this legislation seeks to address.
Undoubtedly, there will be those inside and outside the Oireachtas who will raise concerns over the number of days of paid leave the legislation seeks to provide and the impact it will have on employers. However, the right place to have this discussion is at the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade, and Employment during pre-legislative scrutiny hearings, where all sides can contribute constructively and collaboratively and work towards achieving this goal.
As it stands, women in Ireland have to take annual leave, sick leave or unpaid days in order to attend appointments or to recover physically and emotionally from an early miscarriage. It is important to say that when a woman has had a miscarriage, she might not be physically sick and it is dishonest to produce a sick certificate where someone is not physically sick. However, that does not necessarily mean women are able to go to work. They may not have a physical ailment or be required to even attend the hospital, but that does not mean they are able and fit to go to work.
We had this debate regarding the provision of maternity leave for TDs and Senators. I have spoken to people who had to do this not just in this scenario but in others. Having to submit a sick certificate to avail of time off when someone is not actually sick is dishonest. It is not dishonest on the part of the person doing it because the person doing it has no choice, but if someone is not sick, he or she should not have to submit a sick certificate. Neither, by the way, should he or she have to exhaust his or her sick leave for something that is not sick leave. This is a very particular situation and one would hope it is something people either do not experience or is a unique experience for them. In some cases, people will have to go to hospital and will have a medical certificate, but in many cases, they will not. They are grieving, they are confused and they are sore, but they are not sore in a physical way and they are not sick enough to get a medical certificate, so to have to obtain one to take time off work is dishonest. Women do not want to have to do that.
It is estimated that 14,000 women in Ireland experience miscarriage each year, which is between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies. Specific information in terms of earlier losses is difficult to obtain as women who suffer an earlier miscarriage often do not interact with healthcare services, although they are grieving all the same. It does not matter if it happens at six weeks, eight weeks or 20 weeks; the grief is still the same when it happens. Miscarriage is a very traumatic experience and the current lack of legally protected time off to recover after an early miscarriage makes things much more difficult for women. It is a very traumatic experience. They do not want to have to tell the whole world about their business. They want to be able to access their legal and lawful entitlement to time off without having to enter into a grace and favour arrangement with a manager or to go and obtain a medical certificate when they might not be physically sick. They want to be able to take the time they need to be with their partner, husband, wife or whoever that person is, or their family or community, to build themselves back up. In addition, it is good for employers. Women get the chance to recover properly and then come back and give 100% to their work. There is no downside that I can see to this.
Research has shown that the trauma due to miscarriage can affect parents for years following the loss experience, and this can manifest itself in depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Again, that is compounded by the secrecy and the clandestine nature of the situation. It is compounded by the fact that they might have to tell everyone in work what they have just been through, and they might not want to tell the whole world. They might have to go to a doctor to get a medical certificate when they are not physically ill. That stays with them for a very long time, believe me. It is in this context the legislation needs to be viewed. Anything the Oireachtas can do to help women in such circumstances should be pursued.
Infertility affects men and women. Approximately one in six heterosexual couples in Ireland will need assistance getting pregnant. In addition, same-sex couples or single people also often need to access fertility treatment. Fertility care encompasses the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infertility, and it can often be complex, time-consuming and expensive, requiring numerous assessments, check-ups and procedures. The legislation provides for leave to access fertility treatment so people are afforded time, dignity and empathy as they go through their fertility journey. At the heart of the Bill is a demand for flexibility and the right to be accommodated when going through an early miscarriage or fertility treatment. This is an important and noble aim.
I would like to make reference to the current public supports for fertility treatments. Last summer, Ireland began providing publicly funded IVF treatment for the first time. It was long overdue and was a welcome first step. However, there are concerns regarding the limitations being placed on the availability of treatment, in particular the provision for only one publicly funded cycle, which is unfair as it limits access to couples with no children. This scheme needs to be built on and it needs to be made more inclusive. It is also important that capacity is built into the public system to ensure speedy access to treatment. As it stands, that is not the case.
It is true that there is a lot of work to be done to make our workplaces more accommodating for everybody who is at work and more family-friendly. We talk a lot about family-friendly workplaces and I know the Ceann Comhairle has done a lot of work in this area, for which I commend him. However, we cannot keep coming in here and talking about family-friendly workplaces and inclusive workplaces, and about how much we value the contribution made by women in the workplace, and then, when it comes to something fairly basic, such as the entitlement to paid time off or the entitlement to be honest and not be forced to be dishonest in obtaining a medical certificate, it seems it is never the right or appropriate time.
Before I conclude, I note there are not many Members in the House this evening. I do not think that is because there is no interest in this subject. I genuinely believe it is weather-related and that Members want to get on the road because they are anxious about the weather. I would not want anyone to think there is a lack of interest in this issue. It is a very live issue and one that people are very engaged in. It is one we hear about and deal with in our constituency clinics all of the time. I encourage the Minister of State to reflect on what the delay of 12 months actually means because it means putting it beyond the lifetime of this Government.
I call Deputy Thomas Pringle, who is sharing time with Deputy Joan Collins.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I fully support this necessary legislation to provide for a period of paid leave upon miscarriage for the purposes of availing of reproductive healthcare. I was glad to see this Bill passed in the Seanad and was very disappointed to read the Government amendment to kick the can down the road instead of allowing for women, upon miscarriage, to have up to 20 days of paid leave, and allowing ten days leave for workers undergoing fertility treatment. I do not see any reason this Bill should not progress. Allowing sufficient time for the development of Government legislative proposals before the end of 2024 is not good enough.
Approximately 15,000 women miscarry in Ireland each year. By kicking this down the road, the Government is taking necessary grieving time away from thousands of women. The loss of a baby is often a very lonely and devastating experience. There is a huge sense of emotional loss and heartbreak for many of the 50 women who go through this each day, as well as many of their partners.
On top of having to experience this, they are then having to face the pressure of getting on as normal as though nothing has happened, at a time when many women need privacy and space. Fertility issues, whether they are to do with miscarriage or ongoing IVF treatment, require time and space, and people going through this should be afforded dignity and empathy. If this Government were serious about prioritising mental health, it would allow for legislation such as this to pass, as well as strengthening all types of bereavement leave.
As it stands, employees have no legal right to time off for bereavement and I would call on the Government to ensure that employees have a legal right to bereavement leave to ensure that miscarriages are included under this. Separately, those who are undergoing IVF treatment should be given the leave they require to undergo that treatment. Although I welcome the Government’s announcement that couples will have access to one publicly funded round of IVF, it does not make sense that they are not given the necessary leave to undergo this process. This needs to be reviewed, as does the decision to only provide this treatment to women under the age of 41 and with a particular BMI, as well as the decision to not provide this reproductive assistance to same-sex couples and single people and couples who cannot provide their own egg and sperm. We need to ensure that IVF is a viable option for people, especially given that approximately one in six heterosexual couples in Ireland has fertility problems. That is a statistic that has been increasing for some time and is expected to continue in this way.
The State needs to introduce legislation, but it cannot stop there. It needs then to give employers the support necessary to actually implement the legislation. I know that many employers in Donegal are struggling with increased costs at the moment, and it is the Government’s responsibility to alleviate those financial strains so that employers are in a position to properly look after their employees. At a time when it is impossible for people to get a mortgage on a single income, we need to at the very least make working easier for people, particularly women. In a year when we are looking at making Ireland and its Constitution more equal for women, making it difficult for women to work or stay at home, and almost impossible for them to both, which most are expected to do, is unacceptable. Women should be given choice and not forced into impossible roles.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate my support for this Bill and express my disappointment that the Government is refusing to progress it to the next Stage.
First, I would like to thank the Labour Party for bringing this important Bill before the Dáil today. Yesterday, the Government pushed forward two amendments to our Constitution in the name of gender equality, ignoring all opposition, to set-up a referendum on International Women’s Day. Today, it kicks the can down the road on legislation that would make a real, material difference to women’s lives and to gender inequality in the workplace. It really lays bare what this Government cares about, namely, symbolic expressions of progressivism without any real intent to materially improve people’s lives or situations. It has rushed through the 39th and 40th amendments to the Constitution. There was no wait for pre-legislative scrutiny or committee hearings and no wait to consider the differences between its proposals and the Oireachtas group or the citizens' assembly. Yet, it has introduced an amendment to this Bill to include a 12-month wait for legislation that makes an important, material difference to women’s lives.
Some 14,000 women go through an early miscarriage each year, 20% of whom will experience post traumatic stress disorder after their loss and 16% to 18% will suffer from anxiety and depression. Twenty days are not too much at all to ask for when you have experienced such a loss, and yet this Government will not embrace and welcome this Bill and work with in committee to progress it.
As has been said, one in six heterosexual couples will experience trouble conceiving. Many will turn to IVF or other reproductive care options. There are significant financial implications. There are significant time implications. Again, ten days is not at all too much to ask to help in this process to ease the stress and the pressure. Yet, again, this Government seems to think that is far too much for women or their partners to ask.
The 2019 member survey by the INTO makes this issue even clearer. Some 60% of their members had experienced reproductive health issues in work. More than 75% used school breaks to schedule care as they had no other way to take time-off for it. This has a direct effect on people’s lives. The vast majority of INTO members in 2019 - 88% of them - supported negotiations for reproductive care leave. More than 93% of members who had experienced reproductive health-related matters supported it. This legislation came out of this survey, I believe.
This is a big part of women’s lives. It is increasingly having more and more of an effect. We need real action on this and pushing this Bill down the road for 12 months when the Government has an opportunity to address this now is a complete failure to take any action at all.
There is significant support for this from unions. The INTO supports this, as does Fórsa and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions supports reproduction care leave. Trade unions are the biggest organisations in the country that represent women. The Government is ignoring a problem that unions and their members are telling it is staring it in the face. If it was in any way serious about gender equality, or on addressing the historical issues that have restricted women’s ability to live free, independent lives in this country, it would be rushing legislation like this through, and not questionable referendums.
If we want to support women in the workplace and their ability to control their own lives, we need to provide real, material changes and supports. The Government is not doing that because, in my opinion, it cares far more about getting in an empty, progressive win before the next election than it does about making meaningful or materiel changes to people’s lives.
The Minister gave a list of problems with this Bill, all of which could be teased out on Committee Stage. We could move very quickly on Committee Stage to tease these issues out. We could see this Bill coming through within the year. Instead, the Government is just burying it and it is shameful.
I thank all Members for their work on this Bill to date, the contributions today and far beyond. I know many Members, both in this House and the Seanad, spoke passionately on this issue.
I would like to begin my closing speech by acknowledging, on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, as well as on my own behalf and on behalf of the Government, the importance of progressing proposals in this area. We all want to make progress in this area, which is really important, as has been stated. The emotional impact of pregnancy loss is tremendous and, unfortunately, it affects far more people than most people realise. If it has not come to our own families, we will certainly have a circle of friends who have been affected by it and, in some instances, we will not know about it. There are the people who we know who are affected by this but there are also so many more. Therefore, the Government is very determined to make progress in this regard. This is a very important legislation and we have to be mindful of finding the right vehicle and way of doing it so that it serves the purpose we want for it.
As the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, mentioned earlier in this debate, there are existing provisions within the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004 and the Paternity Leave Act 2016 for pregnancy loss experienced by those in employment. However, there is no provision for the loss of a pregnancy prior to 24 weeks of gestation.
The Government recognises that the policy issues reflected within this Bill need to be addressed, and that is a really important point that gives great merit to this Private Members' Bill. However, as I have outlined, these policy issues are extremely complex. Significant research, consideration and assessment are required in order to prepare robust, appropriate and fit-for-purpose legislation that is built on evidence-based policy.
As argued earlier in today’s debate, the Bill presents a number of potential regulatory impacts. There are a number of further considerations which must be made before progressing legislation, including ensuring consistency with current legislation and the potential impact on employers. These considerations and potential impacts require detailed assessment and scrutiny in advance of progressing legislation. As part of this assessment, a full regulatory impact assessment must be carried out.
A number of Members throughout this debate raised the legal basis for domestic violence leave, which I want to address. I am informed that the domestic violence leave is provided for in statute via an amendment to the Parental Leave Act in the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, which was brought into law by colleague, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, in 2023. This is just to answer those points that were raised earlier.
In relation to the time needed, time must be given to allow for full consideration of a recently completed research study commissioned by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which will inform the development of Government policy and legislative proposals in line with the principles of the Private Members’ Bill. Affording Government this time will support the development of an evidence-based policy position and fit-for-purpose legislation.
Finally, the Government is of the view that the Organisation of Working Time Act is not the appropriate or logical legislative vehicle to provide for the proposed new entitlements.
The Act is designed to transpose the European working time directive and deals specifically with provisions regarding employees' time at work. Stand-alone legislation or amendments to legislation related to the type of leave proposed in this Bill would be more fitting.
It is on this basis that I urge the House to pass the amendment moved by the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, which proposes that this Bill "be deemed to be read a second time this day twelve months". This will allow time for a proper assessment of the regulatory impacts of the Bill, full consideration of commissioned evidence-based research and the consideration of the most appropriate legislative vehicles for the provisions. As I said earlier, we are all united in wanting to make progress in this area. Providing this additional time will support the development of Government legislative proposals, in line with the principles of the Private Members' Bill, before the end of 2024.
I am sharing with Deputy Bacik. I want to pay tribute to: my party leader, Deputy Bacik; Senator Sherlock; my constituency colleague, Councillor Alison Gilliland, who has been to the forefront of this move; and unions such as the INTO and Fórsa, which have been supportive of our move in pushing this Bill forward.
If this issue predominantly affected men, not only would it have been legislated for a long time ago but it would probably be in the preamble to the Constitution. What we effectively have here is a silent wound and trauma that is not given proper attention or focus. That is reflected in the fact that the Minister of State can honestly stand and say we can talk about it again in 12 months’ time. As my colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith, said earlier, I have brought forward Bills which I was told would be progressed in 12 months’ time and I came back into the Chamber 12 months hence and nothing had happened because it is a ploy and a tactic; it is not genuine. We come here as a political party with a genuine Bill that will enhance workers' rights and the Minister of State comes back with the suggestion that we will talk about it again, but not even in three months’ time. If it was in three months’ time we would consider that maybe he was sincere. We would consider that he had to do his research, talk to his civil servants and advisers and talk to employers and unions and that we would then go to Committee Stage. That is not the case. We will come back in 12 months, when the Minister of State and I know that this Government will not be in existence.
We have to demystify the language around this area. How many men of our generation shift uncomfortably in their seats whenever periods, menstrual cycles or anything of this nature like miscarriage, abortion or menopause are mentioned? Men of my generation want to be in any other room than a room where those things are mentioned. It is for that reason that we do not have statutory paid leave for women who go through a pregnancy loss or who go through the traumatic experience of trying to get pregnant on our Statute Book. If it was men who were predominantly affected by this, the Minister of State knows it would be legislated for.
This is fundamentally an issue of gender equality. We support, as my party leader has said, the Government's moves, on International Women's Day, to change the archaic and sexist language in the Constitution around women's place in the home. However, this is a practical and humane approach to women's place in the workplace. They should not have to effectively lie to produce a piece of paper about a sick note when they have gone through a personal pregnancy loss for whatever reason. They do not have that statutory right to leave before 24 weeks, and that is something we are trying to correct here. My colleague, Deputy Nash, has spoken eloquently about the difficulties around IVF and the travel that couples have to go through.
We have to demystify and destigmatise this area. This is reflective of the fact that we have so few women involved in public life and who sit in these seats. In the Swedish Parliament, female participation is 45% and on that basis they have a hugely more progressive view of Bills like this. I can only imagine, if this was not on the Swedish statute book and if it was brought forward as a Bill, what the reaction would be if a Government Minister in the Minister of State's position said we would talk about it in a year's time.
This is a crucial gender equality-based Bill. It is a crucial workers' right and a progressive move. It reflects poorly on the Government that its answer to us is that we will talk about this in 12 months’ time. If the Government genuinely felt it should be done, it would be done. If it affected men, it would be done and it would have been done a long time ago.
I thank my Labour Party colleagues, Deputies Howlin, Nash, Smith and Ó Ríordáin, who have spoken so eloquently on this Bill. I will pick up where Deputy Ó Ríordáin finished; this is a matter of gender equality. I thank colleagues across the Opposition who have supported this Bill and who have seen it as a measure to introduce better provision for women in the workplace in particular. I said earlier that about 14,000 women in Ireland experience pregnancy loss each year. This does not just affect women; it affects their partners and it affects couples. We know that between one in four and one in six couples experience fertility issues and that more than one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage. This is a huge issue that affects a huge number of people but it is also a women's rights and a workplace rights issue.
This Bill was first debated in the Seanad in 2021 and three years have passed since then. Now the Minister of State is proposing another year's delay before we even come to a further debate on the Bill. How many more women will experience miscarriage in that time? How many more couples will be looking for IVF and going to multiple appointments without any provision in the workplace for leave? I have listened to the Minister of State's remarks and to the remarks of the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, and we in the Labour Party accept that the legislation can be improved on. There have been changes to workplace law since we first introduced this Bill. There are new statutory frameworks around leave and we are prepared to work with the Minister of State to use other means than the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 framework through which we can introduce this provision. The important thing is the provision for compassionate leave, not how we do it or the vehicle. We can move to do it through maternity protection legislation; I take the Minister of State's point on that and that would remove the onus from the employer. We can do it through those other structures.
I have prided myself on collaboration with Government and Opposition colleagues throughout my career in the Oireachtas, as have my Labour Party colleagues, whether it has been on Coco's law; collective bargaining rights; children's citizenship rights; ending discrimination against LGBTQ teachers; or prohibiting female genital mutilation. My Labour Party colleagues and I have worked with others to bring our Private Members' Bills into law. We are keen to continue doing this and to use this Bill to work with the Government to ensure we have compassionate leave when it matters most. It matters most for those many women and couples who have contacted us.
We know the Government has conducted research. We know that research is concluded. I referred earlier to Professor Keelin O'Donoghue and the study on pregnancy loss under 24 weeks but we have not heard from the Government on when it proposes to publish that research. We know it is concluded and we have heard preliminary findings. The Minister of State has referred to the recommendations in the report. I have submitted parliamentary questions to the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, seeking a response on when the study will be published. The Minister of State's briefing, which we were provided with this evening, says it will be published shortly but neither the Minister of State nor the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, said in their speeches when that would be.
I ask the Minister of State to follow up with us on this point before the vote on the amendment the Minister of State is proposing, which will take place next week. The Government cannot get away with introducing an amendment to delay further consideration of this Bill. It cannot use that fantastic research study as its excuse for a delaying amendment and then not even commit to publishing that research or letting us know what the recommendations in it are. I would like to join my Labour Party colleagues in making a last plea to the Government to reconsider its position. We will not see a vote on the Government's delaying amendment until next week so let us use that time to work with the Minister of State and other Government Departments that are affected to produce a plan to introduce paid leave for early pregnancy loss, reproductive healthcare and compassion in the workplace. Our political system can change lives radically for the better, or it can look the other way.
Kicking this Bill down the road as the Government is trying to do amounts to looking the other way and not hearing from the women and the couples who are living the reality of pregnancy loss and fertility issues.
I will finish by recounting something that was said to me by a woman who experienced or suffered or endured what we call an early miscarriage. She said that language of early miscarriage does not reflect her feeling or the feeling of her partner in losing what was a much-wanted pregnancy. As she said to me, often that so-called early miscarriage has followed many years of pregnancy losses and multiple rounds of IVF treatment, of endlessly trying and failing to conceive a baby. Depriving women and couples in her position of any time off or any official recognition in the workplace because the pregnancy was lost before 24 weeks or because of foetal weight issues lacks compassion. Our Bill would provide compassionate leave for women and couples in that position when it matters most. It would create a modern understanding of this experience in the workplace. Women like the woman who spoke with me can of course apply for sick leave in such a situation, but they are not sick. They can take annual leave, but that is not what annual leave is for. I am appealing to Minister of State to let us enable proper, formal recognition in the workplace of this form of loss, namely, of pregnancy loss and fertility treatment issues, and let us legislate rather than delay for a further 12 months. It is unnecessary and it is not compassionate.
Amendment put.
In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time next week.