I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the House as regards references witnesses make to other persons in their evidence. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to the committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate who is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the parliamentary precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making their contribution.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I suggest the following speaking arrangements. We will invite witnesses to speak for approximately five to ten minutes. We will then ask members to ask questions or make comments for around seven minutes. If time permits, we will have a second round of four minutes. Members may be called as they appear on the week two speaking rota, which was circulated before the meeting. There is a caveat in that party blocs are referenced on the speaking rota, so members may swap if their party bloc is ahead as the name is listed. Members present who are not members of the committee or substituting may speak after committee members or their substitutes. Are these arrangements agreed? Agreed.

I propose that the committee publish the opening statements and submissions provided by the witnesses on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Organisation of Working Time (Reproductive Health Related Leave) Bill 2021 has passed all Stages in the Seanad and Second Stage in the Dáil. Deputy Marie Sherlock was designated as the Member in charge of the Bill by the Dáil on 21 April 2026. In accordance with the memorandum of understanding between the Government and Dáil Éireann on Private Members' Bills, Deputy Sherlock has requested that the committee undertake scrutiny of this Bill. The committee agreed to Deputy Sherlock's request and this is our first public meeting on the Bill. The committee has engaged with the parliamentary research service on this Bill and will also engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisers on it. The committee intends to carry out a public consultation on the Bill and will consult with the relevant Departments, which are the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality and the Department of Health.

Following its deliberations, the committee plans two outputs. The first will be the scrutiny report setting out the committee's critical evaluation of the Bill and its reasoned recommendations in this regard. That will be followed by a message to the Dáil recommending the Bill should, or should not, proceed to Committee Stage.

The committee is also aware of two other Bills that address related matters, one of which is the general scheme of the pregnancy loss leave Bill 2026. This general scheme was referred to the committee on 8 September 2026 and will also be considered shortly. There is also the Pregnancy Loss (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025, which is No. 23 of 2025. This Bill is currently before the Seanad and the sponsors are Senator Nicole Ryan, et al.

The committee also recognises the work of the Oireachtas cross-party group on pregnancy and infant loss, and its chairperson, who we are very fortunate to have and is a fantastic colleague of ours on the committee, Senator Nelson Murray.

I thank the Chair.

I propose we hold two sessions today on this Bill. Session one will have Deputy Marie Sherlock and colleagues introducing her Bill and there will be a question and answer session which will last approximately one hour. Deputy Sherlock may reply to the debate. It will be followed by session two. The invited witnesses may speak about the Bill, followed by a question and answer session. Deputy Sherlock may reply to the debate. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome Deputy Sherlock to the committee and invite her to speak about the Organisation of Working Time (Reproductive Health Related Leave) Bill 2021.

I warmly thank the Chair and everyone on the Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment for facilitating detailed scrutiny of the Bill. I am very glad to be joined by the witnesses who will appear after me; representatives of the INTO, the Miscarriage Association of Ireland, Leanbh Mo Chroí Bereavement Support, and two experts in their fields, who are Dr. Valentina Paolucci and Dr. Róisín McConnell. We will very much benefit from their input, insight and research today.

It was over five years ago that my colleague Ivana Bacik and I initiated this bill in the Seanad. In the half decade since then we have been overwhelmed by the hundreds of women and couples who reached out to us with their often very harrowing stories of both early miscarriage loss and going through fertility treatment. I was very heartened to see that this very much spawned and generated a whole conversation among communities particularly within the political system. We had the setting up of the Oireachtas working group on early pregnancy loss. I pay tribute to the work of Senator Nelson Murray and Senator Nicole Ryan in that regard on the Bill that is currently before the Seanad and the commitment to a public consultation on these issues. We had a petition asking for this Bill to be scrutinised by this committee and as a testament to the desire for this conversation to happen, 4,500 people signed that petition. That speaks volumes about the desire to bring what is a very private and personal matter out into the open.

It is estimated that between one in four and one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage. Many of us know women who have had a miscarriage and we know the experience is very different for different people. Some experience a very deep trauma. Some experience very significant health impacts for a considerable time. Some have to attend a GP or a hospital. For others, the experience may be different.

We know that one in six couples in Ireland experience infertility. Approximately 6,000 cycles of IVF are undertaken in this country very year. We know there is a far greater number of people who would like to take up fertility treatment but cost and access are issues. I acknowledge there has been progress since I first brought forward this Bill five years ago.

One of the big things is the silence, stigma and guilt that surrounds pregnancy loss and infertility. These issues cut to our core as human beings in terms of the grief, loss, intense sadness, vulnerability, the hope of having a family and the difficulties in creating that family. I thank all those who have shared their experiences with us. As legislators we need to be able to bring those stories out into the open and also look at what legislative provisions need to be put in place.

It is important to say that our Bill is about recognising that these issues are not just health issues. I passionately believe these are also workplace issues. More crucially, these issues are about equality in the workplace because it should not be a lottery and what flexibilities or accommodations are afforded to you should not depend on who you work for or what your rank or grade within an organisation is. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of people who have inflexible work arrangements, such as teachers, health professionals, retail workers, and particularly low-paid workers in precarious work environments, who do not have access to the type of flexibility somebody who has been in a workplace for much longer and perhaps at a more senior grade.

This Bill is about affording flexibility and dignity to people going through miscarriage, to women going through miscarriage and couples going through fertility treatment. It is about our workplaces saying, "We respect you, we empathise with you, we will accommodate you and we recognise this is important to you". It is fundamentally about saying that granting leave for pregnancy loss or fertility treatment should not be an opt-in voluntary goodwill measure. It should be a basic part of workplace rights for all workers.

It is also critically important to say that somebody who endures a miscarriage or is going through fertility treatment is not sick. They should not have to go through the process of taking sick leave or annual leave. We have heard many harrowing stories where, for instance, there may be policies within companies that you can only take X number of sick days over a two- to three-year period and women end up using all of that time. They feel guilty because they feel they cannot disclose what is going on to their employer. They are not taking the right type of leave and we believe we need to change that.

There is something else that is important to say. I spoke earlier about the experience, which we can talk about in more detail, of what women go through when they go through a miscarriage.

Regarding fertility treatment, there is a significant lack of understanding. This is not something that people can choose the timing of. It depends on points in time in the menstrual cycle and there are scans that have to be gone through. There is a very delicate balancing act between the inducing of the ovaries through self-injected medication, monitoring the response times, the scans and then moving to embryo transferral. All of that is a very tricky and delicate balancing act that requires a lot of flexibility on the part of the workplace, in terms of people being able to take time off. It is not like an elective procedure and it is really important to communicate that to people. It is not about when people choose to have it but when their body is ready for that treatment and, indeed, when the clinic can accommodate them. It is important to understand the logistics and practicalities of what fertility treatment is about.

These conversations commenced five to six years ago when the INTO approached us. As a teaching union, there was a very clear call from its members in the context of the grief and the experience that they had of not having that flexibility within their workplace, either with miscarriage or fertility treatment. That brought the union to us to say that we need a legislative basis for a level playing field for all workers. Again, to the point I made earlier, if we put ourselves in the shoes of workers with inflexible work arrangements, we see that they cannot down tools suddenly, they cannot start two hours late, disappear in the middle of the day and they cannot work from home. There is flexibility in some workplaces but there is not in others.

In terms of the timeline, it is five years since we brought this legislation forward in the Seanad and since then, there has been some progress. In terms of developments abroad, some members will have noted that this week Prime Minister Andy Burnham in the UK stated that there will be two weeks for those who suffer pregnancy loss from April next year. That provision is already in place in the North. Malta has introduced a provision for pregnancy loss, as has New Zealand. Regarding fertility treatment, Belgium has introduced a very specific provision with regard to workplace protections for those going through fertility treatment. Japan and California also offer workplace leave. These are developments that have happened over the past five years which are really positive and which should serve as examples to us here.

The other key point is that the former Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, in his capacity as Minister for equality, commissioned a report by the UCC PLACES research group, headed by Professor Keelin O'Donoghue. She has been hugely supportive of the Oireachtas working group on early pregnancy loss. The group was commissioned to produce a report, which was published in 2024, and there was a very clear set of recommendations on what should happen with regard to setting down a legal right to workplace leave in the event of early miscarriage. We are very glad to see that the Minister for enterprise, Deputy Peter Burke, brought forward the heads of a Bill this summer. I will speak to the detail of that Bill later but it is positive that it is noted for priority drafting in the autumn 2026 legislative programme.

It is also important to say that publicly-funded fertility treatment is now in place. That was not there five years ago. It is a glaring gap for us that women and couples are now being financially supported to access IVF but they are not being given the means to physically access it in terms of workplace leave. That is a missing piece of the jigsaw that we believe this committee and our Bill needs to address.

Regarding the detail of the UCC PLACES report published in 2024, the research underpinning it involved surveying over 900 women and men who experienced early pregnancy loss. In that survey, there was a number of very clear findings, the first of which was the fear experienced by women of dismissal and discrimination with regard to career progression if they were to disclose their experiences in the workplace. The second was the actual lived experience of what actually happened to them, which was a lack of empathy, harsh treatment with regard to absence or workloads and insensitive comments. It really demonstrates that workers are at the whim of their employers. It is also important to say that there are employers out there who are exceptionally accommodating and have been excellent in this space and have shown real leadership. However, they are small in number and we need to make sure all employers recognise that this is an issue within their workplaces.

Regarding our Bill, it effectively does two things. It provides for compassionate leave at a time when we believe women and couples need it most but it also offers workplace protection. It amends the Organisation of Working Time Act to provide for 20 days leave in the event of miscarriage and ten days leave in the event of having to undergo fertility treatment. When our Bill went through all Stages in the Seanad and came into the Dáil, the Government introduced a timed amendment in 2024 so that it could bring forward its own Bill, in line with the principles of ours. I very much welcome that the Minister, Deputy Burke, has published heads of a Bill but we believe the general scheme of the Government's Bill is not in line with the principles we have set out. I will now deal with the specifics of that.

Regarding the scope of the Government's Bill, it only deals with pregnancy loss. We believe that there is a glaring omission and exclusion with regards to fertility treatment. There is a real demand and need to put in place compassionate workplace leave for going through fertility treatment. We should bear in mind that this demand is going to grow even bigger in this country in future years because of the extent to which people are putting off trying to start a family because of housing or other considerations and because fertility levels in general are declining. We believe it is a crucial element of this legislative framework that we provide for those going through fertility treatment.

Regarding the coverage of the Bill, and to be very positive about the Minister's Bill, it expressly provides for pregnancy loss in the event of termination of pregnancy. That is not something that we included in our Bill but we welcome the Minister's introduction of this provision in his Bill. Regarding the actual provision itself, the Government's Bill provides for five days whereas we provide for 20 days. If we look across the water, they are providing for two weeks leave, so there is a significant difference there. There is a body of research there, which our witnesses will speak to, about the extent to which there is trauma and grief but also about the physical and psychological impact of pregnancy loss. Another key difference is with regard to the rate of pay and when a worker qualifies under this Bill. In effect, we believe the general scheme, or the Minister's Bill, introduces a two tier system. Our Bill gives full pay from day one but the general scheme or the Minister's Bill separates the right to leave, which is applicable from day one of employment, from the right to payment which is only applicable after 13 days of continuous service, similar to the provisions in the Sick Leave Act. We believe that the right should become applicable from day one of employment at the full rate of pay.

The other key distinction is that the Government's Bill provides for a much lower rate of pay. We believe that it should be treated like annual leave, such that people are out on their full rate of pay. Significantly, we believe that confidentiality has to be a crucial part of what we hardwire into the legislation. Our Bill contains an express confidentiality duty on the part of the employer and a criminal offence for a breach. The general scheme has no visible confidentiality provision. Time and again, and this has been borne out by the expertise and research of our witnesses, workers need to feel that they can confidentially disclose their health situation to their employer. Of course, it should be obvious that an employer would treat that information confidentially but we know that is not always the case. We believe it is really important that such a provision is set out.

We believe there needs to be provisions regarding unfair dismissal and this is a genuine, technical and glaring gap in the Government's Bill. Effectively, at the moment, people need to have 12 months of service before they can become eligible to take an unfair dismissals claim.

We believe that protection with regard to unfair dismissal needs to apply from day one of employment, in the context of disclosing to an employer you have gone through an early miscarriage or are going through fertility treatment. The general scheme of the Government's Bill effectively gives a nod to unfair dismissal but says it may not be necessary. We think it is wrong and that it is real mistake not to put explicit provisions in place for unfair dismissal.

I spoke about the number of days the Minister has set out but how he wants to specify the number of days is being delegated to ministerial order. We want to hardwire the 20 days and ten days into the legislation. I point members of the committee to the sick pay legislation where we were promised there would be ten days of sick pay available to every worker by 2025. We know the Government has rolled back on those commitments and half of that commitment is currently in place. We have a real concern with regard to delegating the power to set the number of days available for workplace leave to ministerial order. I believe it needs to be hardwired into legislation.

I ask for the support of this committee to engage in detailed scrutiny and then to proceed to Committee Stage of this Bill, where of course there will be an updating. There will have to be some amendments to that Bill but we believe our Bill is at an advanced stage and it has real potential for women going through miscarriage, and for couples - women and men - going through fertility treatment to be afforded workplace protection. Ultimately, these issues are hugely sensitive, and we passionately believe that access to compassionate work should not be a lottery. It should not depend on your rank, where you work or who you work for. That is why it is important we send out a key message by setting a legislative floor as to the accommodation that should be put in place for what is a real issue in the lives of many workers, whether for early miscarriage or fertility treatment. I am glad we have been joined by our party leader, Deputy Bacik, who originally brought that Bill forward in the Seanad in 2021.

I apologise as I had to return to the Dáil for a few moments. On that note, it is rare we have a party leader in committee. Under speaking orders, she is allowed to speak and contribute. Would Deputy Bacik like to take a few moments to say something about it?

That is really kind. I appreciate the Cathaoirleach saying that. It is unusual and I am enjoying the experience of being a party leader in a committee. I spent many years soldiering in committee as a Seanadóir and a Teachta Dála. I am just delighted to be here to support Deputy Sherlock and this committee in any way I can, and to thank the witnesses who are here. It has been five years since I introduced this Bill in the Seanad. We got cross-party support there. There was recognition from Senators from all parties, Government and Opposition that this was an important workplace reform to bring in and there was a real need for it. I acknowledge the INTO, which was the original body that brought this issue to me. So many of its members, particularly young women teachers, had experienced the trauma of early pregnancy loss or miscarriage in the first 23 or 24 weeks, and had no statutory entitlement to leave in the workplace. It was that experience of teachers and the INTO coming to me and hearing from so many couples, as Deputy Sherlock said, who had suffered infertility issues and had to take time out of work to take up IVF treatments. We could see there was a need for change. We brought the Bill forward. I am delighted it has gotten this far. Deputy Sherlock and I are asking this committee to take it to the next stage, and to ensure that we have compassionate leave. We are all conscious that the British Prime Minister announced a reform of exactly this sort yesterday. It is already the case in Northern Ireland. There has been a lot of delay, and we just need to see this brought into law as soon as possible.

Even in private session we have given this significant attention and consideration. I know there are many views on it in the room, and contributions to be made. I thank both Deputies. It is a serious issue, and we are treating it as seriously as we possibly can.

I thank Deputies Sherlock and Bacik. At the outset, I would like to say that Sinn Féin supports this Bill. I note that the Deputies are open to amendments. Let us work through this as quickly as possible to get the best possible output at the end. I acknowledge the work of the former chair of the ad hoc committee, our colleague, Senator Nicole Ryan, and Senator Linda Nelson Murray, who is now chair. It is a good example of cross-party work. Deputy Bacik will remember when we worked on coercive control in the Seanad. Really good things can be done, particularly with women working cross-party to get the results we need. Members will know that in April 2026, the Sinn Féin minister in the Northern Executive, Dr. Caoimhe Archibald, introduced a statutory two weeks, or ten working days, paid miscarriage leave for mothers and their partners who experience miscarriages and early pregnancy loss at any stage. This has meant that the North has become the first region in Britain and Ireland to introduce statutory paid miscarriage leave. Obviously, as an all-island party, we want to have the same rights for women and everybody across the island. We know the Irish Government is putting forward legislation as well. It is helpful for the Deputy to have pointed out to us the difference between the two, and the fact that Labour has a clear pathway for its legislation. I also thank the Chair for facilitating the scrutiny that needs to be done, and the part that this committee needs to play in getting that through.

The Labour Bill proposes 20 working days. Some argue that five days is too few and 20 days is excessive. I want to hear from Deputy Sherlock where the number of days should fall for the category of paid leave. I also note the intention to have paid leave from day one, which I think is the absolutely right thing to do. Will she talk about the number of days and how we can reach consensus on that as quickly as possible, so that it meets the needs across the board. When we are looking at this, we also have to look at the affordability, and the affordability for small businesses in terms of time off and staff being away and trying to get the balance right. This is not a situation where you have business against women or their partners and people who are in this situation.

There are a few issues there. First, any woman who goes through early miscarriage has to notify her employer. We note the general scheme provides that medical certification from a GP is required in that regard. When we were coming up with the 20 days and ten days we spoke with a number of clinicians. As I referenced in my earlier contribution, we know that there is a wide variety of experiences, particularly when people are going through early miscarriage. Somebody will have a relatively straightforward experience. Psychologically, they may be suffering but physically it might be straightforward. At the other end of the spectrum, someone may have to present to hospital to have a dilation and curettage, D and C, and all of that. It is to reflect the breadth of that experience that we landed on 20 days. We look at the experience of other countries, and we will certainly be looking forward to the experience in the North to understand whether or not that is the appropriate number of days. It is important to say that certification is required for somebody to apply for this leave. It is also important to say that I know from talking to employers that there are good ones out there who recognise they will get it back in spades if they provide accommodation to their workers at a time when they need that space.

However, we cannot rely on that ad hoc situation. We need to make sure it is embedded in legislation.

Regarding fertility treatment and the ten days, and as someone with personal experience of this, anybody going through a number of rounds of fertility treatment will be very clearly able to set out the number of scans. Typically, by the time one goes from one's initial appointment to typically four scans to embryo transfer, one's body may not be suitable. From talking to clinicians in that sector, we felt that ten days was appropriate but, again, these are all conversations we are open to having.

Those are probably all the questions I have for now.

There is no onus on people. I know we all get eight minutes but it is quite technical so members may speak for however long they wish to speak.

I thank Deputy Sherlock for bringing forward this Bill and putting it so articulately to us today. The Deputy said, and I agree, that it is a very sensitive issue. We have all had family members or close family who have gone through these situations and may not have been looked after as well as we would have liked. In saying all that, and I am fully behind the ethos of what the Deputy is bringing forward, this is the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment and we have to ask the questions that relate to employment and business. As spokesperson for Fianna Fáil on SMEs and retail, I have listened to those people talk about the issues they face. What detailed research has been carried out on the financial and operational impact of these proposals, specifically for SMEs and micro-businesses? For a very small employer, paid leave can mean continuing to pay one employee while also having to find and pay somebody else to cover that employee's work. Has the Deputy or her team done any studies on the alternative funding models such as the shared cost model or a State payment or have we simply decided that this is another cost that should be placed entirely on the employer?

I thank the Deputy for his generous comments at the start of his contribution. The cost to employers is always going to be an issue. I remember how when I was a Senator, I brought legislation on sick pay forward and faced the same issues about what the cost to the employer would be. I spoke earlier about the incidence of infertility and miscarriage in Ireland. The number of times this will happen in a woman's life will not be very frequent unless it is a very severe case involving multiple miscarriages. I appeal to employers to weigh things up. Their businesses are built on the strength of their employees. By treating their staff well, they will get that back in spades in terms of productivity, longevity and lower turnover. That is well established in the labour economics literature. That is the background from which I come. If the message goes out that an employer is not going to be accommodating, this has serious implications for how any employer recruits. The message that this sends out is that this is an employer that will not treat one well if one finds oneself in a difficult situation. Saying that this is a cold place for anybody in difficulty is a poor message that any employer would want to send out.

The second point relates to how frequently any of this happens. We put forward the argument for sick pay and to its credit, the Government brought forward sick pay legislation and we supported that. We are not happy with the number of days. We have half the number of days the then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar committed to but the sky did not fall in for businesses. I would ask what research the employer organisations in particular have conducted as to the adverse implications of introducing the sick pay legislation and how that has affected their businesses.

Regarding the question of whether I or my office have undertaken research, the answer is "No". We rely on the research of others. It was ground-breaking research commissioned by the former Minister for children, Deputy O'Gorman, with regard to UCC PLACES research group. We have the benefit of international research and we look forward to hearing that.

I want to come in on that from the point of view of employers, sick pay and all the other costs that have hit employers recently. Employers are at the end of their tender. Public bodies, the Civil Service and FDI companies, which are doing well in this country, will be well able to cover all the costs of this. I am talking about companies paying wages in rural towns, keeping families going and looking after those areas and that are service industries to those FDI companies. Some of them have five, ten or 15 employees. I spoke to one company with 15 employees recently. All of a sudden, one person was on maternity leave and two men were on paternity leave at the same time. This was the busiest time for the company and it was down three people. The owner could not afford to get anybody else in because he could not get him or her trained up quickly enough and had to manage around that, which he found very difficult.

The vast majority - 99.9% - of those small companies will look after their employees the best they can and will go out of their way to help them in difficult situations. I did that as an employer and any of the employers with whom I would be friendly with do that as well. That is known across the board. The Deputy is right. A company has to look after its employees because they are so important. They are the face of the business and are what makes it tick but it is very disingenuous to throw that out as a reason the effect of this on a business should not be looked.

To clear, I take exception to the use of the phrase "disingenuous". I have acknowledged it is an issue. It involves the extent to which that cost or issue arises and how frequently it arises. It is important to say that.

I think a lot of people would say we do not have enough business people in Dáil Éireann and that we have a lot of people from certain professions but not many people involved in business on the ground and that as a result they do not get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to legislation like this, particularly employment legislation. I am very cognisant of people undergoing fertility treatment or experiencing miscarriages. As I said, it is family so I am not against that in any way but we need to look at the effect this will have on SMEs because it is these small businesses in rural towns and villages around Ireland that are putting bread on the table for families and we have to make sure we look after them and do not let them fall away.

I very much welcome the fact there will be a public consultation by this committee. We also see regulatory impact assessments being undertaken. In particular, the experience of sick pay will be really important to understand how that has affected businesses.

I will tell the Deputy how it has affected SMEs. I am being told by businesses that we should have given them as holidays. I asked why and was told it was because they were taking them as days off and that if they were holidays, employees would have to tell employers when they were going to take them. Employers told me they get a call on Monday morning and an employee is not in on Monday and Tuesday or for a day. The employee has to be paid once he or she has a certificate, which he or she can pick up online from some doctor down in Kerry or wherever for €20. This is unfair and the scrutiny is not there.

I am bit confused. Is the Deputy suggesting-----

I am suggesting that people are abusing the situation.

I think it is up to the committee to investigate the extent of the abuse that is taking place.

We have a good balance there and if we have time, we might go back.

Why is Deputy Sherlock combining the two? Is it because she is worried that she would not get them in in the first place because most countries have separate legislation for fertility treatment and the leave?

When we came to this issue originally, we felt that both were important and rather than having two separate Bills, we wanted to have one because we believe that while they are very separate and distinct experiences, what unites them is that they concern reproductive health and the outcome is the same because we need compassionate workplace leave even if there is a distinction with regard to the number of days.

That is the only reason we brought the two together. Like I said, the Government's Bill only deals with early miscarriage. We believe there is a fundamental gap there. We would love it to be our Bill so both issues are dealt with.

Personally, I think it is the best of all the Bills put forward so far. I hope the Government will take it on board. Obviously, political decisions will be made. Just to follow up on Deputy McCormack, there is a valid argument in terms of fertility treatment given the more sudden nature of the leave requirement because it relates to getting the time right, etc. That impacts on small businesses very much. I am interested in Deputy Sherlock's happy medium. For example, on the other angle it is five days versus Deputy Sherlock's one being 20 days and in Northern Ireland it is 14 days. Deputy Sherlock is proposing ten days for fertility treatment. If we take a small business, for example, the Government was proposing, solely on the pregnancy loss side, a statutory sick leave which would be 70% of pay capped at €110 per day for five days, which would cost the business €550 per employee per year. If we factor that in and take in the fertility treatment as well, something that involves the State paying a standard payment is a much lower cost to business, by comparison with the suddenness of the business having to pay for the staff member's wages and trying to find replacements.

That is one angle I would like addressed but I wish to ask a separate question in relation to that. People are going to ask Deputy Sherlock to come up with any studies or figures about the cost to business versus the cost of not having engaged employees. From Deputy Sherlock's professional viewpoint in dealing with this Bill, how much time is already taken up because of sick leave related to pregnancy loss or IVF treatment, which is a rose by any other name? If it is already happening, why do we not put it on a statutory footing?

Regarding the replacement question, it is important to say that just because somebody is sick, it does not necessarily mean there will be additional staff found to replace that person. In fact, I understand from my conversations with small and medium businesses in my constituency of Dublin Central that they often have to make do and spread themselves thin. They are not able to find an additional staff member. It is really important in terms of the cost of somebody going out on sick leave.

Regarding the suddenness and uncertainty, that is a very valid question. Let us be clear. Somebody going through early miscarriage is pregnant and all of a sudden, they are not pregnant. That is a very uncertain event. Fertility treatment is entirely different. First, the person works out that they need to have treatment. They have an appointment at some stage and then they know it is going to be within a few weeks when they are going to have to go through the various treatments and have a scan.

I will just interrupt at that point to ask this related question. Is someone going to say to their employer "just to let you know, I am having fertility treatment in the next few weeks, but I am not exactly sure when because it depends"? Are people going to want to go into that level of detail? Is it not more the case that when the actual date has been set, it gives a shorter timeframe? Those challenges will always be there. I am obviously supportive of the Bill.

This is what we want to try to encourage and why the confidentiality is critically important so the employee and employer can have that open conversation. During the fertility treatment, by and large other than the day of the embryo transfer most people will not need a full day off. What is really important is the length of distance people have to travel. If somebody is based in Dublin and they have to turn up for a scan early in the morning, that is very different from somebody who is based in Donegal and has to come to Dublin. All those factors must be factored in. It is important to say that the notion somebody would be gone for a whole ten days is actually incorrect, in my view.

So, why does it propose ten days, then?

Because it would be spread out for a period of time. They would not be gone for the whole ten days consecutively. They would need half a day here, half a day there and a shorter day somewhere else. In terms of the practicality of fertility treatment and going through it, as I understand it, most workers would not take the ten days as a block or would not need to take it as a block but would need to be afforded that workplace flexibility when the need arises.

That goes back again to the small business. Some, as Deputy Sherlock said, will be able to make do and slightly larger ones will be trying to get cover, but it is very hard to get cover in that situation.

In a retail context, for example, the business opens its doors at 9 a.m. and the scan is in Dublin city centre at 8.30 a.m. So the person is able to turn up at 10.30 a.m. Obviously, there is a minimum number of people required to staff any operation, but to be down one person for an hour and a half, I would have to question whether the sky would fall in when that happens.

That comes back to the unfair dismissal element of it. Most businesses would allow people a couple of hours here and there, but Deputy Sherlock makes a valid point in terms of travelling from Donegal, for example. Does the Deputy know off the top of her head how many centres there are for people from Donegal? It is especially pertinent for people living in the west and north-west of Ireland.

In fairness, there has been an expansion of services, but it has mainly been in the major urban centres. People from Donegal typically go to Belfast or come to Dublin. Derry might have a centre as well. It is the main urban centres that have fertility treatment. Anybody outside of those areas have to travel a considerable distance.

I thank Deputy Sherlock for coming in here. I do not think we have ever had a conversation on this, but I really appreciate the Deputy's work in the past. I was not even a politician when she started this work, so I respect the work she has done. I think there is not one person in this room who does not want the best for women who are going through fertility treatments or who have gone through a miscarriage.

I am coming at this from both sides. For seven and a half years, I went through every type of fertility treatment in the Coombe, the Merrion and the Rotunda. I went through Napro. I went through the Beacon Hospital. I have done all of that. I suffered five early miscarriages. I totally get this piece. I really do. I am also an employer, so I have a good balanced position on this. I am also very proudly somebody who was asked by Senator Nicole Ryan to join a cross-party pregnancy and infant loss group. We have members from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Social Democrats, Independents and Sinn Féin. Unfortunately, we have nobody from the Labour Party in the group. We could have all worked together, in fairness.

With what happened this year, I feel that Ireland is really trying to strike a responsible balance between recognising the reality of pregnancy loss and creating a statutory entitlement that businesses, including small businesses, can realistically operate. The Government's general scheme has recommended a proposed five days of paid leave. I am really glad Deputy Sherlock pointed out the positives that have happened since she and Deputy Bacik mentioned all of this years ago. Even in terms of the funding for IVF, we have come great strides. We absolutely have. Deputy Sherlock mentioned the UK a number of times, but they are planning to do unpaid leave. Even with the five days, Ireland will be one of only five countries in the entire European Union that will be offering paid leave. I just want to point out that we are really doing well here in terms of what we are trying to do.

We need to recognise two things at the same time. First, pregnancy loss is a very physical and emotional experience. I can absolutely tell members that. For too long, women have been expected to simply return to work, often without any statutory recognition of what they have been through. Personally, I was somebody who needed to get back to work. Everybody chooses to do what they want. For each one, I needed a day to just bawl the house down and then the next day I needed to figure out what my next plan was and when I was going to get back in and get embryos, eggs and everything. When was I going to get more injections? I needed work to keep my mind off things, but I totally respect that other people need more time to grieve.

I welcome the Government's proposal because it changes that. It says clearly that pregnancy loss matters and that an employee should have time away from work to recover. However, we also must recognise, as colleagues have said, the reality for employers and particularly small and micro businesses. We have been asking what the statistics are. I will tell members some statistics because I have been dealing with a lot of the groups like the Irish Small and Medium Enterprise Association, ISME, Retail Excellence Ireland and the Small Firms Association.

In quarter 2 alone of this year 10,000 jobs have been lost in the small business sector and the retail sector. Although we have seen the economy grow, and we are at full employment - 26,000 other jobs were created - when we walk down the high street, we can see we have lost pubs, coffee shops and retail businesses. In the enterprise committee we have spent weeks dealing with the cost of doing business. As my colleague Deputy McCormack said, the reality is that a lot of businesses are on their knees. That is why I am talking about a balance. I wholeheartedly agree that there should be miscarriage leave but I also wholeheartedly empathise with businesses that are really struggling at the moment. Everything has been put on top of them all at the same time – sick leave, auto enrolment for pensions and the increase in wages. When we talk about 20 days of paid leave, we are not talking about an abstract number. For a business, 20 days can represent four weeks of absence. In a business with five, six or ten employees, losing one person for four weeks can have a very significant impact on the other employees, on customers and on the ability of that business to operate. So we therefore have to be careful.

The Government's five days importantly recognises pregnancy loss as something deserving of statutory protection. It gives a woman a defined period away from work without requiring her to use her ordinary sick leave. I totally agree she should not have to use that, but it also gives employers certainty. They know what the entitlement is. They know the circumstances in which it applies and they can plan for it. Our group met with the INTO and I remember two stories in particular that were just harrowing about a teacher standing in a classroom getting a phone call to say that her transfer had not worked and she was probably going to miscarry. That is horrendous. We met with Féileacáin and FirstLight. We have done a huge amount of work with the Pregnancy Loss Research Group. We have done a lot of work on this. We should also remember that the five days is not the maximum. We are saying this general scheme allows for it to be looked at in just three years' time to increase those days - to go back and talk to employers and ask how they are getting on with this. It is only one in four pregnancies that are affected. It is only women that are of reproductive age so I do not see the five days hurting businesses too much. I also do not want to put a lot more pressure on them.

The Government's position when we were going through this work was that the Organisation of Working Time Act was not the appropriate mechanism for introducing new leave entitlements, which is why a separate Bill was done. I think Ireland is proposing a clear, stand-alone statutory entitlement of five paid days with medical certification while retaining ordinary sick leave for anyone who needs longer. I will stop there. If we have a second opportunity, I will speak again. Deputy Sherlock is welcome to come in now in the last 45 seconds. It is a balanced approach.

I thank the Senator. One of the really powerful things is that when we first started talking about this five years ago people started speaking up about their own experience that they never would have shared before. Certainly, I never had any intention of speaking about my experience, but then I felt it was important to speak up.

I just want to say two things. First, with regards to the cross-party working group, we have sent our apologies to the meeting. The meeting was always scheduled at the time of our parliamentary party meeting so, unfortunately, none of us could ever attend. We have sent our apologies, and certainly we are very supportive of the group. It is probably unfair to say that we have not wanted to participate, as we physically could not, but we are supportive of the work of the group, and have had lots of contact with Professor Keelin O'Donoghue.

The second key thing is with regards to small and medium enterprises. I am hugely conscious of the impact on them and what they are going through. That is why for a long time the Labour Party has been saying we need to look at commercial rates and how we provide targeted support. That is also why we were opposed to the VAT cut for hospitality because it very narrowly benefits some very large employers and does not capture the employers we need to support. I am very conscious that it is not just hospitality but retail and other sectors that need to be supported within our towns and villages and that we need specific supports in that regard.

Following on from the point I made earlier, it is important that we understand the experience of the sick pay legislation and the impact and incidence on employers. As Senator Nelson Murray rightly highlights, it is not every employee that is going to be going through this. It is only a woman at a particular stage in her life and so there is no need to fear that the sky is going to fall in. We need to dispel that myth because ultimately people do not want to go to their employer and say they need this. They are only going to do so because they really need it. The notion that it will be abused in some way is very unfortunate. I am not saying Senator Nelson Murray said that but others did say it.

I definitely would not agree with that.

I know and I appreciate that.

I thank the witnesses for being here. I am sorry I was not here for the opening statement, but I have read it. My colleague, Senator Nelson Murray, is coming from the same background as me - small to medium enterprise. The Government's plan itself gives a five-day sick pay rate. The Bill gives 20 days of full pay plus ten days for fertility treatment. I just wonder if a middle ground could be reached. Would Senator Sherlock accept the Government's Bill if fertility leave was added in as an amendment to that Bill?

If the Minister was minded to add in fertility treatment we would be very welcoming and supportive of that. We believe our Bill is much more comprehensive and is at a more advanced Stage. The other important point to make is this is not just about the days. Obviously the days are going to be the headline and people are going to zone in on that, but it is also about the-----

Just on the days, is it a full ten days and not a lesser number?

I appreciate that and that is why it is important ultimately. I communicated earlier that we are open to amendments and we want to engage in that process but it is also important to say that as part of our Bill we have very express and explicit provisions made with regard to confidentiality and unfair dismissals. They are also important factors in this legislation to get it right that are missing from the Government Bill.

I know in some of the other witness statements they reported 10% discrimination, which is frightening. People have been discriminated against because of issues regarding leave.

As my colleague, Senator Nelson Murray mentioned, I also want to ask Deputy Sherlock if there is an estimate for what the Bill is going to cost employers.

To be fair, any Private Members' legislation that is brought before these Houses typically does not have a cost estimate. That is why we ultimately welcome regulatory impact assessment. I spoke earlier about the experience of the sick pay legislation and the importance of understanding how that operates. There was a lot of opposition from employer groups then. From my experience of talking to small and medium enterprises in my own constituency - I do not like the phrase, but I keep on using it – the sky has not fallen in. They have coped with it. Do they like it? No, but they have coped with it.

The other key point is that not every employee who is out has to be replaced or can be replaced.

Is there an argument then as to why a small business should carry all the cost? Is it possible that the Social Insurance Fund could provide some sort of a rebate to SMEs for this?

That is certainly something worth considering but, at the moment, going back to the issue of how often this is ever going to happen within a workplace, we need to put that in context. The right to be able to access compassionate leave is the important piece here. How it is funded is also critically important but we need to understand how often this is going to arise as an issue for employers. That is why it is important to look at the sick leave legislation. We can extrapolate from how many people go sick in a year how much smaller a number will ever need this particular much-needed leave.

Is there a possibility of phasing it in over time?

Of course. We would welcome all such practical amendments. At the end of the day, what I am most interested in is the principle of ensuring that there is compassionate workplace leave for women going through these situations, and men when they go through fertility treatment.

I know Deputy Sherlock has no hand in the witnesses that are here today, but I am disappointed that there are no employers coming in as witnesses to give evidence from an employer's point of view, for example, looking at whether there are other options such as putting it through PRSI or giving a rebate. It is a pity that has not happened.

We will be doing a consultation again. We will do another session.

I hope we will have employers at that. The other witnesses that are coming in will allow for discussion on partners and treatment abroad. Would Deputy Sherlock amend the Bill to cover partners and treatment abroad and to use the 23-week stillbirth threshold?

Yes, that is a significant updating because obviously the law has been changed with regards to the classification of stillbirth since this legislation was first introduced, up to 23 weeks.

We welcome that. With regard to partners, in an ideal world, in the event of early miscarriage, you would of course have leave both for women, who are physically going through the experience, and for their partners, who are emotionally going through the experience. However, can we at least try to get the provision for women in place first? I was asked this question on the radio this morning. If we are serious about women's health, let us get this in place rather than trying to do too much. My concern is that we will end up talking about adding things. We are having a conversation about the impact on employers. If we are then to add in the male partner, particularly with regard to early miscarriage, there would be a cost implication to that. My instinct is that we should get the provision in place for women. I am more than happy to have the conversation with regard to male partners. With regard to fertility, it is important to note that, by and large, the woman has to do the lion's share of the work. The man has to do a small element of it. However, we need to recognise that he needs to be there for some part of it. That is why we have included the male partner in the fertility treatment provision.

I want to be objective. It is important that we talk about the costings of this so that we can know what we are dealing with. However, at the same time, friends of mine have had miscarriages and lost children. It is devastating. It is only when it happens to the individual that it absolutely applies. I actually think there is middle ground here. The Deputy is proposing 20 days at full pay plus ten days. I think we could meet somewhere in the middle.

I am more than happy to engage with the committee on amendments. My principal interest today is very much to welcome the committee's facilitation of this scrutiny and to be very grateful to the committee for it. Let us bring it forward to Committee Stage, where we can deal with detailed amendments to reflect the concerns that have been articulated here.

Our time has expired. I have one question. I just want to make an observation, having watched the contributions today. I apologise to Deputy Clendennen. He can go first in the next slot. We have two sessions. We cannot fit him into this session. We have genuinely been quite strict on time overruns today. These things happen. I am sorry. I was just making the point that, having observed the contributions today, I would suggest that the Labour Party and Deputy Sherlock engage with the cross-party group specifically on this item. That is just an observation. I thank the Deputy for coming here and for answering the questions that people had. I apologise that time has expired. We have witnesses waiting here in the Gallery. We will now suspend for just a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses to take their seats. Is Deputy Sherlock going to remain with us?

Yes, I will remain here.

That is perfect. We will suspend for five minutes.

As the meeting resumes, I would like to welcome our witnesses. From Maynooth University's ALL Institute, I welcome Dr. Valentina Paolucci, assistant professor at the school of business, who teaches in comparative employment relations and human resource management and is a researcher for the ReproWork project. I also welcome Dr. Róisón McConnell from the Merrion Fertility Clinic, who is a fertility specialist, clinical research fellow and partner in the ReproWork project. From the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, INTO, we welcome Ms Maeve McCafferty, equality officer and senior official; from LMC Bereavement Support, Leanbh Mo Chroí, Ms Alison Lynch its chairperson; and from the Miscarriage Association of Ireland I welcome its chairperson, Ms Jennifer Duggan. I thank everyone for being here. They are very welcome to the enterprise committee.

I will now invite Dr. Paolucci from Maynooth University to make her opening statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it today. I am an assistant professor in human resource management at Maynooth University school of business. With Professor Marian Crowley-Henry, I co-lead ReproWork, a research project examining the relationship between fertility treatment and employment, conducted in partnership with Merrion Fertility Clinic and funded by Research Ireland.

ReproWork is supported by an advisory board bringing together expertise in reproductive health, employment relations and management, alongside people with lived experience and advocacy organisations. Across our discussions, a central concern keeps recurring: employees should be able to attend fertility treatment without depending entirely on the discretion of their employer. At present, many have to negotiate flexibility appointment by appointment, often explaining private medical needs to a line manager who may also assess their performance. Even where patients are eligible for publicly funded treatment, their working conditions may make it difficult to attend appointments when required.

I would like to consider the need that this Bill addresses and the contribution it could make, starting from the fact that this need already exists. The World Health Organization estimates that approximately one in six adults experience infertility during their lifetime. It affects women and men, and for many people treatment has to be undertaken alongside paid work. Treatment creates a particular tension with the organisation of working time. IBEC describes it in its guidance to employers as time-consuming and time-sensitive, with unavoidable last-minute changes to appointments. It estimates that women typically require around six to eight days of flexibility across tests, scans, consultations and procedures, some of which may leave them temporarily unfit for work.

Someone with substantial discretion over their working day may be able to reorganise work around an appointment confirmed at short notice because they have the flexibility to do so but that is considerably harder for a teacher responsible for a class, a healthcare worker assigned to a roster or somebody whose income depends directly on the hours they work.

A recent study of about 800 women doctors in Ireland found that, among those who sought fertility treatment, 86% reported difficulty accessing it while working. At present, employees are largely left to manage these demands themselves. They use annual leave, sick leave or informal flexibility negotiated with a manager. Some are reluctant to disclose treatment, particularly where they feel insecure about their employment, and may make up for absences or use forms of leave that allow them to keep treatment private.

The consequences can go considerably further. An international survey published in 2025 by Fertility Matters at Work UK across multiple countries including the UK, Australia, Japan, Poland and France, found that nearly two in five respondents undergoing treatment had left their job or considered leaving. This was not an Irish study, but it gives an indication of how seriously treatment can affect employment decisions.

Reducing working hours, changing jobs or leaving employment may make treatment easier to accommodate, but it can also take away the income needed to continue it. For many, the job that makes treatment difficult to accommodate is also the job that allows them to afford it. IBEC's own research provides an indication of how uneven workplace provision is at the moment. In a survey of almost 300 member organisations, conducted in 2021, 72% considered fertility-related support relevant to their organisation, yet only 6% had a specific fertility policy and 11% provided paid fertility leave.

Relying exclusively on employer-level initiatives risks reinforcing inequalities that already exist in the labour market. This matters particularly because Ireland has made considerable progress on the healthcare side. Publicly funded assisted reproduction was introduced in 2023, reducing to a certain extent financial barriers to treatment but public funding does not, by itself, address whether somebody can get away from work to attend that treatment.

The Bill responds to that need in several ways. First, it proposes a common statutory entitlement with up to ten working days of paid reproductive health-related leave in a leave year, separate from annual leave and sick leave. That changes the basis on which flexibility is obtained. The employee is no longer asking a manager for a favour. The entitlement is established, and the workplace discussion concerns how it is accommodated. This does not replace employer policy or collective bargaining, where it takes place. A national framework establishes a common floor, upon which employers can develop more favourable arrangements if they so wish. The Bill explicitly preserves that possibility.

Second, it recognises fertility treatment as healthcare with a legitimate place in the employment relationship. A person attending a scan or procedure may be perfectly able to work for the remainder of the day. Using annual leave means taking medical care from an entitlement intended for rest and holidays.

Third, the Bill addresses privacy and employment security. It imposes confidentiality obligations on employers, preserves employment rights during leave and provides specific protection in unfair dismissal legislation for exercising, or proposing to exercise, the entitlement. We can see similar recognition developing internationally. France provides authorised paid absence for assisted-reproduction procedures, including limited partner attendance. Malta provides paid leave shared between prospective parents and expressly covers treatment abroad. Belgium introduced specific employment protection in 2024 against dismissal connected with absences for fertility treatment or medically assisted reproduction. In this respect, the Irish Bill brings together time away from work, pay, confidentiality and employment protection, reflecting evidence that is emerging internationally.

Two questions warrant the committee's attention. The first concerns partners. The Bill provides for employees receiving qualifying treatment but does not expressly establish a separate entitlement for a partner who may need to be present at key moments. The second concerns treatment abroad. The Bill provides for treatment received from a registered medical practitioner in the State. Irish patients do travel abroad for fertility treatment, including where particular treatments are unavailable or difficult to access here. I ask the committee to clarify whether the entitlement extends to treatment received from an overseas provider so that employees do not lose access to reproductive health leave because their treatment takes place outside Ireland.

I will add one point about design. Section 23C provides that a partial day's absence counts as half a working day. Much of what treatment requires is shorter than that: a blood test or a monitoring scan early in the morning followed by a full day's work. Under a half-day rule, a 90-minute appointment uses half of an entitlement that has to cover a whole cycle. Malta, for example, counts its entitlement in hours rather than days and allows it to be taken non-continuously. An hours-based approach would fit the clinical pattern more closely, would make the entitlement go considerably further and would reduce the total time employees spend away from work, which would serve employees and employers alike.

I will finish with the point on which our discussions within the ReproWork advisory board converged particularly strongly: the need for a national baseline for protections. Infertility is a health condition and its treatment is healthcare. A national baseline cannot remove every difficulty associated with combining fertility treatment and work. However, it changes where responsibility begins, replacing repeated individual negotiation with a recognised entitlement upon which employers and trade unions, where they are present, can build. Access to reproductive healthcare should not depend on having the right employer, the right contract or the right kind of job. It should not be a privilege. I thank the committee members and will be happy to answer their questions.

I am a clinical research fellow working in Merrion Fertility Clinic, alongside being a specialist registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition to the current doctoral research I am undertaking in fertility, I have undertaken two master's degrees, one in healthcare management from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI, and one in obstetrics and gynaecology from University College Cork, UCC. I sincerely thank the committee for the invitation to speak to it today about our research conducted at Merrion Fertility Clinic in collaboration with ReproWork.

Despite the Government finally recognising the critical need for State-funded fertility treatment within Ireland, no additional leave provision was mandated to facilitate ease of access to this treatment. In fertility, time, particularly for women, is of the essence. Minimising delays in accessing treatment will improve treatment outcomes. Balancing employment with fertility treatment is a significant source of stress for both men and women, yet this disproportionately impacts women. We sought to examine the Irish female perspective of balancing fertility treatment and workplace employment. We surveyed public patients attending the National Maternity Hospital and both public and private patients attending Merrion Fertility Clinic. We received close to 300 female responses across both sites. In addition, we obtained 30 male responses from patients at the Merrion Fertility Clinic, something I will reflect on later in my comments.

To first look at the female responses, just 2.5% of all female respondents were not currently employed, which demonstrates that accessing treatment while working is the reality for the overwhelming majority of our female patients. On average, women reported needing 5.1 days' leave per treatment cycle, ranging from zero days to 84 days. The more cycles of treatment a woman undertook, the less workplace leave they took. Less than 10% of women reported having a dedicated workplace policy to address employees taking leave for fertility treatment, while men, however, were significantly more likely to report a dedicated policy in their workplace. This could be related to their employment sector, as those working in finance and banking were significantly more likely to report a dedicated fertility policy.

Our study has highlighted the inequalities and stark variations across employment sectors, both in terms of accessing leave for treatment and in regards to the differing levels of managerial support. Over 51% of women used their sick leave and 34% used their annual leave to attend for fertility treatment. Employees in different sectors accessed different forms of leave with differing levels of remuneration. Education workers relied heavily on sick leave; 76% of them used sick leave versus 46% overall. Healthcare workers used their annual leave at levels of 50% compared with 29% overall. Those working in the tourism and transport trade were forced to use unpaid leave, whereas those in finance and marketing were more likely to report the apparent luxury of paid fertility leave.

I need to stress that the above findings have ramifications in terms of continuing treatment. It is well-established at this stage that workplace culture heavily influences a woman’s reproductive choices, such as family size, but the reality is that it also impacts the decision to continue with fertility treatment. Managerial support plays a vital role in ensuring employees accessing fertility treatment receive the understanding, flexibility and assistance they need. While over 58% of female respondents informed their managers of their fertility treatment, our research highlights the significant variations in the level of support across different employment sectors. Education workers reported a higher level of managerial support despite the fact that accessing this leave still generated significant stress for them. Those in tourism and the transport trade, who were most likely to access unpaid leave and incur a loss of income, typically disagreed with the statement that their manager was supportive of them taking time off. Interestingly, our male respondents were significantly less likely to agree with the statement that obtaining leave for fertility treatment significantly added to the stress of the treatment. Our research demonstrates that women do not consistently receive support from their managers when taking leave for fertility treatment.

The final question of our survey was an open comments section allowing respondents to outline any additional thoughts and experiences that had not been captured by the survey. These responses explicitly reinforced the critical need for dedicated reproductive leave. The central theme of these comments reiterated the stress of taking days off and having to use up sick leave to access fertility treatment. Women reported going into work when unwell as they knew they needed the sick days for future treatments. The lack of dedicated fertility leave resulted in women being forced back to the workplace immediately following a pregnancy loss - something that has thankfully been rectified following the Government's decision in July of this year - but also after an unsuccessful treatment, which is the continuing reality for women. One woman reported having to return to her role of caring for mothers and newborn babies immediately after her own unsuccessful treatment. This lack of dedicated leave allows women and men no time to grieve their unsuccessful fertility treatment and loss of all their hopes.

The most concerning theme identified within our open-text analysis is the detrimental impact of fertility-related leave on women's career progression. Over 10% reported discrimination, ranging from not obtaining a bonus due to the overutilisation of sick leave to women losing employment immediately after an embryo transfer as their workplace presumed a subsequent pregnancy and did not want to pay maternity leave. While blatantly illegal, it further compounds a woman's loss if the cycle is subsequently unsuccessful. In other studies examining reproductive leave, women speak of being penalised for a family they never had. The protection this Bill proposes is urgently needed to protect women and men against discrimination which our research demonstrates is already occurring in Irish workplaces.

Despite the variations between male and female respondents in relation to workplace-provided fertility leave, both groups were united in their support for the need for Government-mandated leave, with over 95% of women agreeing or strongly agreeing that having Government-mandated fertility leave would reduce the stress associated with obtaining leave for treatment. While Ireland has taken a welcome step by introducing State-funded fertility treatment in the past three years, we still have not introduced mechanisms to allow couples time away from the workplace to access this treatment. The majority of couples work in full-time employment and the utilisation of sick or unpaid leave to access treatment will negatively impact their income. Of the couples within our public fertility hub, it is estimated that 60% will need a second cycle of IVF treatment, meaning that for these couples the only avenue available is privately funded treatment cycles. This is where the inequality over paid fertility leave will contribute significantly as to whether a couple can continue to pursue their chance of a family or financial constraints mean that further private cycles are restricted.

We need to ensure protection for men and women undertaking fertility leave. We know that as women and men age, their chance of needing fertility treatment to achieve a pregnancy increases. This creates a vicious cycle for women, and to a lesser extent men, who delay parenthood due to career concerns.

They face a double burden. First, an increased likelihood of requiring fertility treatment and, second, the risk of experiencing workplace discrimination when taking leave to access that treatment. Discrimination in the workplace can deter women from continuing treatment or force them to postpone treatment cycles. Our research reiterates the need for this reproductive leave Bill. We need to protect women and men taking leave to access fertility treatment and to level the playing field regarding the financial penalties some couples suffer by taking reduced pay or unpaid leave for treatment.

The UN lists the right to family in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, fertility treatments sometimes cannot overcome biology. We must balance the scales and correct the financial barriers preventing couples and individuals from accessing treatment to help achieve their family dreams. I thank the members. I am happy to take any questions.

I thank the committee for this opportunity. As was mentioned, the INTO has been involved from the inception of this Bill. It has been very much shaped by the voice of experience and the realities of teachers in schools. It is of profound importance to our members. As a union representing over 50,000 teachers and school leaders, the INTO sees first hand the impact reproductive health challenges can have on individuals, couples and families. We know that teachers are often trying to navigate these devastating personal experiences while continuing to care for and support children every day in their classrooms.

While the INTO warmly welcomed the commitment of the Minister, Deputy Burke, earlier this year to introduce legislation, we were disappointed to learn that it is not yet reflected in the Government's autumn legislative programme. For many affected workers, this represents another delay in securing basic workplace protections that are long overdue. Importantly, we believe that this Private Members' Bill goes further in several key aspects. In addition to early pregnancy leave, it also recognises the significant impact of infertility. It acknowledges the role and needs of partners, reflecting the reality that reproductive health challenges affect entire families.

Earlier this month, I attended the ReproWork event, where I met many of the witnesses here today. As Dr. McConnell has pointed out, the fascinating findings of the Merrion Fertility Clinic's research show that 76% of workers in the education sector used sick leave to attend fertility treatment appointments compared with 46% of workers in other sectors. In addition, despite being more likely to report supportive employers, education workers were also more likely to say that securing time off work significantly increased their stress and that they returned to work too soon. For teachers, the challenge is particularly acute. Fertility treatment appointments are often scheduled at short notice. There is little flexibility during the school day. An unsubstitutable absence can mean disruption for pupils, added pressure on colleagues and a sense of professional guilt that further compounds the stress. As a result, many teachers are forced to use sick leave for something that is not an illness, while others delay or even miss appointments, or attempt to fit treatment and medical appointments around school closure periods, despite the fact that reproductive cycles and treatment schedules rarely align with the school calendar.

The testimony of teachers who participated in the Government's PLACES report was particularly powerful. One teacher told researchers: "It is hard to take time off in teaching without a good excuse. ... Your absence as a teacher is an imposition on the school." Another described returning to the classroom while still grieving: "Physically tired. Emotionally not well. Having to put on a smile for 28 pupils and try to be a good teacher while grieving. I went back too soon ...". These are not isolated stories. They reflect a wider culture where workers experiencing pregnancy loss or fertility challenges often feel compelled to return to work before they are physically or emotionally ready simply because there is no suitable leave available to them.

The findings from INTO member research echoed many of the themes we have heard already here today. Members told us repeatedly that pregnancy loss is not an illness and should not be treated as one, yet workers are currently forced into an inappropriate and limited public service sick-leave framework that was never designed to address grief, trauma, fertility treatment or reproductive loss. Teachers spoke of depleting sick leave entitlements, worrying about future pregnancies and feeling guilty about taking time away from their pupils and colleagues.

While discussing reproductive health leave, the INTO also wishes to highlight other significant gaps. In particular, there is a serious and deeply unfair anomaly whereby parents who lose a child while on maternity leave cannot access their four-week bereavement leave entitlement because they are already on maternity leave. Maternity leave should not be consumed by tragedy. No parent should lose access to bereavement leave because the death of a child occurs during maternity leave. I acknowledge the work of Senator Ryan, who previously tried to legislate in this area.

We are also concerned by the continued delay in commencing legislation to provide leave entitlements for parents through surrogacy. The INTO believes it is wholly inappropriate that parents still have no dedicated entitlement to paid leave to care for and bond with their child.

The evidence is clear, the need is clear and the experiences of workers are clear. Our INTO members in Northern Ireland already benefit from leave provisions relating to early pregnancy loss. There is no reason teachers, or any worker in this jurisdiction, should receive lesser support when experiencing the same trauma and loss. No worker should have to choose between recovering from pregnancy loss, supporting a partner through fertility treatment and protecting their job, career progression or income.

The INTO supports the Labour Party's Bill. We support the recommendations of the Government's PLACES report. We urge the committee to support measures that will ensure workers experiencing these traumatic circumstances are treated with the dignity and support they deserve. I thank the committee and look forward to questions.

I thank Ms McCafferty. We now go to the next opening statement, from Ms Alison Lynch of LMC Bereavement Support. Following that, we will hear from Ms Jennifer Duggan. That will allow the committee approximately 20 to 25 minutes for questions and answers before the European affairs committee members have to come into the room. That will bring us up to approximately 2.50 p.m. Deputy George Lawlor has very kindly agreed to stand in as Chair because I will have to depart.

I express my sincere gratitude to everyone for their contributions and presence here. The committee, collectively, is very aware of the serious impact the outlined circumstances have on families, women and mothers in Ireland. I also acknowledge the exceptional contribution made by our fellow member Senator Linda Nelson Murray. The Senator has brought her own expertise and life experience to this issue and has been brave and courageous in coming here to speak about it. She deserves significant recognition. I thank the Senator.

I am the chair of LMC Bereavement Support. We provide support for parents who have received any sort of poor or fatal foetal diagnosis during pregnancy.

When I lost my two boys, I was lucky enough – I use that term loosely – that because I had reached 30 and 34 weeks, respectively, I was entitled to full maternity leave. I got the time I needed to process and grieve these two profound and significant losses in my life.

My fellow board member, Emma, was not as fortunate. She endured four losses within an 18-month period. Following her first miscarriage, her boss was very kind and understanding and told her to take one week's compassionate leave. A few months later, during her second pregnancy, her son Noah was diagnosed at 21 weeks with a fatal brain condition in which his brain had not split correctly. She had a compassionate induction at 22 weeks. Again, her boss was very understanding and told her to take two weeks' compassionate leave, which she did. She tried very hard to come back after those two weeks but found herself unable to do so. She was dealing with a postpartum body, both mentally and physically. Her GP certified her off for a further six weeks. However, she returned early because she felt guilty. She was aware that her boss had been very considerate in providing what was, at that time, a total of three weeks' compassionate leave within a 12-month period, and she did not want to be seen to be taking advantage. Therefore, when she became pregnant a third time, she did not tell her boss, nor did she tell her boss when she miscarried that pregnancy because she felt embarrassed. She took one day's annual leave to have the dilation and curettage procedure and returned to work the next day. For her fourth miscarriage, she worked throughout and took no leave whatsoever.

Every woman is different and every pregnancy loss is different, and the factors that will affect the time off that a woman needs will include: the relationship she has with her workplace and her boss; any pre-existing physical or mental health conditions she might have; how her body is physically dealing with this loss; and even the industry she works in. Working with pregnant women, babies and children can be incredibly painful when you have just sustained a pregnancy loss.

If there is any sort of foetal diagnosis in the run-up to that, there can potentially be five or more weeks where you will already have used annual or sick leave to go in for scans and diagnostic appointments before the actual loss and before needing to deal with that. Having 20 days of statutory leave would give women the choice as to what time they need to grieve and come to terms with what has happened. Not every woman is going to need those 20 days. As Senator Nelson Murray said, some women prefer to get back to work. It is their coping mechanism and way of grieving. Not all women are going to need 20 days, but it is about them having the choice without feeling guilty or embarrassed or feeling that they are taking advantage of their employers.

Regarding the ten days of IVF leave, I do have considerable experience of that. Since 2019, I have undergone four intrauterine insemination, IUI, procedures, 11 egg retrievals and nine embryo transfers. That is a total of 24 separate IVF procedures, and the majority of IVF procedures entail at least three to four scans and the day of the procedure itself. As Deputy Sherlock mentioned, the scans can be at last minute. They are generally scheduled for the morning. Again, I am fortunate that my working hours are generally from about lunchtime until midnight, so I can schedule those in the morning before work. I have no idea how anyone working from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. deals with it. The downside for me is that because I live in a rural area, the scans can be quite far away or in Dublin, so I often have a three-to-four-hour round trip before my 12-hour working day, which is not ideal.

I have used up all of my annual leave for the last few years on IVF. I think IVF is a hobby for me now. If I am not working, I am doing IVF. I have had some sick leave when there have been, on one or two occasions, adverse consequences from one or two procedures. Having ten days of statutory leave would have allowed me a little bit more flexibility around work. It is in a person's best interests to be working when doing IVF, because they will need to pay for it. I cannot see women abusing this time because they will need to be in work for said IVF treatment. It would, though, allow for a better balance between work and these invasive medical procedures that they are undergoing. It would be nice, perhaps, to use my annual leave for something other than attending an IVF clinic.

I thank the committee very much.

I thank Ms Lynch for that statement. It is powerful information. I call Ms Jennifer Duggan. I invite her to make her opening statement now. I apologise that I will have to slip out towards the end of it.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to its members today. My name is Jennifer Duggan and I am the chairperson of the Miscarriage Association of Ireland. I am also someone with lived experience of miscarriage and know first hand how difficult the return to work after a loss can be and the challenges it poses.

Looking in from the outside, people might think or assume we have a perfectly planned little family. We are extremely lucky to have a 17-year-old, a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. What people do not see, and are often unaware of, are the six miscarriages we experienced along the way to having our family.

My own experience of pregnancy loss is also what led me to become involved and volunteer with the Miscarriage Association of Ireland. Through the association, which is run solely by volunteers, we support women and men who have experienced miscarriage and pregnancy loss. What strikes me is how often the stories we hear from people coming to us for support are so similar to my own story and the stories of our other volunteers.

In hindsight, after my first miscarriage in 2008, I went back to work far too soon. I felt pressure to get on with things and to carry on as normal. After my second loss, I took sick leave, although I was not sick. I was grieving the loss of our baby. Work was not particularly supportive, with many phone calls wanting to know when I was going to be back and wanting a company nurse to follow up with me, even though my own GP had signed me off work. I felt like I was being asked to justify why I was not fit for work. I felt like my loss did not matter, that my little baby did not matter. It left me feeling like my grief and how I was feeling were not valid. With subsequent losses, I again had no other option but to take sick leave. My experience of compassion varied between managers. Some were incredibly supportive and understanding, while others found it much harder to understand what I was going through, which only added to the pain, grief and isolation I was feeling.

Returning to work after a miscarriage can be incredibly difficult. Colleagues often do not know what to say, and having to explain what has happened is not an easy conversation to have, with some people opting to have a cover story rather than trying to explain their loss and justify their grief. I, like many men and women, became very good at putting on a mask at work and pretending that I was fine when, in reality, I was not. I would hold it together during the day at work and then fall apart in the evenings. That grief I was feeling did not just disappear when I walked through the workplace door. Instead, I pushed the grief down at work, but it came home with me and affected my family and my home life, too.

What people need after pregnancy loss is compassion, space, understanding and acknowledgment. They need time to recover physically, time to process what has happened to them and time to grieve their loss. Every person is different, and that needs to be respected. Grief will be different for everyone, and there is no right or wrong way to grieve.

It is also important to realise and understand that partners need support, too. They are grieving their own loss while often trying to support their partner, but their pain and heartbreak are just as real and valid. They deserve support, compassion and understanding, too, and they have a right to grieve in their own right.

Loss is loss, regardless of when that loss occurs. The grief of losing a baby through miscarriage or pregnancy loss is very real, deep and painful, yet miscarriage is not always recognised as a significant loss. That can leave people feeling very isolated and alone at a time when they most need support.

Through the Miscarriage Association of Ireland, we support any steps that will improve the care and support people receive following a miscarriage or pregnancy loss. The Organisation of Working Time (Reproductive Health Related Leave) Bill 2021 recognises something very important: that, following a miscarriage, people need time away from work to recover physically, to grieve and to process the loss of their baby. Having dedicated paid leave would take away some of the pressure that so many feel to simply get on with things. It would give people the time and the space they need to grieve, to recover and to process their loss without also having to navigate the expectations of work. It would give people breathing space to come to terms with the loss of their baby.

We believe that both partners should have dedicated leave. Pregnancy loss affects both parents, and both need the opportunity to grieve their loss while also being there as a vital support network for each other. No one should have to use annual leave. No one should have to rely on sick leave, and no one should feel that they must return to work before they are ready simply because they have had a miscarriage. Most importantly, dedicated miscarriage leave would acknowledge that this loss matters, that their baby matters, that the person experiencing the loss matters and that they deserve compassion, understanding, support and time to recover both physically and mentally and to grieve their loss.

The Miscarriage Association of Ireland very much welcomes the recognition of these needs in the 2021 Bill and believes that the principle of dedicated, protected leave following pregnancy loss remains vitally important. I thank the committee for listening and for recognising and considering this vitally important issue. Gabhaim buíochas leis an gcoiste as an am inniu agus as éisteacht liom.

I thank Ms Duggan very much. I call Senator Nelson Murray.

I have not even written down any questions because I was so struck by what was said. I thank Alison, Emma and Jennifer so much for their stories. I explained to Deputy Sherlock that I had a great way of parking what happens, but I felt every word said by the witnesses.

There is nobody around this committee room who does not want to acknowledge what is happening with women. As I said earlier, it is about getting the right balance. I spoke to Deputy Sherlock during the break and told her that I was definitely on the fertility side of things, having gone through all that myself. I think of the time I needed, what with the excitement and the sadness and all that type of thing. We need to explore the fertility leave side of things as well.

I thank Dr. McConnell very much. She mentioned how, when a survey was done in the Merrion Fertility Clinic - forgive me if I have this wrong - some people said they needed between zero days and 84 days. There is a big variance there, yet was the average 5.1 days?

Some people took three months off for the entirety of their treatment cycle, so that skewed the data.

That was 5.1 days that people would probably need for fertility treatment in any given year.

Yes.

I note that one of the countries - I believe it is Malta - is doing it in hours. I can understand that as well. Some people coming from Meath up to Dublin can book the 8 a.m. appointment and they might just need hours for it, but I think that is a good way of looking at it as well.

For the fertility clinics that are here, the toolkit that Deputy Sherlock and Ms McCafferty mentioned might be a good idea. People who are employers are coming up to have these treatments, but the clinics are dealing with employees, too. Every employer in the country should have that. It explains what women are feeling and what can be done compassionately to help women. That is important.

For the INTO, just so that I understand, how many sick days do teachers get? I never know this and I meant to look it up before I came here today.

We had the opportunity to address the Oireachtas cross-party group-----

That is right. I remember that meeting. It was those two girls whom we met that time who stuck in my head.

We spoke about this that day. Significant changes were made to the public service sick leave scheme in 2014. That is why this became an issue for our members following the changes. Currently, it is over a four-year rolling period where teachers would have three months of full pay. The question came up earlier about fertility and miscarriage and why they are together. They are very interlinked as well because a person going through fertility treatment can, sadly, experience miscarriage. They go hand in hand. We find that our members over a four-year period, which is, sadly, how long it can go on for-----

Even though there is that sick leave provision - I am not in any way trying to say people can just have that sick leave - I remember a teacher talking about getting the phone call to say the treatment had not been successful. She had to go back and teach a classroom of children. What I am trying to say is that it is very different from sick leave. Someone might argue that there are sick days available but it is very different when it comes to fertility treatment and miscarriage leave.

We speak to members every single day as well who are presenting with genuine sick conditions and illnesses. They say that they are going through IVF and are afraid to use their sick leave because they do not want to exhaust it. As parents, we all would hate to think that a teacher was feeling pressurised to go back to school before they were emotionally ready. It is a very emotionally demanding job.

It is also difficult. I am on the education committee, so I have listened to some of the witnesses there as well and to teachers and principals. In many cases, there is not somebody to replace that person. That makes it even harder on them. They feel under more pressure because it is so hard to get a substitute sometimes. I thank the INTO for representing teachers really well.

I normally talk a lot, but I do not have many questions because the witnesses have informed me of so much. Even though I have this experience, it has really been good today to just bring it right back to what everybody is feeling during these situations. I do not think anyone does not want to do the right thing when it comes to miscarriage leave, and we definitely need to look at the fertility side of things as well. It is about doing the right thing for everybody through a balanced approach.

I thank the witnesses. I really appreciate it.

I thank the witnesses for their valuable contributions to the debate today. We thanked Deputy Sherlock earlier for bringing this forward, and Senators Nelson Murray and Ryan and everybody else who has worked on this. That was critical and reflects how important we as a party see this in terms of the progress we, including Dr. Caoimhe Archibald, have made in the North. We want to get this right.

I am very sorry for those of the witnesses who have suffered loss. I do not know what that is like. I had two pregnancies, and I have two boys, and it was very simple, but it is not as simple as that for everybody. We need to take that into account, and that is exactly what we are doing here.

A few things struck me, particularly in one of the statements. Ms McCafferty outlined the contribution from the person who described returning to the classroom while still grieving: "Physically tired. Emotionally not well. Having to put on a smile for 28 pupils and try to be a good teacher while grieving." She went back to work too soon and ended up taking a month off two months later. We need to have the conversation with employers to be on board with this, because the worst thing we could do is divert in either way and this become a battle. Looking at that just purely economically from not having that leave and then having to end up taking time off anyway does not make any sense whatsoever. When we have the employers in here and the representative groups before us, we will have that discussion with them.

There is also the issue of retention and recruitment costs. If somebody decides they have to leave their post, there are all the costs involved in retraining somebody else and so on. There is a space there that employers can work in. As a party, we are very conscious of the additional labour costs that small businesses in particular have these days. That is why we have worked in a PRSI rebate to soften the blow and take that into account. We allow a €250 million PRSI rebate to support employers in that space. Is there anything in particular the witnesses would want to say to employers today? That is probably my main question. If the employers were here in the room with us, what would they be asked?

There is probably a little bit of misunderstanding about the relationship between fertility and work. It is a lot more complex than other types of health condition because people have an illness, but they are not sick. Essentially, they can work and often they want to work. As the people with lived experiences have outlined so beautifully and nicely, work is an anchor, and that is what we find in research. People want to work because treatment is very intense emotionally. Abusing fertility leave is a concept we do not know about because we do not have data. We do not know if it has occurred in Ireland because we generally do not have data, so I cannot speak on that. However, abusing fertility treatment is something I would find very exceptional. It is also a stigmatised issue, so people do not disclose. From international research, I would expect the other problem, namely, a low take up, like paternity leave, because people fear the implications for their careers of taking time off. If anything, I would think that organisations might not know that their employees continue to undergo fertility treatment privately, even though entitlements might be available, because it is a different health condition.

To echo what Dr. Paolucci has said, as someone who is often on the end of writing these sick notes, we do not just sign off people.

When I am prescribing or writing sick notes for patients, I take into account the treatment they are undertaking in the context of both the physical and mental side of it. Deputy McCormack made a point about people being signed off online by doctors down in Kerry. We do not just sign people off for three months at a time unless we feel it is physically what is needed. If we think someone might not need that time, we will have a discussion with them and say, "Okay. We will give you this. See how you go. You might not have go back to your GP." There is a balance. From a fertility point of view, patients often do not want sick notes. We are sometimes giving them the sick note in order that they have it in case they need it. Patients very rarely, if ever, actively exploit it.

Employers should know that their employees are undergoing fertility treatment and that they - the employers - are already paying the cost of that. They are doing that suboptimally through their line managers, with very little education and with a lot of emotional labour involved, because this constant empathy without knowing and having the right education to deal with these issues can be very problematic. That can even increase tension among peers because they do not know why somebody can work from home and they cannot. There is a lot of informality, and that creates other types of effects that cannot be considered explicitly like with a figure, but it is happening.

We also have to ask employers about how productive they think an employee is going to be if they return to work when they are grieving, whether that be grieving an unsuccessful fertility cycle, a miscarriage or a pregnancy loss. Grief has very physical and mental symptoms, of which brain fog is one. If a person cannot perform their job to the best of their ability, how productive or useful are they in that workplace? When given a set time off to recalibrate, they come back a better employee.

There was a study carried out that examined the experience of female vets. I cannot remember the country. I think it was in Europe. It examined their experience, within small enterprises, of infertility and miscarriage. The empathy they received during this difficult time of their life determined whether they stayed in the job. If the manager was more empathetic to them, they were more likely to have loyalty to that job and to stay. If the manager did not display any empathy and made matters very difficult for them, they were more likely to leave and go and find employment elsewhere. If employers have staff who are trained that they want to keep, they are better off treating them well in order that they stay in the job. Otherwise, they will have to recruit someone else because a person will leave because of their experience during that time.

I thank the witnesses very much.

I thank Ms Lynch and Dr. McConnell for outlining their views about the impact on employers and retaining good employees. If employers do not treat good employees well, they will not stay. That is a very valid point. When I was chatting with Deputy Sherlock earlier, I raised a point about small businesses being hit by short-term knocks. It is up to the employer groups to come in and make their point in that regard. The witnesses made their point from the opposite perspective. I thank them for that.

Dr. Paolucci raised the issue of why there would not be fraud. I was just double-checking. If we look at the French model she mentioned, we can see that France has very stringent ways of monitoring. Obviously, when a person is going for treatment, they will have to have medical certification anyway. I would hazard a guess that it is almost impossible to defraud the system once this is done right, so there is no excuse for not bringing it in from that point of view.

Regarding some of the points that were made, Dr. McConnell mentioned - and this is a very pertinent point - that treatment while working is the reality for the overwhelming majority of female patients. That highlights how important this legislation is.

I am not sure if Ms McCaffrey will be returning, but she mentioned the wider impacts. There is a huge impact on teachers. My wife is a teacher. We could argue that primary schools are over feminised, but that just shows that the workforce would be concerned with these issues to an even larger extent, although it is an issue for partners as well. Ms McCaffrey made the crucial point that if schools cannot get substitute teachers - and sometimes it is hard to do so in any event - that has an impact on a much wider cohort, namely a whole load of kids who are not getting a proper day's education. What is proposed is an absolute no-brainer.

Ms Duggan mentioned partners. She stated that both partners should have dedicated leave because pregnancy loss affects both parents, which it does. That was one point that was raised in terms of the Bill in the context of amendments that might be brought forward. Dr. Paolucci mentioned partners in terms providing for employees receiving qualifying treatment. I did research on this. The witnesses' intent is to include partners, but I do not think it is specified in the Bill but maybe it could be. That is something that could be looked at.

There is also the issue of treatment abroad. We were talking earlier about people coming from Donegal and it is taking a whole day to get treatment. If people have to go to Spain, for example, it is a whole different ball game. That is extremely important.

In general, I have been more offering observations than posing questions. The witnesses have answered a lot of the questions. I would welcome it if they could elaborate on the issue of partners in the context of fertility treatment and pregnancy loss in order that we might get an idea of how important it is at certain junctures.

In the case of my partner, when we had our own miscarriages, I needed him there for support for me, but he also needed support. When I was up, he was down. When I was down, he was up. He was the one picking me up. He experienced the same loss that I did. He lost six babies the same way I did. He felt the pain just as much as I did, but he had to be the strong one. He had to be the one who went to work every day. That takes a toll. It was maybe six months down the line that it really hit him, especially after our first loss. He had been trying to work through his grief whereas I had taken leave. I went back too soon, but he had nothing. He went back to work, and he was grieving. That does take a toll and it does have an impact. From an employment point of view, you cannot be as productive when you are going through that grief. Partners need the same kind of supports.

From a fertility point of view, again, there is a psychological element to it. I can reference the data via our public hub. It indicates that a total of 50% of men had an abnormal semen analysis. In 35% to 40%, it was male factor infertility alone. While that often does not change the treatment that the woman goes through and the requirement for the man to attend on site except for the day of egg collection to provide a semen analysis, that also creates a fairly significant psychological impact, particularly on men because they can sometimes be the one with the abnormal test result, but it is their partner who has to go through all of the treatment. They, therefore, want to be there to be able to support their partner. For example, when the woman has her egg collection, she will have sedation. She is not going to be fit to drive home - we hope they never drive home - so we need someone there to collect her. For a certain subset of men who have male factor infertility, they will also have to go for investigations with a urologist. They may have to undergo surgical sperm retrieval. That will require anaesthetic and will be a daily procedure. While they are a niche subsection, there are men who definitely will have a requirement for absence in the workplace for fertility reasons often related to male factor infertility.

In relation to the partner accompanying the woman or the man, there was other proposed legislation which suggested that if it was five days for the partner getting most of the treatment, then it should be 2.5 days for the other partner. It was half the time. Do the witnesses think it should be equal time, additional time or a flexible ten days among everyone involved?

It should be flexible, because no two people are the same and no two couples will have the same issues. If we start saying that the woman needs five days and the man needs 2.5 and if the a man has male factor infertility and needs a surgical sperm retrieval, that is one day gone already. If they are coming to see us at the moment and they have to go through their consent form, that is normally a 30-minute Zoom consultation, but that is either sick leave or they have to work around. If they have to take a day off to support their partner, the question arises as to what there role is.

What is their role? Is it simply to be there from a medical perspective or is it to also support their partners? Flexibility is key, as is stated throughout our research, both within the workplace and in the legislation that we propose. No two couples will have the same issues or requirements.

Half the time would be okay, because in a way the experience of men needs recognition. At the moment, they are like peripheral individuals on a journey that is someone else's investment, physically and emotionally, and that is not the case. In the fertility treatment space, but in pregnancy loss, men also require space because they have nothing. There is a paradoxical effect. They are people, a couple, when they undergo treatment together. The woman can be in a workplace with no fertility policy whatsoever while men, as the data suggests, are in workplaces where their experience is actually recognised through a policy in circumstances where it is not their bodies that undergo treatment. Leaving it to employers creates this kind of paradoxical effect where men are protected and women are not.

I would also like to see treatment abroad being included in this. It is not that tremendously different. It is entirely possible to fly over on a Wednesday, have an egg retrieval on a Thursday and fly back that night. It is two days, but it is two days per cycle. The rest can be managed locally here. It is not that an individual needs to take one or two weeks off at a time. It is possible.

I have heard horrendous testimonies. My colleague Senator Nelson Murray discussed her personal life, as did Deputy Sherlock. I want to put a question to Ms Duggan. Apart from time off, what other supports at work mattered most to people who had a miscarriage and went through the trials?

From an employer's point of view, it is about compassion, understanding, space and taking the lead from whomever has had the miscarriage, or their partner, on what they need. Not everybody is going to be the same. Some people will want to talk about it and other people will not. It is about taking the person's lead on how they feel and what way they want to approach it, even in terms of going back to work after miscarriage. The employer should be linking in with the person and asking if they want anybody to be told in order that they have a support network in work they can lean into if they need to do so. It is just simple things like that. The toolkit the pregnancy loss research group has come up with is invaluable to employers. Everything that they might possibly need is in the toolkit. It supports them, and that is what is needed.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Every individual circumstance is different. When I was talking with Deputy Sherlock earlier, I was discussing partners. The INTO's statement indicates that partners are included. I think that is a mistake, however, because they are not. Ms Duggan mentioned that her other half also lost the six children. We cannot give everybody the same time off, but what would work for partners?

It needs to be flexible. Some people will want the support of their partner for longer than others. My husband was amazing, but he needed his own space and time to grieve. He grieved differently from how I did. There is no one solution that fits everybody. It needs to be very individual to people, which is why the flexibility needs to be brought into it.

There was a reference to schoolteachers. Ms McCafferty from the INTO had to run off to collect her kids. I met her on the stairs outside. Schools are already finding it difficult to find substitute teachers. Would dedicated leave cause less disruption within schools than sick leave in the current circumstances? Who pays for the substitute cover? Is it the Department or would it be the schools? I know that is not part of the Bill but it is open for discussion.

As I understand it, the panel substitution process is covered by the Department. All pay is typically dealt with centrally through the Department, other than that of school secretaries and caretakers, depending on when and under what scheme they came in. Certainly, for anybody who is in a public sector role, that would be the case. Just to be crystal clear, in the case of miscarriage our Bill provides for the woman only but in the case of fertility treatment it provides for both partners. I would be more than happy to have that conversation about including the male partners because I believe that need is there. I am also conscious that we still do not have any legislation and we are five years talking about this so any provision, particularly for the woman physically having to go through this experience, would certainly amount to progress.

Dr. Paolucci is the head of research. What has she discovered from the research that has been carried out? What country best balances what employees need against the cost to employers? This is the enterprise committee and one of the key questions I was asking earlier was what the cost of.this would be. It has not been worked out and we have not had employers in as witnesses, so there are two sides. What countries have worked best regarding small businesses? Malta is an example that is often used.

We are trying to internationalise ReproWork. We have developed a large consortium that involves about 14 countries because we want to see who is leading the way and what country or group of countries is actually doing better so that others can learn from them. From preliminary evidence, the Senator might not be surprised, we see the Scandinavian countries are doing pretty well, especially Denmark. In Denmark, around 8% to 10% of children are born by means of IVF. It is a significant number. We know that because they have a registry for all of this information. In Ireland we still do not have that so we do not have evidence. That is why it is also difficult to make recommendations. We say we need to be flexible because we do not have evidence, to a great extent, to substantiate what best could address the needs of employers and employees. Scandinavian countries are good at solving co-ordination problems through social partnerships, collective bargaining, and good and universal health systems. They have conditions that we currently do not have in Ireland.

Are they using similar timeframes? Are they providing for ten days?

I do not know exactly how it is done in Denmark, but we know that they have a very comprehensive approach, including paid leave.

Who pays for that leave? Is it the employer or the state?

I do not want to answer that question, but my sense is that it is a combination, through taxpayers. That is the type of approach that has been taken in different countries. How small employers deal with this is a very good question to ask, because they are going to have implications, I am sure. However, countries have resolved this in different ways and bringing social security is one of the ways they are trying to address that.

I am totally supportive. My heart goes out to people, and I want to see this working, but, on the other side, I am asking where the calculator is. How do we make it work? I suppose that is what the committee is for.

The clock is against us. I thank all our witnesses for attending. I apologise that I was late coming in, but I was tuned in from the office. I invite Deputy Sherlock to reply to what has been a very powerful discussion.

It has been very powerful. In some ways, we could do with an additional number of hours to go through the witnesses' contributions in detail. In terms of future engagement on this issue, I would certainly urge the committee to invite the witnesses to return.

There are a number of issues, including how it is to be paid, the inclusion of the partner and the number of days. All of these issues need to be thought through. I urge the committee to allow this Bill to proceed to Committee Stage in order that we can have serious engagement about making it fit for purpose, including in the context of the inclusion of both miscarriage and fertility treatment leave. While there may be progress on miscarriage leave, which we very much welcome, I am concerned that the fertility treatment piece may be the poor relation and may be put on the back burner and not dealt with for many years. There is a particular opportunity to do both together.

That concludes the business of the committee for today. I thank everyone for attending. I propose that the committee adjourn until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 September 2026, when we will hold a private meeting. At 12.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 30 September 2026, we will hold a public meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.