Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing with Deputy Bacik. I want to pay tribute to: my party leader, Deputy Bacik; Senator Sherlock; my constituency colleague, Councillor Alison Gilliland, who has been to the forefront of this move; and unions such as the INTO and Fórsa, which have been supportive of our move in pushing this Bill forward.

If this issue predominantly affected men, not only would it have been legislated for a long time ago but it would probably be in the preamble to the Constitution. What we effectively have here is a silent wound and trauma that is not given proper attention or focus. That is reflected in the fact that the Minister of State can honestly stand and say we can talk about it again in 12 months’ time. As my colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith, said earlier, I have brought forward Bills which I was told would be progressed in 12 months’ time and I came back into the Chamber 12 months hence and nothing had happened because it is a ploy and a tactic; it is not genuine. We come here as a political party with a genuine Bill that will enhance workers' rights and the Minister of State comes back with the suggestion that we will talk about it again, but not even in three months’ time. If it was in three months’ time we would consider that maybe he was sincere. We would consider that he had to do his research, talk to his civil servants and advisers and talk to employers and unions and that we would then go to Committee Stage. That is not the case. We will come back in 12 months, when the Minister of State and I know that this Government will not be in existence.

We have to demystify the language around this area. How many men of our generation shift uncomfortably in their seats whenever periods, menstrual cycles or anything of this nature like miscarriage, abortion or menopause are mentioned? Men of my generation want to be in any other room than a room where those things are mentioned. It is for that reason that we do not have statutory paid leave for women who go through a pregnancy loss or who go through the traumatic experience of trying to get pregnant on our Statute Book. If it was men who were predominantly affected by this, the Minister of State knows it would be legislated for.

This is fundamentally an issue of gender equality. We support, as my party leader has said, the Government's moves, on International Women's Day, to change the archaic and sexist language in the Constitution around women's place in the home. However, this is a practical and humane approach to women's place in the workplace. They should not have to effectively lie to produce a piece of paper about a sick note when they have gone through a personal pregnancy loss for whatever reason. They do not have that statutory right to leave before 24 weeks, and that is something we are trying to correct here. My colleague, Deputy Nash, has spoken eloquently about the difficulties around IVF and the travel that couples have to go through.

We have to demystify and destigmatise this area. This is reflective of the fact that we have so few women involved in public life and who sit in these seats. In the Swedish Parliament, female participation is 45% and on that basis they have a hugely more progressive view of Bills like this. I can only imagine, if this was not on the Swedish statute book and if it was brought forward as a Bill, what the reaction would be if a Government Minister in the Minister of State's position said we would talk about it in a year's time.

This is a crucial gender equality-based Bill. It is a crucial workers' right and a progressive move. It reflects poorly on the Government that its answer to us is that we will talk about this in 12 months’ time. If the Government genuinely felt it should be done, it would be done. If it affected men, it would be done and it would have been done a long time ago.

See this speech in context