David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The issues they raised were in regard to the "objectively justify grounds" as opposed to "severe financial difficulties". We are open to supporting that, the reasons for which I set out in my opening remarks. There is no Bill that is brought forward by either Government or Opposition that is perfect. On the last occasion I was before the committee I made clear that the intent of this Bill is simple: to ensure that after a reasonable timeframe - I am open to suggestions as to what is a reasonable timeframe - a person's contract would reflect the hours they work. Any Bill, whether brought forward by an Opposition member or by Government, requires amendment to perfect it.

A number of the legal witnesses that have come before the committee were clear on their support for the intent of the Bill. They recognised that the intent of the Bill is genuine and that we are trying to address a problem but they have raised a number of legal concerns in regard to some aspects of it. I have dealt with the three issues that we felt were the most problematic for them from a legal perspective, namely, "objectively justify grounds", in respect of which we are willing to accept an amendment to deal with that issue; that the word "exceeds" be substituted with "reflects", which again is a reasonable request; and, the six months versus nine months timeframe. In regard to the constitutionality of the Bill, for a Bill to pass it has to be constitutional. We want the Bill to be constitutional. Legal experts will have their opinions and have given them. We have accepted some of their criticisms around shortcomings in the Bill and, as I said, we are more than happy to accept whatever amendments might be tabled.