Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I thank both officials for the briefing they provided. It was very useful. I fully appreciate that this is an urgent situation. I am very concerned, as I think we all are, by the idea that hearings cannot now proceed and that an awful lot of people have been left in limbo. We teased out some of these concerns at our meeting but, for the purposes of the record, I have a concern about people who have commenced cases. Many cases do not finish quickly. In an ideal world, a person would get in and get out in one day. As anyone who has been before the WRC, the Labour Court or other forums will know, however, one does not always get in and get out in one day. Very often, a further hearing can be scheduled for a date a couple of months into the future. For those cases that have been partially concluded, we are going to have to make special arrangements, although I do not know if that is possible or how it can be done. Given the strength of the view expressed by the Supreme Court, it strikes me that they cannot be concluded under the same system.

When An Bord Altranais, as the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland was formerly known, changed over, there was a facility for people who started under the old system of fitness to practice hearings to retain that. However, I do not think that is going to be the case in this instance and I welcome Ms Coogan's view on this. In the event that it is not, consideration must be given to a person who started under one system believing it was going to be one way. I refer specifically to the anonymity, which is very attractive for some workers and, perhaps, not for some employers. We need to consider that and try to figure out how to treat a person who took a case and is halfway through it now. We must also be cognisant of the need for private hearings. There must be some involvement from the stakeholders as well. It cannot simply be that an adjudication officer just decides because there will be instances where both parties may want the hearing held in private. Perhaps that should be facilitated. I fully respect what the Supreme Court said but my understanding - and I am open to correction on this - is that it found that hearings cannot always be in private and that there must be some sort of latitude. I caution that some workers would be very hesitant about coming forward if they do not believe they can have some level of anonymity and that must be catered for just as it is for whistleblowers, where it is very important.

On the oath, it strikes me as a bit odd that we would have an oath in any event but I understand where it comes from and appreciate that it might be necessary. However, an affirmation is much more preferable and inclusive. It includes everybody, so I favour that.

I made this next point at our meeting but will make it again for the record. Time is ticking and we appreciate that but I raise the provision of a fairly robust review clause, bearing in mind that we will do this quickly. Of course, it must be done quickly and I appreciate that. There are people waiting but we must recognise that when we act fast, we sometimes do not get everything right. Since that might be the case, there should be a very robust provision for review that includes engagement with people who are using the system, not a desk-based review but something that actually talks to trade union officials, employer representatives and employment rights lawyers so we get the sense of whether it is working or not. I am conscious of the requirement to act in haste. In that context, we may repent at our leisure. If, however, there is a review clause built in, we can then test the measures that have been introduced. The purpose of this is obviously to ensure that the measures work for everybody.