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

With respect, if there was consultation, the listening ear has to be a new thing because the submissions that were made cannot have been taken on board. Otherwise we would not be here discussing substantial revisions that will be necessary to make this fit for purpose. I accept that there was a process of consultation, but Mr. Mulligan will have to accept as well that it was not robust enough. Certainly, Ms King had the view that she was not involved in the normal consultation process in which she, as the head of ICTU, would have been expected to be involved. That is what has brought us to this point.

Mr. Mulligan will know that this proposed legislation has gone down like a lead balloon with workers. He will have heard that. Even some employers have said they would not have written it like this. Perhaps there is a lesson in this for the Department and specifically for the Minister, that it is not enough to engage in consultation unless one is going to listen and take on board what is being said. This legislation is going to be judged on whether it delivers for workers and whether it compels an employer to be fair. We are not trying to legislate for the majority of employers who I am sure are grand, but for those who will not grant reasonable requests. Can Mr. Mulligan enlighten us as to where the 13 sweeping, and I would call them subjective, grounds for refusal came from? It cannot have come from the consultation process. I have read a good number, probably not all, of the submissions and I did not see anyone asking for that, not even the toughest employers. Can Mr. Mulligan elaborate on where they came from?