Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will say two things. The authors themselves have said the terms of reference were very narrow so I am just quoting what they said. The Senator is disappointed with my statement and that is his opinion. I am engaging in a process in the Department that is not finished; we are in the middle of it. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to come in and say that this is what I, or myself and the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, or myself and the Tánaiste, or the Department have decided. What then would be the point of having a consultation or discussion in the next month? What would the point even be of engaging here? I would rather the Senator welcome the opportunity to actually have engagement. I am listening to suggestions and questions being put forward by Deputy Shanahan and others and we are very open to any of those suggestions. I assume that is what the Chairman is doing by having this review. I assume it is about seeing how we can all achieve the same outcome, which is to strengthen the position of employees. That is what I am committed to doing but it might go beyond Duffy Cahill.

The Duffy Cahill recommendations were submitted in 2016 to the Departments. They were reviewed and looked at and decisions were taken at the time to not move on with them. That is what we are looking back over again, to see if we can take a different approach or if a part of these proposals can give us the right solution. Deputy Bruton referred to proposal No. 1 on the 30 days. We believe we can adjust that proposal and make something out of that and that is what we are going to try to do. Again, however, I am very conscious that there are a lot of stakeholders who want to contribute to this discussion because it has a significant impact on employment, employment rights, companies and so on. I do not want to do anything that has a knock-on negative impact; I want to get the situation right here. The State is protecting workers and the State pays out, using taxpayers' money, through the Social Insurance Fund on employees' statutory entitlements. That is honoured and I have not seen a case where it has not been. Again, it is taxpayers' money, used very correctly and wisely and by agreement over many years. That is what the State does in this situation.