Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. At the outset, I wish to acknowledge that everybody wants to be helpful here but we also want to ensure that the committee is doing its job. I know what it is like to try to move legislation forward when there are time challenges relating to drafting elements of it. I have sat before committees on more than one occasion, asking that there be a recognition that further changes were needed, but perhaps at a later stage, but to try to move the overall project forward in order to get it done. The timelines here are important. This is especially given the timelines between now and an election when this legislation will, hopefully, become law.

I want to clarify my understanding because maybe others are clear on this, but I am not. We saw the publishing of the heads of Bill at the start of the summer. There were eight heads to the Bill. Heads 4, 5 and 6 relate to the Maternity Protection Act 1994, head 7 relates to amendment to the Workplace Relations Act 2015, and then head 8, which is the one we are now concerned about in terms of understanding why there is a delay and what the complexity is, refers to an amendment to the Employment Equality Act 1998 in terms of non-disclosure agreements, NDAs.

I am trying understand these heads of Bill. They make it clear that they provide for the situation along certain lines. That allows some flexibility in respect of wording and amendments. In his letter of 17 September, the Minister stated that complexities had arisen and he needed more time. Did that refer to substantive change of what we are trying to achieve, as outlined in the non-disclosure agreement section of head 8 as published? Did the complexities apply to the legislative mechanism and the legislation through which we are attempting to make a change? Is the Minister trying, in substantive terms, to do what is outlined here in respect of the limitations on the use of NDAs? From reading it, that seems absolutely appropriate as we try to ensure that employers are not using legal provisions to hide from accusations of sexual harassment, discrimination or abuse in the workplace or whatever else. Is the complexity about the substance of what we are trying to do or is it about the legal mechanism? Is it a drafting issue that simply needs more time? That is what I am trying to understand. If the Minister simply needs more time to achieve what has been outlined here, or a variant of it about which he can brief us, it is a reasonable request, given the timeline we have between now and an election to try to get this legislation done and passed into law. I want to be helpful in that regard, as I hope the committee will be. Committee members need to understand what the Minister means by his reference to complexity in the letter he sent to the committee at a late enough stage. Members were reading the letter and wondering whether they were missing something or if something was being hidden from the committee. Senator Clonan asked whether the Minister has received advice from the Attorney General. Has that resulted in a complexity that now needs to be resolved? Is this simply a drafting issue in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel? I am very familiar with the issues in that office and the fact that staff are sometimes asked to do too much in too short a time. Perhaps we could have full transparency about the complexity and how the Minister proposes to resolve it. Is it simply a time issue to deliver what has been outlined in the heads and the general scheme or are we trying to do something more than that? I do not fully understand the situation.