Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 37, line 27, to delete "danger" and substitute "circumstances".

The Minister of State and I once stood in front of a classroom teaching plain English. A very straightforward argument regarding this amendment was made on Committee Stage. I am amused at the briefing note the Minister of State sent me. Subsection (3) (f) reads:

subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.

This subsection is one of the defined areas where an employer shall not penalise or threaten a penalisation against an employee. Plain English tells me that "in circumstances of danger" should be followed by "where the circumstances of danger" or "where the circumstances" persisted. I thought the Minister of State was convinced of this on Committee Stage because he said he would recheck it with the parliamentary draftsman. A serious rechecking obviously took place because the Minister of State now states that it is necessary to specify that the Oireachtas means dangerous circumstances and not other circumstances. He argues that to use the word circumstances instead of danger would dilute the message of the section. I concede that this is not an extremely important issue but plain English should be used in any enactment of the Oireachtas. "In circumstances of danger" should be followed by "while those circumstances persist, refusing to return should not be penalised". The subsection should not contain "where the danger persisted" because it is circumstances of danger rather than dangers that are the subject of the subsection. Circumstances of danger are quite different from dangers because the circumstances that give rise to danger might continue to exist. It is an important point of plain English. If the circumstances of danger require someone to leave his or her workplace, he or she cannot be penalised for that. Where those circumstances continue, the employee cannot be penalised for refusing to return. The meaning of the subsection is changed if "danger" is used in the second sub-clause instead of "circumstances of danger".

It is an extremely important issue because I can see an employer insisting that an employee return to his or her workplace because there is no danger present when the circumstances that gave rise to that danger are still in existence. The Minister of State argues for not diluting the message, which should be said to the cumann in Mayo. However, I do not see its relevance here. The Minister of State would show a degree of logic, as well as that much rarer quality in a Minister of State, independence, by accepting the amendment, which patently makes sense.

See this speech in context