Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

At the outset, I find it a little peculiar that Deputy Tóibín has decided to conflate the issue of symphysiotomy with this particular issue. There is no lack of consistency here, as this provision is designed to make sure there is consistency right across the board. In respect of amendments Nos. 12 and 13, the period of 42 days within which an employer must initiate an appeal against a compliance notice issued by an inspector and an appeal from the Labour Court to the Circuit Court mirrors the standard appeal period that applies, for example, to the bringing of an appeal to the Labour Court in respect of a decision of an adjudication officer. An important principle underlying the procedural reforms the Bill introduces is in fact that of consistency. The Bill aims to make navigation of the employment rights compliance and enforcement systems much more user-friendly and much more citizen-friendly by providing for standard procedures and timeframes wherever possible. This is the kind of consistency people wish to see in this kind of process. On that basis, it would be inappropriate for me to accept the Deputy's proposal to shorten the period within which an employer may appeal a compliance notice. Therefore, I will not accept amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Amendments Nos. 17, 20 and 21 relate to the time periods provided for in section 36 and would have the effect of reducing the period of time within which an employer on whom a fixed payment notice has been served would be obliged to make the payment specified in the notice period. The period of 42 days within which an employer must make the payment specified in a fixed payment notice issued by an inspector also mirrors the standard limitation period specified throughout this Bill. As noted earlier, an important principle underlying the procedural reforms the Bill introduces is that of consistency. Therefore, I will not accept the Deputy's amendments Nos. 17, 20 and 21 either.

See this speech in context