Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to my amendment No. 4. The logic of the amendment is based on correspondence we received from IBEC.

I referred to this on Second Stage. I wish to quote from correspondence we received on 17 October with regard to the potential for discrimination to arise specifically where:

For example, 'necessary medical intervention' is only defined with respect to mental health conditions (by requiring inpatient hospital treatment) but there is no such definition for physical health conditions. Ibec argues that this distinction in itself could constitute discrimination. Furthermore, the requirement for a mental health condition to require inpatient hospital treatment would appear to risk discriminating against individuals based on the type of mental health condition, or indeed on their access or otherwise to inpatient treatment.

The letter goes on to state:

IBEC submits that many individuals with serious physical health conditions receive treatment as outpatients due, not least, to the advancement in treatments available and the availability of community-based facilities. Yet, the Bill excludes from its remit individuals with serious mental health conditions that receive treatment as outpatients, which Ibec submits [as do we by way of the amendment] will expose employers to a claim of direct discrimination for which there can be no objective justification under the EEA.

See this speech in context