Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

A reasonable view has to be taken of any provision and it has to be given a constitutional interpretation. A closure order is defined in section 5 as one which orders the closure of a catering premises at a specified time or between specified times on a specified day or days during a specified period. Let us try to work out what that means. During a specified period and at particular times the premises shall be closed or, alternatively, for a period not exceeding seven days in the case of a first order, or between seven and 30 days in the case of a second order.

We are dealing here with people who have been ordered to close. On a first order, it is in circumstances where they will be told to close for a week. Are Senators arguing that the proprietor of the premises can say that his staff are not to be paid for that week, that if he is going to take the hit they can take the hit too? In other words, he simply sacks his staff and says, "Blame the court, do not blame me." If that were to be the law it would be very unfair. Employers are being told in this context that if they are running a premises and get a notification from the Garda to do something and fail to comply with that order, they should be mindful of the fact that if this results in a closure order on the premises the proprietor will have to pay the staff for the time the premises is closed.

It is a question of deciding where the detriment will fall. It provides that the employer cannot simply pass on or reinsure against the possibility of being closed by saying his staff can take the hammering. While he goes off for a holiday they can lose their money.