David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Ivana Bacik for the work and thought she has put into the Bill. As a matter of interest, I am really taken by the naming and faming idea. As it happens, I was at the signing this morning of the Diversity Charter for companies. Some 51 companies were involved and six more joined this morning. They are talking about having a standard diversity mark for companies which they would strive to attain. Penalties are one side of the equation. On the other companies that want to reach certain standards could be awarded certain marks. It strikes me that there could probably be a gender equality pay mark for companies that have achieved a certain standard. Sometimes we focus on penalties when perhaps we should focus on encouraging and supporting the positives just as much, if not even more.

I note that Senator Rose Conway-Walsh has suggested she will withdraw the amendment with permission to retable it on Report Stage. Its objective seems to be to provide for penalties where there are repeated breaches of the provisions of a scheme. Provision has been made in subsection (6) for the imposition of penalties for contravention of the provisions of a scheme by an employer. It is not clear, however, what the amendment would add in specifying that multiple class A fines would apply to those who repeatedly contravened the provisions of a scheme. It goes without saying that each such contravention could be punished by the imposition of a class A fine.

I note that the proposed public database for repeat offenders raises the possibility of the expenditure of public funds on its creation and maintenance. The proposal does not provide for matters such as the duration of an entry on such a register. The fact that an employer has been fined for an offence would be a matter of public record. We would have to consider whether the idea of having a database is a proportionate response. Would a company be on it forever? One has to work out how a company could get off the database. That would have to be provided for in the legislation. For these reasons the Government is not able to support the amendment, but I am disposed to considering further what the enforcement and encouragement mechanisms might be. I will observe without expressing a view that the corresponding British regulations in this area do not impose a sanction.