Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 8, after line 38, to insert the following: “(11) The Minister may set out in regulation such financial penalties as are deemed appropriate where a concerned person does not comply with the provisions of section 20A.”.

We mentioned the carrot earlier, but some of these amendments relate to the stick, so there is a combination. They refer to steps that might be taken to ensure that there are consequences for non-compliance. The "may" and "shall" in some of the amendments I have withdrawn related to the Minister making regulations, but some also related to what employers may or shall be required to do. I worry that there may be a level of ambiguity in the regulations and the potential for very small consequences for non-compliance. There has been some strengthening of this area in the Dáil, but as well as empowering the IHREC to take matters to the Circuit Court and High Court, the Minister should be able to set out in regulation financial or other penalties for non-compliance. It would be appropriate that there be consequences for those who do not comply with section 20A.

I wonder whether I have replicated my amendments. I apologise - that is amendment No. 37.

There is an argument for financial or other penalties, given that non-financial penalties may be appropriate. I will get to those shortly. Some of them are set out in amendment No. 36. In amendment No. 37, I will discuss whether there should be consequences for non-compliance with section 20A other than those that the IHREC is empowered to press and if the Minister should be able to set out financial penalties or consequences. There should be consequences for non-compliance with an order granted by the Circuit Court or High Court, a matter that we will come to later.

How does the Minister envisage enumerating in the regulations a sense of consequence for non-compliance?