Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Today's discussion is on the complexities of the provision of non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, in the maternity protection (amendment) and miscellaneous provisions Bill with the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, and his officials Ms Jane Ann Duffy and Ms Catherine Roe. They are all very welcome to the meeting.

Before we begin, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. I advise members that the chat function on Microsoft Teams should be used only to make the team on site aware of any technical issues or urgent matters that may arise during the meeting and should not be used to make general comments or statements. Members are reminded of the constitutional requirement whereby they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside of the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members partaking via Microsoft Teams to confirm, prior to making a contribution to this meeting, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

In respect of parliamentary privilege, the evidence given by witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. The Minister and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before I invite the Minister to deliver his opening statement, there are a few issues I wish to raise with him regarding the necessity to schedule this meeting for this afternoon. As he will be aware, he formally referred the general scheme of the Bill to this committee on 29 July with a request for a waiver of pre-legislative scrutiny, at which point both Houses of the Oireachtas and this committee were in recess. In good faith, over the summer recess, members of this committee, in consultation with the secretariat, came up with compromise proposals that were to be considered by members at a private meeting of the committee on Tuesday last, 17 September. Regardless of the proposals under consideration by members last week, or the decision agreed by members, the outcome would have ensured no delay was caused to the progression of the Bill. Significant factors in members not wanting the progression of the Bill to be delayed were, first, the positive aims of the Bill and, second, the inclusion in the general scheme of parts of the Employment Equality (Amendment) (Non-Disclosure Agreements) Bill 2021, a Private Members' Bill sponsored by Senators Ruane, Black, Flynn and Higgins.

As the Minister is aware, the committee was scheduled to meet at 3 p.m. last Tuesday to consider this matter. The first written clarification sent by the Minister’s office for the attention of members, alerting them to the fact that there are complexities with the provision of NDAs in the version of the Bill the Minister is planning seek agreement to publish, was sent at 12.51 p.m. on the day of the meeting, and a subsequent item of correspondence was received at 2.39 p.m. In these items of correspondence, the Minister advised that the drafting of amendments to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of discrimination bring their own complexity and that the drafters need to consider a number of pieces of legislation in drafting the Bill. He also advised that as non-disclosure agreements are not currently provided for in legislation, new definitions would need to be developed, and work on these issues is ongoing and it is his intention to table these amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

Members are of the view that these issues were not submitted for their attention in a timely manner. These late developments have left members with a lack of trust that the Minister will deliver on the promise he made to include the NDA provisions in the Bill. Members hope that this afternoon the Minister can provide clear clarification as to what these complexities are and how they will be addressed. Most importantly, members also require the Minister’s assurance on the public record that these provisions will be included in the Bill. Members are also of the view that the complexities that have risen should be addressed before the Bill is published. Members of this committee take their responsibility in scrutinising legislation very seriously. They are of the view that this is a very important process undertaken by parliamentary committees and sufficient time should be allocated when drafting any heads of a Bill to allow for proper scrutiny.

I wish to put on the record once again that it was not the intention of this committee to delay its decision regarding the request for a waiver of pre-legislative scrutiny, nor was it its intention to delay the progression of this Bill. However, given the late developments, members require clarification and, more importantly, reassurances from the Minister as the Minister with responsibility for this Bill.

I invite the Minister to deliver his opening statement.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Cathaoirleach on her appointment. I look forward to working with her on the matters that are within the remit of this committee. I also thank her for her kind remarks in respect of Niall Kieran. I offer the sympathies of my Department, myself and my officials to his family and his colleagues in the Oireachtas.

I appreciate the opportunity come here to discuss the general scheme of the maternity protection (amendment) and miscellaneous provisions Bill 2024. I welcome the committee’s interest in and engagement with this legislation.

This is an important piece of legislation and I am conscious of the very real impact it will have on individuals at particularly vulnerable point in their lives. For this reason, I am also very conscious of the need to get this legislation right. I understand the concern of the committee both regarding my request for a waiver of pre-legislative scrutiny and the potential introduction of Committee Stage amendments.

As members are aware, we are working under certain time constraints if we want to be fully confident of getting this legislation enacted. I am very conscious in particular of those seriously ill women who may miss out on the opportunity to avail of the possibility of a postponement of their maternity leave if the Bill is not enacted as quickly as possible. I have requested a waiver of pre-legislative scrutiny for this Bill because of these time constraints. I do not do this lightly, but I am reassured in doing so by the broad support that the proposals contained within this Bill enjoy.

The general scheme brings forward a number of legislative amendments that the Government has committed to advancing. First, the Irish Cancer Society has raised with me, as well as with many Deputies and Senators, the difficulties faced by women who spend their maternity leave receiving treatment. There is widespread support for proposals to allow women with cancer and other seriously ill women to pause their maternity leave.

Similarly, it is clear that female Oireachtas Members should have a right to maternity leave, and this entitlement is crucial to the process of improving the gender balance among Oireachtas Members. It is important that these provisions are in place before the upcoming election to give a strong signal to female candidates as to their rights.

The proposals regarding non-disclosure agreements build on a previous Private Members' Bill sponsored by Senators Ruane, Flynn, Black and Higgins. That Private Members’ Bill passed all Stages in the Seanad. My Department’s public written consultation as part of the review of the Equality Acts, which I published a report on last year, invited submissions on NDAs. It is of note that there was significant support for progressing the proposals in that Bill.

I indicated last week to the committee that the provisions relating to NDAs may need to be brought as Committee Stage amendments. This is a standard process when seeking to bring forward a Bill urgently with provisions on a number of crucial areas. I can assure the committee that my officials and the officials in the Office of the Attorney General have been working intensively on drafting since the general scheme was published. However, it will take some more time to finalise drafting on all of the provisions of the Bill. Initial priority for drafting was given to the amendments to the Maternity Protection Acts, as we are aware of the very great urgency with which these amendments are needed.

It is important now not to delay publication of the Bill while awaiting the completion of drafting of all provisions. By bringing the provisions on non-disclosure agreements as Committee Stage amendments, the Bill can be advanced quickly, recognising the crucial and urgent nature of the provisions to be contained in it. This course of action in no way precludes the committee from considering all of the proposals planned for the Bill.

I can assure the committee that the amendments to the Employment Equality Acts providing for the restriction of the use of non-disclosure agreements are of a very high priority for me. That is why they have been brought forward in advance of other proposals arising from the review of the Equality Acts, because I view them as extremely important. I recognise that the potential introduction of NDA proposals as a Committee Stage amendment has raised concern among some committee members. I would like to assure members that this is not indicative of any change in policy from what has been outlined in the general scheme, with the proviso that some issues can emerge during drafting which may require additional provisions to ensure that the legislation will have the right effect. The policy shaping the proposals is unchanged. I acknowledged, when publishing the general scheme, that the Government’s proposals build very much on the recent Private Members’ Bill, and this position has not changed.

Since the publication of the general scheme, and in addition to the drafting work, my officials have been engaging further with stakeholders and speaking to colleagues in other jurisdictions on this topic and this also is informing the drafting process. I understand that certain members of the committee have a very keen interest in this area, and I am happy to engage informally to keep them informed of any developments as they arise. I look forward to hearing today of any concerns or suggestions Deputies or Senators may have for these proposals and which will further inform drafting.

Once again, I thank members for the opportunity to brief the joint committee today. I am happy to address any questions that the committee may have or to provide any clarifications that may be required.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Minister. I neglected to acknowledge that you have appeared here this afternoon. I know the invitation was at short notice and we appreciate that you have come in to the committee this afternoon. Before I open the floor to our speakers, regarding the complexities that have arisen, would they be more time constraints rather than legal complexities or issues with the Bill, as it was being worked on?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, Chair, that is the primary issue. When we made a decision to bring forward legislation to deal with the Leave Our Leave issue, I made a request that we would also deal with the NDA issue, as part of that legislation. I see this as something important. There is a much larger reform of the Equality Acts due and work is ongoing on that but we looked to bring the NDA piece forward. However, we had prioritised the issue of making provision for women to defer their maternity leave. In order to get a stamped draft of the Bill ready for presentation on First Stage and subsequent debate in the Dáil. As the members know, changes happen in the layout of the document before us today in terms of the general scheme, before we get to a draft that is submitted. The Bills Office was of the view that the time needed to get the drafting on the NDA piece right would mean that it would come in as a Committee Stage amendment, rather than in the original Bill.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members that when putting your questions to the witnesses, you should adhere to the agenda items scheduled for discussion. I will now call on the members to put their questions in accordance with the speaking rota circulated in advance of this meeting. Each member will be allocated five minutes' speaking time. The time allocation per member should include the response from the Minister. I ask members to allow sufficient time for the Minister to respond with the five minutes' slots.

The first member on the speaking rota who is present is Senator Tom Clonan.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for attending. I share the concerns of fellow committee members from all parties about a number of issues, including the timing of the delivery of these letters with, for example, one on the afternoon the committee was due to meet. Why was it not possible to give us greater notice of these issues arising?

The Chair asked whether legal complexities were causing the delay in drafting or whether it was simply a matter of trying to get the draft correct. Did the Minister receive any legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General as regards NDAs and what is proposed in the Bill cautioning him about how the Bill might expose the State to costs, for example, or any other sort of risk? If so, will he tell the committee what that advice was?

I wish to ask about the complexity of drafting. I am a relative newcomer to Leinster House, but I have been involved in the drafting of legislation and cannot imagine how complexities of drafting could lead to a situation where we had to wait until Committee Stage for the proposed wording. Is it because there are not enough staff? What are the complexities? Is it that information is unavailable to the people drafting the legislation? Is it a question of trying to seek out examples of similar documentation in other jurisdictions? What is the complexity that is short-circuiting the process in this way?

Regarding requests to forgo pre-legislative scrutiny, the Minister stated that he would only ask for such in exceptional circumstances, but we have been asked numerous times for drafts to proceed without pre-legislative scrutiny. I just wished to note this. I wonder whether, in the view of outside observers of these proceedings, waiving pre-legislative scrutiny undermines public trust and faith in how we deliberate on these matters and iterative processes, given the track record of advice from the Office of the Attorney General not being published only for us to discover on subsequent publication that there were inconsistencies regarding, for example, vulnerable groups such as disabled citizens.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. Regarding the issue of pre-legislative scrutiny waivers on legislation having been sought numerous times, my recollection is that I have done so three times over the past four years. I am open to correction, but I am thinking through the various Bills we have discussed at this committee. We have had detailed pre-legislative scrutiny sessions, some of which predate the Senator joining the committee, on the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022, the Institutional Burials Act 2022 and the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Act 2022 and have spent long periods going through those key Acts.

Those processes have been very useful, and they have been followed up by subsequent Committee Stages in both Houses. I have seen other Departments regularly use the pre-legislative scrutiny waiver process. I do not believe it has been used regularly in my Department's engagement with this committee. I have always valued the engagement and I can see that some of the major pieces of legislation my Department has passed are stronger on the basis of the pre-legislative scrutiny process undertaken.

We have not received any legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General on the risk of costs, on risk generally on NDAs, or specifically on the matter of costs. The issue in terms of the complexity of drafting-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to disturb the Minister. I am anxious to know what advice he got from the Office of the Attorney General to explain that with regard to legal issues arising.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The advice we got from the office of the parliamentary drafters was in terms of this Bill on which drafting started in late July.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; the Minister got no advice whatsoever of any nature from the Office of the Attorney General.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the drafting of any legislation, internal legal advisers within the Department will provide legal advice on various pieces of proposed legislation. In terms of this legislation, when we referred it to the office of the parliamentary drafters, we indicated we wanted priority to be given to the maternity protection section because that is the piece we had identified as needing to be acted on quickly. To be clear, I was under no obligation to do so, but I also asked that the provisions on NDAs would be drafted and attached to this legislation. Those provisions on which work began after the provisions on maternity protection were not, in the view of the parliamentary drafters, ready for inclusion in the stamped draft. It was on that basis we informed the committee last week that we would be bringing that forward as a Committee Stage amendment. I was not physically present in Dublin last Tuesday. If I had been present, I could have come to the committee and spoken to the Senator. I was out of Dublin at that point, however, which is why we wrote a letter to put in context why we were going with Committee Stage amendments on the NDA section rather than as a piece of the original Bill itself.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The specific question was whether the Minister received any legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General on the NDAs. The Minister said he got advice from legal advisers in the various Departments, but the question I am trying to get finality on is whether he got any legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To try to give the Senator clarity, legal advisers in every Department are seconded from the Office of the Attorney General. That is how the system works within every Department. The legal advisers who provided us with internal legal advice on this Bill, as they do on every piece of legislation, are seconded from the Office of the Attorney General.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister furnish to the committee the advice that came from the Office of the Attorney General? Will he tell us what it was?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just said the advice came from legal advisers within our Department.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, but this is a semiotic issue now because I asked the Minister whether he got any advice from the Office of the Attorney General and he said that de facto, in practice, the legal advisers in Departments are seconded from and really speak for the Office of the Attorney General. That being the case, I take it the Minister got advice from the Office of the Attorney General. It is either a "Yes" or "No" answer. He did or he did not, and if he did-----

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, I am setting out the process that works in our Department and every single Department.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not the process I am addressing, however. It is the actual substance of whether the Minister got advice from the Office of the Attorney General. It is a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We received advice from the legal advisers within our own Department.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So, that is a "Yes".

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We did not make a specific request to the Office of the Attorney General for advice from that office. We received legal advice from the legal advisers within our own Department.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is saying the Department did not receive any advice from the Office of the Attorney General.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We did not make a specific request to the Office of the Attorney General-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not asking if the Department got-----

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----for legal advice nor did we receive specific------

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a "Yes" or "No" answer. Did the Department get legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We did not seek specific legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General on this piece of legislation. We received legal advice from the advisers within our own Department.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department did not receive any advice. The Minister is saying to the committee that he received no advice from the Office of the Attorney General.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am setting out the process that was under way.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, Chair, I think it is a binary concept. You either did or did not. The Minister appears to be either unwilling or unable to answer that question. We will mark that for the public record.

In his answer about the complexities and drafting process, the Minister again talked about the process and that he had asked for the maternity aspects to be prioritised first and then the NDA issues on which he gave a specific instruction. He is talking about the sequence in which things were drafted but I am still none the wiser as to what the complexities were. Is it a lack of staff? Is there a conceptual framework that is so difficult to achieve in the drafting process that it is taking longer than what is normally expected in the planning phase?

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the Minister respond but then I will move on and there will be a second round. I will be slightly lenient on time, given the nature of the meeting and the information we are seeking. I will allow the Minister to respond to Senator Clonan and then I will move on.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I say, when the drafting of this piece of legislation was requested by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the priority was placed on the drafting of the maternity protection section. The section dealing with NDAs, in particular, was not regarded as ready for inclusion in the stamped draft and that is why it did not come through to the committee. That is also why we informed the committee of that prior to its last meeting.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I understand it, the Minister is saying he does not have it, but what is the reason for that? I am not saying it is like the dog ate my homework. I am asking why that particular portion of the drafting could not have been done to deadline. What was the specific complexity that delayed it?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, all of this was taking place in a tight timeframe. As I said, we put in the request for the drafting of this legislation in late July. We are talking about a meeting that was taking place in early September. We had indicated priority for the maternity protection section. We initiated this piece of legislation in order to advance that because of the importance that I place on the issue of NDAs. I wanted that included as well so I asked that this also be included. That piece, however, was not ready for inclusion in the stamped draft.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to move on now. There will be a second round. Deputy Coveney is our next speaker.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. At the outset, I wish to acknowledge that everybody wants to be helpful here but we also want to ensure that the committee is doing its job. I know what it is like to try to move legislation forward when there are time challenges relating to drafting elements of it. I have sat before committees on more than one occasion, asking that there be a recognition that further changes were needed, but perhaps at a later stage, but to try to move the overall project forward in order to get it done. The timelines here are important. This is especially given the timelines between now and an election when this legislation will, hopefully, become law.

I want to clarify my understanding because maybe others are clear on this, but I am not. We saw the publishing of the heads of Bill at the start of the summer. There were eight heads to the Bill. Heads 4, 5 and 6 relate to the Maternity Protection Act 1994, head 7 relates to amendment to the Workplace Relations Act 2015, and then head 8, which is the one we are now concerned about in terms of understanding why there is a delay and what the complexity is, refers to an amendment to the Employment Equality Act 1998 in terms of non-disclosure agreements, NDAs.

I am trying understand these heads of Bill. They make it clear that they provide for the situation along certain lines. That allows some flexibility in respect of wording and amendments. In his letter of 17 September, the Minister stated that complexities had arisen and he needed more time. Did that refer to substantive change of what we are trying to achieve, as outlined in the non-disclosure agreement section of head 8 as published? Did the complexities apply to the legislative mechanism and the legislation through which we are attempting to make a change? Is the Minister trying, in substantive terms, to do what is outlined here in respect of the limitations on the use of NDAs? From reading it, that seems absolutely appropriate as we try to ensure that employers are not using legal provisions to hide from accusations of sexual harassment, discrimination or abuse in the workplace or whatever else. Is the complexity about the substance of what we are trying to do or is it about the legal mechanism? Is it a drafting issue that simply needs more time? That is what I am trying to understand. If the Minister simply needs more time to achieve what has been outlined here, or a variant of it about which he can brief us, it is a reasonable request, given the timeline we have between now and an election to try to get this legislation done and passed into law. I want to be helpful in that regard, as I hope the committee will be. Committee members need to understand what the Minister means by his reference to complexity in the letter he sent to the committee at a late enough stage. Members were reading the letter and wondering whether they were missing something or if something was being hidden from the committee. Senator Clonan asked whether the Minister has received advice from the Attorney General. Has that resulted in a complexity that now needs to be resolved? Is this simply a drafting issue in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel? I am very familiar with the issues in that office and the fact that staff are sometimes asked to do too much in too short a time. Perhaps we could have full transparency about the complexity and how the Minister proposes to resolve it. Is it simply a time issue to deliver what has been outlined in the heads and the general scheme or are we trying to do something more than that? I do not fully understand the situation.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. Yes, it is a drafting issue. That is the fairest way to characterise it. We are seeking to legislate against the inappropriate use of NDAs in the way set out in head 8, which builds on the Private Members' Bill that Senator Ruane and other Senators put forward. I recognise that head 8 is not identical to Senator Ruane's Bill but it covers most of the elements contained in her Bill. I hope that at some point we can tease out some of those differences and outline why they arise.

We submitted the provisions of this Bill to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting in late July. There was work to take place on the section on maternity protection, which we asked to prioritise. There was work to take place on the section providing for maternity leave for Oireachtas Members. There is also work to take place on this section, which relates to NDAs. When we looked for a stamped draft to bring before the committee, it was indicated to us that because of the volume of work involved, particularly on the maternity protection section and the section on NDAs, which would transpose what is in head 8 into legislative amendment text, it was not ready.

To secure delivery, I had choices to make, and one of those choices was to say we should leave the NDA and just give a stamped Bill with two pieces. However, because I believe in this NDA provision and because we had discussed it in this committee and at length in Seanad Éireann, and through cross-party agreement we had decided to move it to Seanad Éireann, I wanted to ensure this section moved on. The advice I got was that the best way to ensure that, in a situation where we know there are various timelines running ahead, is to bring it through as a Committee Stage amendment in Dáil Éireann. I know that is not ideal but, prior to a general election, if we have passed legislation that creates maternity leave for Oireachtas Members, legislates regarding the inappropriate use of NDAs and allows women who are sick during their maternity leave to defer that, that will be a positive outcome and one I will certainly be happy to have achieved. I hope that, as a committee, we can work towards that.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is helpful. I hope the committee can work with the Minister on that. It would also be great if the Minister could share as early as possible what the amendments look like, particularly with the Senators who were involved in the Private Members’ Bill in the Seanad, so we try to get as many people on board as early as possible. My fear is we will have a debate around process and then delay in a way that means we do not get this legislation done, which would be a missed opportunity. I am happy to defer in particular to the Senators who have been involved in this debate in the Seanad. Knowing what it is like when trying to get pieces of a Bill ready, it is sometimes necessary to ask the parliamentary draftspeople to prioritise elements of it with a view to trying at a later stage to retrofit an extra piece to miscellaneous legislation like this. We all lose if the thing runs out of time. I appeal to the Minister to share the detail of how he intends to deal with the NDAs as early as possible, especially with the Senators who have effectively been setting the debate on this issue.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once we have the draft amendments, I will be happy to act in that way and to circulate them so people can see what we are proposing and have an opportunity to put to me any concerns they may have.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to take up the running theme. Before I do, I want it to be known on the record – I am speaking for myself and pretty sure I am also speaking for my colleagues - that there is no attempt on the part of the committee to delay this legislation. We are mindful and conscious of the work of the Irish Cancer Society. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position that we are legislating for three bespoke issues in one legislative package and, in and of itself, that presents challenges, particularly regarding the NDAs. It is important to state there is nothing we want more than to see the successful passage of this legislation, especially in regard to the issues faced by women who find themselves in medical treatment during their maternity leave. That is something we all want to see sorted out.

I follow on from the theme raised by Deputy Coveney regarding head 8 and to delve a little deeper into this.

I still do not know what the content is or what the issues are. Forgive me if I am missing something in dispatches from the Minister. What are the issues? Tell us plainly what the issues are. I understand it needs to pass a legislative amendment test. We all understand this. Are there issues with regard to pre-existing non-disclosure agreements and their legality? These are specific questions. Is there the existence of non-disclosure agreements, for instance, in Departments, across Government, across the Civil Service or across the public sector? Do such agreements exist? If so, do they give rise to issues here?

Senator Ruane will speak more definitively on the new section 14A. Are there other issues that have arisen, not from a drafting point of view but more from what I would call a contextual or issue-based point of view? What are the difficulties and complexities that arise? I do not believe this question has been answered sufficiently. If we are up against the clock because the Minister will want to have the legislation passed before the end of his mandate, my fear is that if it goes to Committee Stage in the Dáil there will be a guillotine put on it. We are all up against an election date. To be fair to the Minister, he has put a lot of political stock in getting this legislation across the line. I am fearful there will not be enough time on Committee Stage to debate these issues properly. This is why I am asking about them now.

I want the Minister to broaden out the conversation a bit more. What is so injurious, for want of a better expression, in the wording of section 14A(1), (2), (3) and (4)? Is there something I am missing in reading the draft? Am I missing something that is absolutely glaring that needs to be dealt with, which the Minister has not articulated to us today? I will leave it at that.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Sherlock. I welcome and fully accept his statement to the committee that there is no attempt to delay this legislation. I hope he accepts my statement that neither I nor the Department is looking to depart from the policy objective regarding NDAs as set out in section 8. Deputy Sherlock asked what the issue is. It is one primarily of time and resources to get a fully stamped draft covering three quite distinct areas ready within a tight period of time. In order to achieve the goal by the end of this term of office, whenever it is, that all three areas will have been legislated for, I made the decision, and I believe it was the correct decision, that we would have the Bill drafted with the first two parts and we would bring in the third element, which is the NDA element, through a Committee Stage amendment.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be helpful, and very briefly, we are not speaking about substantive subject matter issues. The amendments before us will broadly potentially look the same. It is reasonable to assume, for instance, we can safely take the month of August out of the equation because it is reasonable to assume that many people would have been an annual leave, which is their entitlement. This might be a reason for the delay. If this is the case, say it is the case. People would reasonably accept it. What we will not accept, respectfully, is if we are now put up against a deadline, which is the ending of the lifetime of this Dáil. Let us be honest and open about what it is, and let us make time in the schedule then to be able to debate the Bill on Committee Stage. My fear is that it will be guillotined at a later stage and this will cause further tension. This is my genuine fear and I believe I have good grounds for this fear.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The broad policy intent of head 8 will be reflected in the amendment. I cannot say nothing will change. The Deputy probably understands that. To give an example, in Senator Ruane's original Bill, it was provided for that the new prohibition on NDAs in the context of the various elements the Senator set out would apply retrospectively. That is not repeated in head 8 because the advice we got on drafting was that it would not be wise to apply it retrospectively. That is set out here. That is a difference between our provision and Senator Ruane's. Small changes like that may be made as the detailed drafting takes place but the policy intent remains the same as was set out in head 8. However, I cannot provide absolute guarantees that, when the drafters come to me, every single semicolon will be identical. However, we will have an opportunity prior to it coming in as a Committee Stage amendment. I have already committed to circulating the amendments as they come through and I can take informal feedback. On Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann, we will have an opportunity to go through them in an official context.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. It has been very helpful to sit back and listen to the previous engagements. I acknowledge the work of the Minister and the officials in the Department over recent years in working with me as the Bill went through the Seanad. We also allowed each other space to have these discussions. To put it on the record, what I am hearing is that it is the drafting that it is the issue and not the policy.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about the timeframe. Is the Minister saying that there is no doubt in his mind that the timeframe will not shift and that I will not be told in a week's time or two weeks' time that there still was not enough time? I know it is his intention to see this brought forward as an amendment on Committee Stage but it was also his intention that it would be part of the general scheme. My concerns are not necessarily about the Minister's intention or commitment to the policy but rather about things shifting in such a way as to prevent me from having any input. Will the Minister confirm that there is no doubt that the intention of this policy will be in the legislation in the Dáil Chamber?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move heaven and earth to make sure that this provision on NDAs is included in the Bill. As the Senator knows, if an election comes in advance of that-----

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If an election happens first, everything falls.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but I will move heaven and earth to make sure this provision is included. I thank the Senator for her recognition but it is important to say that, on foot of my recognition of the importance of the NDA issue, I asked my Department to undertake a separate piece of research on it, which I financed. It is important to set out our bona fides as regards supporting the Senator in her identification of this gap, undertaking comprehensive legal research and now seeking to legislate for it, rather than leaving it to an existing Bill or to a subsequent government. We are seeking to drive that issue out and advance the legislation. Even when presented with further obstacles, we are looking for ways, even if they are imperfect, to make sure this particular provision will be legislated for. I believe I have demonstrated my bona fides in wanting to get this over the line in the lifetime of this Oireachtas but I will state again that I will move heaven and earth to make sure we get this piece on NDAs in on Committee Stage and to pass the legislation before the end of this Oireachtas's lifetime.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. Why is this to be done on Dáil Committee Stage rather than on Committee Stage in the Seanad? As a Senator, it is extremely important to me and not only am I having a discussion about waiving pre-legislative scrutiny in the committee that I am on, but I am also having to hand over the other part of my legislative role, which is in the Seanad.

The suggestion is that it would come in on Committee Stage, but the Bill will first go to the Seanad. Why is the timeline such that it will be taken on Committee Stage in the Dáil and why are the drafters not working with a view to it being ready at least when it comes to Committee Stage in the Seanad such that it will be able to go through the process we would expect in a democratic institution?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I recognise the challenge that scheduling poses for the Senator and her issue in this area. We are at a time of year for the Houses when there is a huge flurry of legislative activity in a normal context, and very large Bills the Government has made a commitment to getting through are also moving through the Houses. Our engagement with the Whip's office is that in order to allow this legislation to pass all Stages in the next few weeks on a truncated timeline, the best approach is to introduce it in the Seanad before introducing it in the Dáil, which will allow it to be debated in both Houses and also allow time for the work that needs to be completed on the NDA section. There is no reason for it other than timing. I recognise the challenge that poses to the Senator, which is why I have extended that offer to engage with her and other interested members of this committee on the text of the NDA amendments once we have them and in advance of their being submitted to the Bills Office in preparation for being debated in committee and in the Dáil.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Separate to the NDA aspect, the Seanad not being able to introduce amendments to that aspect of the Bill before it is debated on a Dáil Stage is a problem not just for me but for the procedures and processes that exist within the Houses to allow all Senators to do their jobs. It is an issue that goes beyond just me and could apply to issues other than just the NDA amendments. Even though the rest of the Bill will have gone through the Seanad, the Committee Stage amendments in the Dáil will not relate to the maternity aspects. Because the Bill will include miscellaneous provisions, the Committee Stage amendments in the Dáil will effectively concern an entirely new Bill, introduced on a Dáil Stage, that will have never come through the Seanad to allow any Senator to have an input. Even though I am raising this as an issue that affects me, it also relates to understanding the important role that scrutiny in the Seanad plays in regard to all legislation, but that may be a conversation for another day.

In respect of the drafters and the length of time they need, the Minister pointed out that there is a lot of legislative activity at this time of year. Who is in charge of the drafters’ day? Who decides what they focus on and can that focus be taken away? If the Government wants to get through other Bills before an election, will it tell the drafters they should cease their work on this Bill? Does the Minister get to instruct them as to how much time every day they spend on drafting this legislation or is that completely out of his control? Who tells them how to spend their working day?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair but complex question and I could not answer it with sufficient detail at this point. Drafters work within the wider Office of the Attorney General and the Government outlines priority Bills for drafting. It has been my experience that every Bill that comes through the Government is for priority drafting, which obviously puts pressure on drafters in respect of the allocation of time. Work takes place at the start of every term with the office of the Chief Whip to decide on the legislative programme, which was published last week for this Dáil term, and it sets out Bills for drafting as well as Bills for publication. I am not familiar in detail with the day-to-day ordering. A drafter is usually assigned to a particular Bill.

A drafter may have to take leave, and leave does get taken in July and August in almost all elements of the Oireachtas, as we know, so there is an element there. Sometimes drafters have to be taken from one Bill and applied to another if there is emergency legislation or the like. I do not claim enough expertise on the inner workings there to be able speak on it rather I am speaking at a high level.

I accept the Senator’s previous point on Seanad scrutiny. I would not be proposing this approach if I did not think it was necessary in order to secure the delivery of this legislation. If this Dáil and Seanad term ends without it being legislated for, the Senator’s Bill will fall. Assuming she is back in the next Seanad, it will have to commence again. Imperfect as the process is, I believe it is the best way of delivering the relevant legal prohibitions against NDAs that I think we all want to achieve.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding not having full control over the priority of the drafters, does the Minister have a schedule in place with the drafters where, for example, they update him on a weekly basis or every few days on where the drafting process is at? Will the Minister just wait until they produce something the week he expects it to be in the Dáil? Is a regular meeting being held?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My officials are engaging with the drafters on this legislation-----

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On an ongoing basis.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----on a daily basis in order to ensure that this legislation and all its elements are ready.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one more question, which is on the hugely important retrospective bit. It is not in the heads as we have seen them proposed. Some of the communication we received from the Minister or his Department over the past week or so was that a legal definition of a non-disclosure agreement is needed because there is no legal definition for it in any legislation. I find it interesting to say that all retrospective non-disclosure agreements stand, because they have never been regulated for. Basically, if we are saying that they never existed within legislation or regulation, they have to retrospectively fall. As there was no legal definition or regulation, they would not stand up in court. It is saying these are a non-thing. If we are only defining something now as a non-disclosure agreement, how does every other non-disclosure agreement exist?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the Senator’s point but there are issues that have to be considered to do with legitimate expectation in respect of both parties to NDAs if we declare now that all NDAs in the past are void. It is very seldom that we, as an Oireachtas, legislate and apply something on a retrospective basis.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, released a report this morning or yesterday, which I am not sure whether the Minister has seen, which stated that it found State bodies, healthcare providers, educational institutes, retailers and hotel operators have all sought to conceal settlements in discrimination and equality cases by insisting on confidentiality clauses. Basically, we are saying that we will not touch that retrospectively and we will stand over contracts that are used to cover up something that is against employment law and the seven grounds of equality. We are saying that we will allow contracts stand that cover up abuse. In that case, you could sign a contract with your local priest who has carried out abuse. It does not make any sense. You could have a contract between an employer and a drug dealer, for example, and say it is an NDA. It is illegal activity. To abuse somebody or sexually harass somebody is an illegal activity. How can we have legislation that states we will not retrospectively acknowledge that we cannot have contracts that cover up illegality if something is of a standard? It is not saying all NDAs do not stand anymore rather only the ones that relate to the seven grounds of equality or sexual harassment.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the Senator's point.

Ultimately, retrospectivity is something that is always treated with caution. The real issues with NDAs have been outlined and which touch on these particular issues. We need to be cautious with what we are trying to achieve here, which is to stamp these out, does not contain a provision that might make what we are doing legally questionable. We drawing a very clear line in the sand in terms of the circumstances in which an NDA can be used and we are providing a range of protections and setting out a certain process without which, in the future, the NDA will not be recognised. We should be cautious about jeopardising this new approach by undertaking a retrospective element that potentially undermines legitimate expectation of both parties in NDAs that have been signed in the past. I would be cautious about doing that, particularly in light of the good we are trying to achieve with this legislation.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the legal-----

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given a lot of additional time. I want to give everyone the same additional time, so there will be a second round if you want to come in again. I call Deputy Murnane O'Connor.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When we see the urgency of this Bill, that is probably the most important issue. We see that out of 14 EU countries with leave information readily available, 11 provide this kind of leave. In the majority of cases, it is paid leave. The UK also provides this paid parental bereavement leave. That is so important.

It is important to ask about the employer and the payment and the reimbursement of the State.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to be clear-----

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I came in late, my apologies.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----this is a specific meeting with the Minister in relation to the complexities he has highlighted regarding the non-disclosure agreements, as part of the legislation. We want to stick specifically to this issue.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry about that. I will come back in later. I apologise to the Minister.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me start by congratulating the Chair on her promotion. Long may it last. I want to give the Minister a chance to put it on the record again. Is he clear that there is a continuing commitment to delivering all parts of this legislation, the NDA and the two other sections, within the lifetime of the Dáil?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, there is a commitment to deliver the NDA piece, the maternity protection piece and the piece giving Members of the Oireachtas the right to maternity leave.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As has been outlined already, there are clear policy objectives stated in head 8. The Minister has committed, and he has been very clear so far, to deliver that within the lifetime of this Dáil, however, long or short that may be.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is my commitment, with the small proviso of making sure that we get the drafting of that right. However, the policy objective set out in head 8 is my policy objective and what we have instructed the drafters to achieve.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to dip into that drafting stuff, and I will in a second. One of the issues is the retrospective nature of these things. Contract law is primarily judge-made law. It is not written down, but it is still enforceable. The courts have been clear that a contract for something that is illegal is not a valid contract and the people who have signed it are not bound by it. The challenge there is that essentially you have to get a judge to say that. Otherwise, you are just going to be living in fear of whatever consequences you have agreed to and signed off on in the contract. This again is a case of where there is a very clear legal position and there is a very reasonable claim from somebody who is a victim of an illegal contract.

Although there is a clear legal position and a reasonable claim from a victim of an illegal contract, that person does not have the ability to challenge it because of the blockages in accessing court. This country lacks meaningful and effective civil legal aid. It is a major issue. If we want to deal with the retrospective nature of NDAs, then functioning civil legal aid and access to justice would enable individuals to challenge them and get the protections to which they are entitled. However, we must stay on topic, so I will leave the question of civil legal aid there.

Questions have been asked repeatedly about the drafting process. The Minister asked for this measure to be prioritised but it was not ready for inclusion in the stamped draft. One of the questions that we all wanted an answer to was that of what stopped it from being ready on time. I would like an answer.

I am curious about how many drafters there are and whether their number is sufficient. If the drafters are from the Attorney General’s office and are being shared out across Departments, are there sufficient drafters across the Government to get work done? We all know how slow things can be in this place. Can we get more drafters seconded in, be it from the Office of the Attorney General or another Department that is not so legislatively heavy and has a spare drafter, or can we bring someone in on a special contract to ensure this Bill gets done? There are plenty of areas where we do not have enough civil servants to make decisions and I would hate to see this important legislation being lost because we have not resourced the Civil Service properly.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is my determination not to see this important legislation lost and to instead see it passed within the lifetime of this Dáil with all three elements included, reflecting the policy we have discussed at this and previous meetings. All of the work I have undertaken over the past number of weeks has been done to achieve that.

We referred this legislation for drafting in late July. July and August are months when civil servants take leave. I cannot speak to the day-to-day of which drafter was doing what and when – I am not over that amount of detail – or to how many drafters were involved in this particular Bill. My understanding is that it is the practice to keep as few drafters on a Bill as possible because they understand it and that they refer out small but important legal questions to the various legal teams. If different people are coming in and out, important small details could quickly be lost. It is on this basis that this legislation has taken some time. That said, we referred it in late July and we are now in late September. That is two months across the summer period, so it is a tight enough schedule compared with other Bills I have handled. This is a reasonably discrete Bill, but it deals with three very different areas, one of which – the NDAs – is a new frontier in many ways. I reiterate my commitment to having all parts of this legislation legislated for within the lifetime of this Dáil and in line with the policy intent that is set out in the heads and we have discussed.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I may, I will ask a brief practical question. Is the legal draftspersons office okay with the strategy that the Minister is proposing, namely, that we move ahead with the main block of the legislation and then introduce the amendments on non-disclosure agreements on Committee Stage? Is that the agreed strategy? That is how these things work.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the agreed strategy. I am not sure if the office is necessarily okay with it. I believe there would be a preference not to go ahead with the NDA section, but I have said I will not accept that and have insisted on this strategy because I have made a commitment to get the NDA piece over the line.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that the committee hear that. Given what the Minister is saying, we can have a bit of faith that he will try to make this happen. Being a Minister and a party leader gives him a great deal of clout when trying to make something happen before an election date.

I am certainly a lot clearer on where we are at. It has demystified some of the curiosity the committee had. For what it is worth to some of the other members, this is not an unusual thing to happen with a miscellaneous piece of legislation when we try to introduce something. It often happens when the legislation is already under way that a Minister tries to introduce something else because he or she uses the piece of legislation as a vehicle to get something through quickly and introduces it on Committee Stage. To be fair to this Minister, he is being very upfront before the legislation comes in at all that we are going to introduce on Committee Stage what is obviously a very important aspect to this legislation. I just hope we get the time to do it.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see that Senator Ruane is very passionate about the proposals regarding non-disclosure agreements. I apologise; I had the wrong notes for today. On the amendments and the NDAs, the Minister speaks about the Irish Cancer Society, and we have issues around maternity leave and medical treatment. Can the Minister give us a guarantee from this meeting? I am learning about this today because of one of the other areas I am very passionate about and about which I spoke earlier. We are all talking about the election and about it being held in November, January or February. It is good for us as mothers and as women that we get this through, as the Minister said. Is there anything else that can be done besides that? What will be the protocol? The Minister spoke about the different issues, but what does he recommend we do that would help us when going through the different amendments and different things that are being done? This is very welcome by the way. I thank everyone for this. I have been reading through it again and it is really good legislation.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. All three central elements of this Bill are welcome. They will be welcome for women who have a serious illness during maternity leave-----

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see it is included.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and it will be welcome for Members of the Oireachtas. It is shocking that there is still not a clear statutory entitlement for Members of the Oireachtas to take maternity leave. We are addressing that finally.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What way will that impact local authorities?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has been done already.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has it come in officially?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it has. One of my colleagues-----

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It must have come in recently then.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of my Green Party colleagues is on maternity leave from her council at the moment.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lovely, that is good.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are behind the local authorities in terms of that piece. Then, we are addressing the key piece on NDAs. My hope is that this can progress rapidly and a waiver can be granted and we can move to introduce this into the Seanad initially and subsequently the Dáil. I will circulate the draft amendments in advance to those who are interested and then seek to introduce the specific provisions on the NDAs on Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann. Then, it will come back for confirmation in the Seanad, which I understand is one Stage that has limitations, which I have accepted. At that point, we will then see these three important areas legislated for.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister compared us to other EU countries. I spoke about bereavement and maternity leave. How are we on that? How do we compare to other countries? Is this in other countries? Has the Minister spoken to anyone else with regard to this? It is important that we learn from other areas and other countries that have this.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Certainly, we are far behind other European countries in terms of our entitlement to maternity leave.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I gathered that. That is why I brought that up.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is also fair to say that if we pass the piece on NDAs, we will be quite a leader in terms of making provision. Certain other jurisdictions are looking at the draft legislation that was debated through the Houses as a potential map or indication forward. We will be quite advanced in that particular area. That is certainly something I would welcome.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that we are because we are far behind.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, in other areas.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is great to see that the Minister is so passionate about this, as is everyone else here. We really do need to move on it.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For clarity and clearness, once I saw the word "complexities" come up, that caused a huge swell of asking what is going on rather than just drafting and time. It has been good to tease that out. I have never not been confident in the Department's dedication and ownership. It has taken over this work.

The concern I have, in regard to the answer to Deputy Coveney, is that the drafters would prefer not to have it ready for then. Why would they rather not? I am probably asking questions that cannot be answered in public session but do the drafters have the capacity to frustrate the process if it is something they do not want to do? Is there a repercussion for drafters who do not meet expectations and asks of Ministers when they are asked to provide a piece of work by a certain time?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to say that I do not want to be in any way overly harsh towards people who work in the drafting office and who do huge work. It is simply an issue of the pressure of work that is taking place at present. There is a finance Bill that will need to be drafted soon, a planning Bill that is going through the Senator's House, a gambling Bill, a family law report Bill and other pieces of legislation, such as the hate crime legislation, that are all advancing as well. There is significant pressure on the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I made that statement in terms of an issue of time. It is not an issue of policy.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All I wanted to clarify was that there was no policy push back in any shape or form. That is good to hear and to understand. I get the pressure stuff.

I have one final question. In response to Deputy Sherlock, the Minister said things can change in the draft between what was in the heads for us in terms of what we were provided with and what is produced. I want to ensure that while the drafting may look different in that Government drafters come in and draft in a specific way, the changes will not undermine or water down the policy intent to ban NDAs. I want to clarify that the changes made relate more to how something is drafted and defined, rather than it not achieving the purpose set out in what we had in front of us.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

"Yes" is the clear answer. The policy intent is as set out here. I would not have gone through this convoluted process if the whole intent had been to pass legislation that was not delivering on what we all understood, which was to outlaw the use of NDAs in these circumstances. I hope I can provide that reassurance to Senator Ruane now.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and all the members for engaging. We had two clear objectives for this meeting. The first was to get clarity on the complexities and those are clearly time and drafting in the time that we have. The second was a reassurance from the Minister, which I believe he has provided and is very much welcome. As someone who is new to this role, there is clearly a level of trust there and that is important. We take the Minister at his word regarding what he has said publicly on the record this afternoon. That commitment to engage in relation to the amendments, particularly on the NDAs, and his willingness to engage before bringing them to the Bills Office, is really welcome.

I propose that I publish the opening statement on the Oireachtas website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I advise the Minister that once he exits this meeting, the committee will go into private session to discuss, once again, his request for a waiver of PLS on the general scheme. The decision of the committee will be communicated to the Minister as a matter of urgency. I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance today.