O'Sullivan, Jan Thursday, 25 June 1998

Select Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights Debate Page of 4

---

I agree with Deputy McManus. According to the directive the legislation should have been introduced by 3 June this year and while there was provision for a year’s delay that was only in cases of serio...

I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection: “(4) A word or expression used in this Act and also in Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June, 1996, shall...

I also congratulate the Minister on deleting the words “without pay”. This was a major point for all. While, as Deputy McManus said, it is not an indication there will be paid leave, it at least leave...

This amendment is self-explanatory; it looks for an extra month parental leave. It would not be particularly onerous on the employer to extend this leave.

I ask the Minister to take a final look at this matter before Report Stage as I do not see how it would be a huge imposition on employers. In fact, it might suit some employers as it may be easier to ...

I move amendment No. 7: In page 6, lines 12 to 14, to delete subsection (2). This amendment proposes to delete subsection (2). The legislation applies to a child born after the date in question - 3 Ju...

I do not accept this is retrospection at all as, in effect, it does not seek that anyone be accorded parental leave on a date prior to the implementation of the legislation. Neither does it seek that ...

The directive has been on the table for implementation since June 1996. We are asking that all children under the age of five or eight - whichever is accepted at the end of this debate - be included i...

Yes. Amendment put.

Amendment put.
Voted Yes

Few parents will take this leave for children between the ages of five and eight. However, we should be as generous as possible for those who want to do so. There may be cases where a child has a part...

I move amendment No. 11: In page 6, lines 23 to 26, to delete subsection (4). This amendment seeks to delete subsection (4) which provides that an employee must complete one year’s continuous employme...

There was a problem with subsection (5). It basically states that if an employee is off for any part of the working day, it is considered to be a full day in relation to force majeure leave. Could tha...

It is not in the section.

I move amendment No. 37: In page 14, subsection (7), line 51, to delete “that offence” and substitute “an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment thereof to the penalties applying to p...

I thank the Minister of State. Amendment agreed to. Section 19, as amended, agreed to. Section 20 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 38: In page 15, subsection (3), lines 28 to 30, to delete “but shall not exceed 20 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in such manner as may be ...

I move amendment No. 43: In page 16, subsection (4), line 49, to delete “relevant employer” and substitute “respondent to the application”. The term “respondent to the application” is the normal termi...

It is not a hugely important issue to me, so I will withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Section 22 agreed to. Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45: In page 20, after line 8, to insert the following new section: “29.-The Employment Equality Act, 1998, is hereby amended in section 39(c) by the deletion of ’and the Adoptive ...

No. I think the Minister of State’s amendment takes in my point. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Title agreed to.

Report of Select Committee

I concur with the remarks of Deputy McManus. Some progress has been made in the Seanad, the Dáil and this Committee.

---

Last Updated: 20/05/2011 22:39:35

Page of 4