Standing Orders describe this Stage as a short explanatory statement.
Private Members' Business. - Redundant Workers (Severance Pay and Compensation) Bill, 1965: First Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed:
That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide minimum terms for the payment of severance pay and compensation for employees (employed under a contract of service or employment) and who are dismissed because of redundancy or other causes beyond their control. — (Deputy James Tully.)
When the Labour Party introduced this Bill, it was simply intended to provide minimum terms of severance pay and compensation for employees employed under a contract of service or employment and dismissed because of redundancy or other causes beyond their control. At that time we were told we were living in a buoyant economy; there was no danger of redundancy or unemployment. In fact the old "Come back to Erin" tune was being revived and we were going to string our harps and sing it again. Since the Bill was introduced, conditions have changed a lot. We have now sailed into very stormy waters. We are told there is a credit squeeze and because money is scare, assistance cannot be given to certain industries when they get into trouble. As a result the employment exchanges will be fuller than they have been for some time and in addition, the new State-owned B. & I. will be carrying full loads one way to Britain for a considerable period.
Despite that, the Government refused to give a First Reading to this Bill, on the plea that they themselves were introducing terms which would deal with severance pay and redundancy compensation, retraining and so on. That may be all right in its way but the trouble is that what the Government are talking about is something they propose to do and which, with luck, we might have before the Dáil goes into recess next July. What we want is something that will come into operation immediately. There is no point in telling the people Deputy Treacy spoke about, or those who have lost jobs here in the Greenmount and Boyne Company, or who lost employment in the Dundalk GEC works a few months ago and the hundreds of others who rumour says will lose their jobs inside the next couple of weeks or months, that the Government are making preparations to introduce a Bill which will become law some time in the future and following that, arrangements will be made for redundancy pay and retraining.
We claimed here and throughout the country during the last general election —and I repeat now—the Labour Party are the social conscience of the House. If the Government will not act, we are the people who must bring their responsibility to their notice, the responsibility to try to care for those hit by unemployment through no fault of their own. All we sought was to have the Bill debated, and if the Government produced evidence that they proposed to introduce a reasonable Bill to deal with this matter, we should have been fairly satisfied, provided the Bill was introduced now, not in five or six months' time. Unfortunately, the Government, as they did with the housing situation and the various financial matters with which they are supposed to be dealing, merely talked and talked and told everybody everything was grand, that there was no danger of anything going wrong and that everything would right itself eventually. Right round the corner was the prosperity we have been hearing about.
Now nobody is making any effort to deal with the vanguard of the new unemployment wave in this country, The Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to redundancy compensation being paid out of some kind of fund the Tipperary millers have. Other workers will apparently get whatever the employers—who apparently have not got very much for themselves—are prepared to give as charity. We do not want charity. What we want is a fair do. The workers are entitled to it and the House should see to it that the Government set about introducing the Bill.
What we have got is a proposal from the Government which has a peculiar sort of twist to it. They suggest that when they introduce this redundancy compensation pay, it will be paid for by the employers and the insured workers. The Government will not give anything. It will be entirely apart from the Government, except for its administration. The workers and the employers will put up the money. Here the Government are shirking responsibility entirely. I suggest that the Government accept this Bill. The onus is on them to do something now and it is not good enough to say they intend to deal with it some time in the future. It should be dealt with now.
I was not aware that as a matter of procedure any statements would be made this evening on this Bill. I should like to disabuse Deputy Tully that only the Labour Party represent the social conscience of the people. The matter of introducing a redundancy payments system is being treated with the greatest urgency. It is a very complex matter, one on which there are widely divergent views.
I do not propose to follow Deputy Tully along the various paths he chose to travel, preferring to confine myself to the clear issue involved. It is indeed a matter of urgency that a redundancy compensation system should be introduced and I wish to assure Deputies that I am doing everything possible to expedite this work so as to introduce the Government's measure at the very earliest date possible. Frankly, I cannot say whether it will be possible to do so in this session, that is, before Christmas. Being realistic, I do not think it is likely because, as the Deputy knows, a number of organisations have to be consulted with regard to the terms of the measure and we have not yet got the final replies from any of them. Let me repeat that we shall introduce our Bill at the very earliest possible moment—I should think certainly next session. We shall then have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter in complete detail.
I should add that the inter-departmental report on redundancy became available only a couple of months ago. It was necessary to wait for it before consulting other bodies. I hope that in the meantime Deputies, representatives of trade unions and any other people who may be interested will give us, as a matter or urgency, the benefit of their views as to how this system could best operate. I should like to say that unemployment in large numbers in Tipperary or elsewhere is a matter of grave concern to the Government, as it is to every Member of the House. The redundancy proposals we shall introduce will be only part of measures designed to alleviate hardship. From my speeches in recent times, the House is aware of the general nature of these comprehensive proposals, some of which are set out in a Government White Paper.
I am accordingly opposing the Bill, not on the ground that we are not fully conscious of the need for introducing this scheme, not because we are unmindful of the tragedy involved for individuals and their families, who, through no fault of their own, cease to be employed, but simply because in a complex matter of this kind, it is better to wait until we have the benefit of the views of people who are entitled to be consulted before bringing in any half-baked scheme. We hope the scheme we shall introduce will reflect, at least in the main, the views of the people I have mentioned and that therefore we will get the Bill speedily through the House.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? Is it true that he has introduced the Bill without consulting the employers' organisations or the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for advice?
He introduced a Bill and did not know what was in it. It was a token.
We did not introduce a Bill.
May I make a statement? Am I entitled to make a statement?
Question put and declared lost.
Votáil.
Was the Deputy not listening?
The Parliamentary Secretary hopes to get his Bill to us some time next year.
At the risk of being out of order as far as Standing Orders are concerned, I wish to state our position. We want to see the Bill. Therefore we shall vote for it.
The Deputy is going against the Standing Orders of the House.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Casey, Seán.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Governey, Desmond.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Mullen, Michael.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Patrick.
- Lynch, Celia.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Pattison and Treacy; Níl, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.
Item No. 15 cannot be taken.
With your permission, Sir, we would like to postpone Item 16 and take Item 17.
Then Item 16 goes down to the end of the list of motions given precedence.
Yes, Sir.